<p>Inverse,How? </p>
<p>To everyone else,</p>
<p>You know taking away the preference doesn't prevent someone from going to Granddad's school, if they want to and can get in on their own merits.</p>
<p>The premise is that numerous students have equal merits, and then how to choose among them when seats are limited. Crafting a class is one way it's done, legacy is another.</p>
<p>"You know taking away the preference doesn't prevent someone from going to Granddad's school, if they want to and can get in on their own merits."</p>
<p>How do you know that 100% of the legacy students today aren't there on their own merits?</p>
<p>^Because that is not possible. Some have multiple generations of legacy and have buildings named after them and parents who are very rich and powerful (ie. the Frists & Princeton). However, the majority of legacies are not rich or connected enough to be an automatic admit, and the majority who get in are strong enough to get in. Legacy just means that less of a crapshoot. Even if you do donate tons of money, you are not guaranteed to be a developmental admit. My dad's classmate is worth tens of millions and could probably donate a fair amount to the alma mater. However, his daughter was deferred ED this year. I guess you can't buy your way into a lower Ivy.</p>
<p>Also,
[quote]
What would I do with college admissions? I'd make every school a rolling admissions school.
[/quote]
This hurts disadvnataged applicants because they do not have the resources to figure out where they want to apply, where they are qualified to apply, or even the ability to get apps in on time. I remember a poster on CC who was unable to pay the application fees on time because his family did not have the money till late January. Rolling would help the rich far more than legacy preference and other stuff like that because the most affluent would hire counselors, essay specialists, etc to get apps done ASAP and sent ASAP.</p>
<p>I should stop doing calculations today. This is the second time i'm off by several zeroes.</p>
<p>But I agree with Venkat that at HYP, you have several generations of legacies. At Harvard, you have Welds (Weld Hall, Weld Boat House, Wm Weld, the former governer of MA, and his children). Houghtons (Corning); Rockefellers (sr and jr.) etc...</p>
<p>I also agree that the less affluent legacies are not shoo-in and I would think the majority of them are strong enough to be admitted on their own merit. Their legacy status gives them an edge. That is undisputable. When there are so many admissible applicants, some have to be rejected and a way must be found to decide whom to accept. Legacy status is one criterion; there are others, such as academic interest, ECs, geographic distribution, gender, ethnicity. The problem with studies is that they only look at one factor at a time. If a legacy has a high GPA and 1500 SAT, to what is his/her admission attributed? If the study is about legacy edge, most probably it will be attributed to legacy status rather than to the academic profile.</p>
<p>to Curious 14 :
If the degree will not only benefit yourself but also give your children a better chance of getting into a highly selective school, isn't it provide an added value to the degree?</p>
<p>In the eyes of the admission committee, legacy status IS a "merit". So is athletic prowess. Or minority status. Or the ability to play the bassoon if that's the instrument needed that year to keep their orchestra director happy. </p>
<p>Colleges are not in the business of rewarding students for their accomplishments -- they are interested in filling every class in the way that best meets their own needs and preferences. </p>
<p>FWIW, my daughter has learned one thing, somewhat to her surprise, at an Ivy league campus ---- athletics are hugely important in admissions. That is, if there is one <em>group</em> that seems to dominate over all others, it is students who play a sport. She thinks its strange, because her college isn't particularly good at most sports -- so why prioritize athletic ability over academics in a school that is weak in sports, strong in academics? But she doesn't run the school, so what she thinks doesn't really count. </p>
<p>In any case, legacies merely have a hook in a sea of applicants -- and those who have a hook, any hook, are at an advantage of those who are undistinguished. The legacy hook is a pretty weak one; it generally disappears if not used in the ED stage, and it probably is only effective to occasionally push a kid who would be waitlisted into the admit slot. In other words, it probably won't save a kid from outright rejection. Any student can create their own hook by spending their high school years working at getting very good at something that is common enough to be desired by the college, but rare enough so that there is not too much competition. In other words, better to play the bassoon than the violin -- but playing the didgeridoo may not be particularly useful.</p>
<p>"my daughter has learned one thing, somewhat to her surprise, at an Ivy league campus ---- athletics are hugely important in admissions."</p>
<p>I don't mean to sound argumentative, but just how would she know <em>how</em> "hugely important in admissions" athletics are? By the self-reporting of the students, who declared that an admissions rep told them this, after the fact? (That that was the deciding hook? And it would have to be a hook, not a tip, if it was "hugely important.") That most students she's met state that they were athletic recruits? (That would indicate hugely important for <em>their</em> admissions, naturally.) That dozens of students have admitted having low gpa's but high athletic commitment & zero else going for them?</p>
<p>btw, to me it would not only be suprising for the reasons you state, but because C downplays this aspect in every publication & live talk I've known of. It just isn't their major emphasis. And especially at info meetings, it's like an apologetic footnote at the end. They can't be aiming to attract lots of athletes with a marketing strategy like that, anyway. Call me skeptical: I think I'd have to see some hard evidence of this interesting anecdotal report.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't mean to sound argumentative, but just how would she know <em>how</em> "hugely important in admissions" athletics are?
[/quote]
By the fact that such a large percentage of students are athletes. They didn't all just show up there by accident.</p>
<p>Ivy league schools generally has more sport teams than other schools, and that means more athletes. And the undergrad population is much smaller than the publics, that means that the percentage of athletes is higher than the publics.</p>
<p>Back to the original question, I'd recommend taking a couple of guidebooks out of the library or guidance office and start paging through them. Kids can do this for themselves, but I did a first run-through for my kid because I thought it an overwhelming amount of material. I put post-it notes on some schools I thought sounded like his cup of tea. As he read about and responded to those, we both got a better idea of what he was looking for and it has gradually narrowed his list. Visiting campuses cut the list in half. Writing the apps also taught him a lot about who he is and what he's looking for. So did preparing for interviews. And given the above discussion about sports being so important to Ivies, it's not surprising that none of them made his list.</p>
<p>oops I thought I was on the narrowing down thread. I guess I'm the one OT.</p>
<p>I don't know if this has been mentioned, but here's what I would change.</p>
<p>All merit scholarships, including institutionally funded merit scholarships, should be given on top of need based aid. DS has received many merit scholarships which are, for all intents and purposes, worthless or greatly reduced in value.</p>
<p>For example, the total cost of an LAC is 40,000. EFC is 20,000. Student gets a merit award for 15,000. The only real value of the merit award is changing 3,000 in loans to grants, which is something. But the effect is to reduce the value of the merit award to 3,000.</p>
<p>What's the real incentive to achieve at a level deserving of merit awards? Not much.</p>
<p>That had been my guess, too, bomgeedad. (Proportion.)</p>
<p>That also answers my question, calmom. (I think.) I interpreted hugely important to mean, Overwhelmingly important, or overshadowed any other aspects of admissions, or outweighed academics. (Don't think we outside of admissions dep't. know those things, probably.)</p>
<p>An interesting book on the legacy and related issues is, "The Price of Admission." I think the author is Goldman. It provides some quantification of these issues. I think that is where the 10% number comes from that I cited earlier. For the poster who defined the legacy preference as "merit," this deprives the word "merit" of virtually all content. This reminds me of "newspeak" from "1984". I suppose that there are some good arguments for the legacy preference, but can we please avoid the tactic of trying to define the debate out of existence. I still think it's significant that there is not a single poster here who is willing to defend the legacy preference but thinks other preferences are unwarrented. Let me make it easier. If you were told that one preference was going to be eliminated, who would pick something other than the legacy preference to be eliminated and why?</p>
<p>SBDad,</p>
<p>I like it.</p>
<p>"If you were told that one preference was going to be eliminated, who would pick something other than the legacy preference to be eliminated and why?"</p>
<p>Preference for kids who score perfect, or close to perfect, SATs. Doing well on a four-hour test does not show leadership, creativity, enterprise, maturity, integrity, honesty, common sense, dedication, determination and a whole bunch of other nouns that I think are more important for success in college.</p>
<p>I am defending legacy preference. It could be reduced, but I think there are valid reasons for giving an edge to legacies. And so far, I have not seen evidence that legacies are inadmissible or even inferior to non-legacies.</p>
<p>Sly,</p>
<p>Are you implying that legacy status is a measure of any of those characteristics.</p>
<p>SBDad, some colleges do in fact add the "merit" money on top of the "need based" money. Smith does. And while it's not a lot of merit money, every bit helps. The substituting of merit money for need-based money, as you describe it, is what I would file under "cruel hoax."</p>