<p>my friend’s multibillionaire mom donated 10 million to Stanford over the summer, and got named to the board of trustees. I’m pretty sure my friend is getting into Stanford.</p>
<p>“Penn admits legacies at roughly TWICE the rate of non-legacies”</p>
<p>Sure, but the legacy pool is a very advantaged pool. Penn graduates are a lot more likely than the general population to raise well-prepared children. </p>
<p>The informative comparison would be between the admit rate for Penn legacies and the admit rate for Cornell legacies applying to Penn. Then you’re looking at two similar demographic pools, and you can be confident that any admissions difference is the result of a legacy edge. In all probability, you’d see a much, much smaller advantage. (Harvard did this kind of comparison and calculated that the legacy advantage was only adding a few percentage points to the admit rate; the rest of the difference was a demographic effect.)</p>
<p>Well, for example at Princeton (which is an Ivy just like UPenn) the legacy admit rate is almost 40% (yes, 40%) while the general admit rate is far below 10%. So legacy status is actually a huge help (so it is not only the advantage of having well educated parents with a probably stable and supportive background but also an additional preference given in the admission process). At U Penn, the legacy admit rate is 26-34% while the non-legacy admit rate is 14-18% and this is a significant difference. Here’s the source: <a href=“http://www.alumni.upenn.edu/aca/PDFS/LEGACY_ADMISSION_PENN.pdf[/url]”>http://www.alumni.upenn.edu/aca/PDFS/LEGACY_ADMISSION_PENN.pdf</a></p>
<p>"Sure, but the legacy pool is a very advantaged pool. Penn graduates are a lot more likely than the general population to raise well-prepared children. "</p>
<p>This might be true for the general population. However, I do not think we are talking about the general population here. We are talking about the applied student pool. In other word, ‘Penn graduates are NOT more likely than the HPYMSC(etc) graduate population to raise well-prepared children’. Besides there are a lot of first generation Asian American who apply for Upenn too.</p>
<p>I’d be willing to bet that at least 1/3 of Penn legacy applicants are very high achievers and are naturally smart enough to do well on the SAT (I mean, their parents did go to Penn after all), so for someone to nudge their way into that group with average grades and no EC’s the donor they are connected to must donate a MASSIVE amount. I mean like a library. If this girl is really as average as you make her out to be, and she really is as annoying as you say (which I’m guessing hurts her recs and to an extent her grades) then I’d be almost certain that she isn’t getting into Upenn. Again I don’t know how much the donor gives, but unless it’s VERY substantial she shouldn’t be so confident.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please. We hear this same sorry rationalization every time it’s pointed out that legacies have an ENORMOUS advantage over non-legacies in admissions to elite institutions. “Well, it must be because the legacies are better qualified!” Right. How naive do you think we are?</p>
<p>And if it’s true, as hanna suggests, that the legacies of OTHER Ivies are admitted to Penn at anything approaching the Penn legacy rate, then mathematically it must be the case that your chances of admission to Penn if you’re NOT an Ivy legacy must be approaching zero. I find this totally implausible. Like other elite schools, Penn takes care of its own. It doesn’t judge legacies by the same standards. That doesn’t mean a legacy is an automatic admit or anything close to it; nor does it mean that Penn needs to dig deep into the applicant pool and find unqualified legacies. It means simply that of the few thousand qualified admits it accepts, the chances of admission for a legacy are roughly double those of a non-legacy; and of the more thousands of qualified applicants it rejects, the rejection rate is far higher for non-legacies than for legacies. That’s an enormous advantage for the legacies. It’s inherited privilege, pure and simple. And I think it stinks for the many qualified applicants who were not born with the Ivy silver spoon in their mouths, and it ought to give every legacy admit pause the next time they go to pat themselves on the back for having won at the admissions game on the basis of “merit.” It’s “merit” with an asterisk *. </p>
<ul>
<li>= legacy admit</li>
</ul>
<p>Why does everyone get so worked up about legacy admits? Is it because of some delusional theory of “fairness”? Universities are not required to accept students based on any prescribed set of criteria. They can choose students based on any number of factors. I never feel too bad for the kid that loses out on Penn (or any other Ivy) because of a legacy admit, because if they’re academically qualified to get into an Ivy, they will surely get into some other equally terrific school. It’s not like if they don’t get into an Ivy league school then they won’t be able to go to college at all. Legacy students, for better or worse, have been part of the college landscape for many years and will continue to be for years to come. I think we all just need to accept this fact and move on.</p>
<p>The Penn Alumni Council seems pretty forthright with their statistics:</p>
<p>[Penn</a> Alumni: Alumni Council on Admissions](<a href=“http://www.alumni.upenn.edu/aca/overview.html]Penn”>http://www.alumni.upenn.edu/aca/overview.html)</p>
<p>In short, Penn Legacies get admitted at around a 40% rate during the ED round, while non-legacies get admitted at a roughly 30% rate. As for the “merit” argument, somewhere on those pages I saw something to the effect that you need to be around the 50th%-tile statistically for Penn. So, combining that nugget with a 60% rejection rate, I think the idea that admitted legacies are significantly “dumber” is going to be statistically difficult to support.</p>
<p>It strikes me that the arguments against legacy imply that somehow the given school, in this case Penn, possesses something that is unattainable anywhere else. Is Penn a very good school? Yes. Is it dramatically better or worse than Harvard, Virginia, Georgetown, Michigan or Northwestern? No. If you don’t like the legacy policy, don’t apply; send your kid somewhere else, have them become billionaires and start a new legacy food chain at their school. I’m with ecalum, I never got the email that said life was fair.</p>
<p>Yes, people who don’t like the legacy preference somehow never seem to want to boycott the schools that have such a preference.</p>
<p>But I don’t understand the resistance to the idea that legacies of super-selective schools are likely, on average, to be more qualified than children of people who didn’t go to such schools. It seems self-evident to me. Another factor that’s hard to evaluate is how many people apply to these schools who have zero chance of admission. Do such people make up a larger percentate of the legacy pool or the non-legacy pool? I suspect it’s the latter, because the legacy kid is more likely to be aware that there’s no hope. But I don’t know.</p>
<p>One other factor: a lot of legacy kids apply to the legacy school not just because they think they’re more likely to get in, but because they really want to go there. I suspect this is particularly true at Princeton, which seems to have especially Princeton-loving alumni. This might affect the legacy admit rate if they are particularly top-achieving students who apply to the legacy school and not to other top schools. (I would imagine this effect was even greater when H and P had early admissions, but again, I don’t know.)</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s complicated, and the colleges aren’t interested in giving out enough facts to really analyze it.</p>
<p>Agree with DeanJ of UVa. UVa is not known as being a social strata school, though its very hard to get in from out of state. The best hook there is being a minority, frankly. However, applicants routinely try to pull strings with phone calls and letters from legacy, donors and so forth at many schools. The private elite schools are the most notorious for paying attention. Princeton has been reported recently as the school most susceptible to legacy connections. But the real “hook” is normally from prep schools, where the college counselors have cozy relationships with elite schools. Not in pure numbers because elite prep schools often have graduating senior classes of 100 or less. That means perhaps 5 or 6 kids may get in…all of whom have excellent stats, but they do have an advantage over many of their public school counterparts with equally impressive stats. Decades ago, this was a huge problem. Its diminishing now, but blue blood connections linger on…</p>
<p>I know a kid with HORRIBLE stats, who went to an elite private prep school and then went to Phillips Academy for a post secondary year and THEY made the call and pulled the strings and he is now at Duke. Either you call that a wonderful success story for a kid who pulled up his socks and got focused, or you call that “connections.” Your choice.</p>
<p>In a perfect world, college admissions would all be over 80% admitted, leaving only the delusional wannabes who truly don’t belong at Harvard etc, out in the cold. (Every year on CC there are people who are delusional and who think they are entitled to go where they want, regardless of their stats and scores. That isnt the case and they end up with NO college taking them because they only applied to extreme reach schools.) </p>
<p>Finally, there are more corporate CEO"s from state flagships than there are from the Ivy League. Fact. So you life is “not over” if you dont get into Harvard and end up at Iowa. Or don’t get into Duke and end up at NCState. </p>
<p>You get out of college what you put into it, no matter where you go. And a little secret most people know in the adult world is that graduate school credentials are often more important than undergraduate credentials. You can find distinguished professors (and professionals) who went to lesser known or lower ranking undergraduate schools, who then got into prestigious graduate schools including the Ivy League. I see it all the time.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I have read that under a previous President, Duke gave a strong preference to sons and daughters of large donors in admissions. Since then, that preference has reportedly been reduced.</p></li>
<li><p>The numbers I read on the U.Penn website last year said that during the regular admissions cycle, the admit rate for legacies was 15% - the same as for everyone else. </p></li>
<li><p>Overall, the legacy preference is unfair to minorities, female parents, children of immigrants and lower income persons because they are much less likely to receive the preference. It effectively works like reverse affirmative action. 30-35 years ago, many prestigious colleges were very White and upper class. If a college gives a legacy preference to grandchildren of alum (such as Penn), that class bias becomes much stronger because in some colleges, their degrees in the old days were practically inherited titles.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
Minorities and low income persons also receive preferences. There are also preferences given based on geographical location and many other factors other than stats. Are all of those things unfair as well?</p>
<p>Most selective colleges only give a preference to “under-represented” minorities. Therefore, a strong legacy preference in admissions is most likely to hurt Asian-Americans and South Asian (Indian) Americans because there are many highly applicants from those groups who do not have parents or grandparents who attended selective US colleges. </p>
<p>At the same time, I hope my own kids benefit from a legacy preference from a certain university.</p>
<p>In the above post, it should say “highly qualified applicants”</p>
<p>
Well, this has been hashed out on innumerable threads, but my observations is that Asian families–especially those in which the parents were not born in the U.S.–are the most likely to think that any system that does not primarily rely on stats is “unfair.” After all, in Asia, it’s all about stats. But that isn’t how it’s done in the U.S. At some point, if you want the benefits of education in the U.S., you simply have to accept that stats aren’t everything in admission to most selective U.S. colleges.</p>
<p>Asian candidates are URMs at many schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and I’m sure it seemed self-evident to the European nobility that their children were better qualified to rule than mere commoners. In either case, it’s about inherited privilege—not about desirable qualities, but position of birth.</p>
<p>Look, I have no problem saying it’s probable that legacies at elite schools are more likely to be qualified than the population at large. But it’s not the population at large they’re competing with to get into these elite schools—it’s by and large other highly qualified candidates. And if the legacies are, on average, better qualified than other highly qualified candidates in the applicant pool, then why do the schools need a legacy preference that systematically puts a thumb on the scale in favor of legacies—which they all acknowledge is exactly what they do? If the legacies are truly the best qualified, one would think they’d be admitted ANYWAY, without a legacy preference. So why aren’t YOU comfortable with just dropping the legacy preference, in the interest of avoiding the appearance of unfairness?</p>
<p>
But are there selective schools where Asian candidates get a preference–ie., are admitted with lower stats than white candidates?</p>
<p>
Because my family benefits from the “unfairness,” if it really exists. If I lived in Idaho, I wouldn’t be upset that applicants from Idaho are advantaged over applicants from New Jersey.</p>
<p>But you are assuming that the legacy pool is no stronger than the general pool–despite the fact that all the colleges say this is the case. Why do you believe them in one situation and not the other?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and according to the same statistics you cite, over the full admissons cycle (ED + RD), Penn legacies get admitted at a rate of 25%-34%, while non-legacies get admitted at a rate of 14% to 18%. In other words, legacies are being admitted at roughly DOUBLE the rate of non-legacies. And since the admitted non-legacies include other “hooked” categories like URMs and recruited athletes, we might reasonably surmise that the admit rate for un-hooked non-legacies is even lower, perhaps as low as 12% to 16%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone making the argument that “admitted legacies are significantly ‘dumber.’” That’s a straw man. All I’m saying is that the game is systematically rigged in favor of those born with the golden nameplate. I don’t see any statistical support for the proposition that legacies are, as a group, better qualified than the overall applicant pool at these schools. Those applicant pools are by and large pretty self-selecting; most unqualified people are not gonig to waste their time and money. Oh, you’ll always have a few people applying who really don’t stand a chance, but I’ve heard admissions officers at a number of elite schools say that roughly 80% of their applicants are well qualified in the sense that they’ve demonstrated they’re fully capable of doing the work. Of those who aren’t, my guess is the proportion of legacy applicants falling into that category is probably pretty similar to the proportion of non-legacies; if anything there might be a few more legacies who think, “Well, my stats aren’t quite up to snuff, but I’m a legacy so I’ll at least give it a shot and maybe get lucky . . .” But setting that possibility aside, let’s just assume the percentage of truly unqualified is about the same in both groups. The question then is, what about the 80% who ARE qualified? Or, what about the 40% or so in both groups who are statistically at the 50th percentile or higher for Penn enrolled freshmen? Well, there aren’t places for all of them. Colleges like Penn actually tell us that legacy is at least a “tip factor,” that is, if it’s a toss-up between two equally qualified and otherwise desirable candidates, in at least some cases legacy status will be a tie-breaker. But if, as the Penn alumni association’s data indicate, legacies are actually admitted at roughly TWICE the rate of non-legacies, it seems like there’s an awful lot of tipping going on. I find it implausible that this is due solely, or even predominantly, to the legacies being better qualified; especially when the colleges themselves don’t make that claim, openly acknowledging that legacy is “considered” as a factor in their decision. And note that it’s not just that legacies get a leg up. Because admissions is ultimately a zero-sum game, every place in the entering class that’s filled by putting a thumb on the scale in favor of a legacy further DIMINISHES the odds of admission for every non-legacy applicant remaining in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>Do the non-legacies have a legal claim against this practice? No, of course not; they have no right to be admitted, nor does anyone else, so an equality-based legal claim is going to go nowhere. Do they have a moral claim based on some notion of unequal treatment? Well, I wouldn’t even go that far; these colleges have no particular moral obligations towards them, they’re entitled to fill their entering class with whomever they want. But I still say as a matter of social policy, it stinks, for all the reasons Jefferson (himself a bit of an aristocrat) opposed inherited privileges. It’s just contrary to our democratic and meritocratic impulses, and the principle of equality of opportunity that we profess to hold dear. And it’s contrary to the image these schools so carefully cultivate as bastions of meritocracy. A legacy preference has nothing to do with merit, or talent, or desirable traits or qualities, or what it adds to diversity; it just rewards people who are born into certain families for . . . well, for being born into certain families. I should think in this society, in this day and age, we would all find that a bit peculiar. Even offensive. (And I say this as someone whose own Ds could claim legacy status at 2 Ivies, another top 15 private university, and a leading public if they so chose, so it’s not about sour grapes).</p>