<p>Marite, </p>
<p>The "Price of Admission" book quantifies the magnitude of the preference, I think, sorry I don't have it with me. I'm curious, what kind of "tip" defined by a difference in SAT scores, all else staying the same, would you think is too much.</p>
<p>First, it's Golden, not Goldman. Second, there's been a huge amount of discussion in the media and on CC about Golden's book, so I won't go into there. Suffice it to say that I think Golden's book is overblown and deals with issues that are no longer of current relevance (such as Jewish quota). </p>
<p>There are always possibilities of mistakes made by admissions committees whether they concern legacies or applicants who appear stellar on paper but turn out to have lied on their applications, or have some other issues that will prevent them from thriving at the college. On the whole, however, I believe that legacies are a good idea, not as a first pass but as an edge. Interestingly enough, now that more and more Asian-Americans are in the position of being beneficiaries of legacy status, the system is being attacked in the name of being fairer to Asian-Americans. I don't get it.</p>
<p>As for SAT, let the poster who suggested de-emphasizing it reply to you.</p>
<p>
You can always count on me curious. ;) </p>
<p>As one who doesn't want to change the essential character of the colleges my D liked in the search (among those that were uber-selective, a majority of her's were not), I have no problem with the legacies at the relatively few schools where such things matter. </p>
<p>I liked the trustafarians at Middlebury. The obvious preps at Colgate. The arties at Grinnell. I wouldn't want to change a thing (that would change the essential character of the student body). The way the school feels is why the kid and/or I liked the school in the beginning. The balance of kids there. The types of kids there. Unlike some of y'all, how the kids felt to D when she interacted with them, when she spent time with them , during any opportunity she had to observe them was the #1 reason she put schools on or took schools off her various lists. Not how she made the ultimate decision, mind you, but one measure of initial qualification - she liked the majority of the kids she met. Wanted to be a around them. If you pull any of the groups , the pool changes. Change FA to where there is not as many Pell kids in the mix? Changes the character of the school. Turn it into a best test score wins school ? She'll transfer tommorrow . That's not where she wants to be (and she has the best test score). </p>
<p>There are stats schools for people who want that. The fights come when people want to impose their stats school model on the uber-selectives who reject it. It's just another example of prestige hounds . Gotta have prestigious or bust, because little Johnny is good enough , he's smart enough ..and by golly.. he DESERVES it. </p>
<p>I like the selection process the way it is. (The application process can be improved.) I like it holistic. I wish people understood it better. I wish schools would allow more peeks behind the curtain , but I think the biggest problem -as shown time and time again , is that folks just don't want to understand . But I know what they want. They want to %$#$% about any system that doesn't reward their little Johnny. </p>
<p>Remember , I'm guilty , too. I rant and rave about the deference paid to that stinkin' National Merit designation when there are lots more defining measures (that my kid had ;)). </p>
<p>So, I'll defend legacy as part of the process we love to hate.</p>
<p>I do believe there is a place for alumni loyalty to be rewarded. A tiny boost among qualified kids? Sure. I'd expect it from my alma mater. I believe it benefits the college and the alumni and keeps the college's name before the legacy children their whole life. Another thing D learned in her search-she wanted to go to a school where kids were proud of where they attended. Not wishing they were at HYP. I think legacy kids may help there also. </p>
<p>As to that meritorious kid left out in the cold? There's other schools that will love him. Not everything is about numbers or academics. We're making a quilt. (I know that just kills y'all "by the stats only" folks. LOL. )</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>That is the kind of detail that I would have liked to know while deciding where to apply. I thought I was so clever for suggesting that son apply to Grinnell since they use the FAFSA and don't count home equity. I obviously missed the boat on the finer points of merit aid. It just feels like another manifestation of the middle class squeeze.</p>
<p>Oh well, DS is probably heading to our in-state flagship anyway - Go Blue!</p>
<p>Sly,</p>
<p>Actually I'm not aware of any documented "preference" for perfect or near perfect scores on the SAT. Are you? Colleges often annouce with pride the number of such students that they reject. If you are saying that you would rather see the elimination of the use of SAT scores in the selection process than see the elimination of preferences for legacy status, I don't feel a need to respond.</p>
<p>Hi Curm,</p>
<p>Yes, I know you believe we live in "the best of all possible worlds," but if you had no choice and had to pick between the elimination of legacy and "National Merit Status" I guess you would dump "National Merit." I gather on this one issue your great faith in the wisdom of adcoms fails you. Interesting.</p>
<p>"Are you implying that legacy status is a measure of any of those characteristics."</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Legacy status has its pluses. A 2400 SAT has its pluses. A quarterback has his plus. All of them should be considered. </p>
<p>You know, 30 years ago I was probably a lot more idealistic and might agree with the idea that there is a concept of pure merit that should be rewarded. Life's not always fair or just, and we should strive to make it better, but honestly, I think it's a lot of wasted energy to devote too much time to making selective college admissions more fair by eliminating preferences. On a grand scheme of things, not enough people are being hurt, and since most of the denied students still get to go to college, and most of them darned good ones, one can argue that no one is hurt. For the most part, I don't hear too many kids on selective college campuses today complaining about all their sub par classmates who shouldn't have been accepted. For private college, I like the holistic admissions process. I think an argument can be made for eliminating each and every preference -- I made a case for eliminating the SAT one, you are making a case for eliminating the legacy one, someone else could argue against preferences for prep school candidates, etc. And then someone will turn around and come up with a justification. If every single legacy student were accepted, or every single prep school student were accepted -- I would agree, there is a problem. </p>
<p>Would I feel differently if I were a HS student today, afraid that I was going to be denied at every school I was applying to -- perhaps. It would be nice to place blame on a legacy, a URM, a harpist or a quarterback who got in instead of me. I'm not sure it works that way, though.</p>
<p>curious, Why do you always try to frame the argument in non-sensical , see-through ways? It's like a trap set by a chimp. Goodness. Haven't I busted your chops on this enough? That device doesn't work on me. </p>
<p>Actually, I dont believe National Merit counts for much at the schools little Johnny wants to attend. LOL.</p>
<p>curious, So if you were stranded on a desert island , and you could have either of two guys with you, one with an SAT of 1580 and one with a pocketknife and a roll of twine, which would you pick? LOL</p>
<p>I guess the SAT's aren't that important afterall. ;)</p>
<p>Curm,</p>
<p>I prefer clarity to sarcasm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Academic ability is commonly considered important for success in college.</p>
<p>curious, I think I'm pretty clear.</p>
<p>Yup, academic ability is very important. That's why colleges say that the very first thing they look at is your HS transcript, and a weak transcript will put your application in the deny pile pretty quick. But what score on the SAT shows academic ability? A 550? A 600? A 650? Or only an 800? If you score that 800 and spend all your time playing online poker, you may get rich but fail all your classes. </p>
<p>Curm said: "Another thing D learned in her search-she wanted to go to a school where kids were proud of where they attended. "</p>
<p>Same with my kid. And she took it one step further -- she wanted to go to a college that had strong alumni activity, because she felt that was even more evidence of the college's strength. </p>
<p>And I'd pick the guy with the pocketknife and the twine. Although I'd really like it if he had matches, too.</p>
<p>This may be a "duh" but the rub for so many re: legacy as a factor in the admissions process is it doesn't measure anything the student has ACHIEVED, it is only a measure of who he was BORN TO. That in and if itself is no measure of how prepared he is for college, or how hard he has worked- it is only a reflecton of Lady Luck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That in and if itself is no measure of how prepared he is for college, or how hard he has worked- it is only a reflecton of Lady Luck.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. As is the ability of a particular child's parents to pay private school tuition. It may be the hard work of the parent's but not of the kid. Full payor's get a preference at many schools. Some folks doubt the concept of need blind in it's entirety. I may be one of them . (It does seem quite odd that the schools maintain the same number of full pays each year. Hmmm. ) . Remember, you check a box that says - I will not be applying for need aid.</p>
<p>Where it occurs , mpm and everybody, how is that any more fair than legacy?</p>
<p>I think a way of measuring how much legacy counts is to study the admissions outcomes for applicants who are legacies at one college but not at some others of equal rank. For example if student A is a legacy at Harvard, applies to both Harvard, Yale and Princeton, and is admitted to all, then we can discount the legacy status to some extent.
It is still somewhat of a crude instrument. If the student is rejected at Yale and Princeton, we cannot automatically assume that the student was admitted at Harvard solely on account of his legacy status (he may be the tuba player that the Harvard-Radcliffe orchestra needs, but not those at Yale or Princeton), but it can give some idea and put the legacy issue in some context.
Disclaimer. S has hooks at Harvard and none at Stanford, and was admitted to both. Although I am willing to consider that his hooks helped at Harvard, I can also feel comfortable saying that he was admitted to both Harvard and Stanford on his merits.</p>
<p>"how is that any more fair than legacy?"</p>
<p>I guess I'm dense this morning-what is the "that" you are referring to?</p>
<p>Being a full payor. "As is the ability of a particular child's parents to pay private school tuition. It may be the hard work of the parent's but not of the kid. Full payor's get a preference at many schools."</p>
<p>I believe it's also a situation now where there truly are so many kids who are academically qualified that the colleges have the opportunity to choose amongst those kids however they want. So they do.</p>
<p>As one who has a horse in the legacy race, here's our situation. D "only" got 1470 on her SATs. Yet, at Princeton, with grade deflation etc., she is in the top quintile for grades, writes for the newspaper and wins awards for her reporting, dances in a group, joins an eating club with a huge crowd of friends...Is she a detriment? Did they make a mistake? Should they have picked someone with her same GPA (highest possible), her same ECs, but the higher SAT? Would that person have been necessarily better? Maybe his/her non-legacy parents had their kid get an SAT tutor and take the SAT multiple times (we didn't). Maybe his/her parents locked their kid in his/her room and paid them for grades (we didn't:)).</p>
<p>In the world of college admissions and acceptances to the uber-elites we are operating in thin air, at the margin, and the colleges get to choose amongst student riches. The decision criteria become almost more like inspiration at any given moment, choosing among the exceptionally qualified kids. </p>
<p>And, here's the thing. You just can't make the case that the student body or the colleges are worse for it - at least not from what I have seen. You can make the case that it sucks for you if you weren't chosen, and I will agree. And for my next kid, I may be right in there wishing that the selection factors had gone his way this time and cursing the fact that they didn't. But just because it sucks for me doesn't mean that it's a bad system for the majority.</p>
<p>At this point, I count two items that the pro-legacy folks believe are more dispensable than the legacy preference the SAT's and National Merit Status. This is fascinating.</p>