<p>I noticed that some of the schools on my son's list have legacy rates of over 30%. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's very positive for a school when so many alum want to send their own children back. On the other hand, how much preferencial treatment is given to legacy admits? How often do you think it happens that an applicant who would otherwise be rejected is accepted or waitlisted due to legacy status?</p>
<p>It's interesting, to say the least, that SPS, and a surprising number of other schools, have a legacy rate of over 30% and Exeter has less than 20%. Are legacies given preference more at SPS (and other schools with high legacy rates) than at Exeter? I use these two examples because I happen to have the data. I suppose that without knowing how many applicants were legacies, it's hard to draw any meaningful conclusion.</p>
<p>Has anyone else given this much thought? I'd love to know because I'm not sure what to think, or if it's even worth thinking about beyond the chance of admission. It has been noted many times in reference to Ivy League schools that once you factor out recruited athletes, legacies and development cases, there aren't that many spots for the regular, unhooked applicant. Do you think the same holds for prep schools? Published admissions rates are not of much value without the breakdown. I could probably dig up the information on SPS because I seem to remember it all being made public last year.</p>
<p>Be sure that you are using the same definition of “legacy” so that you can make a fair apples-to-apples comparison. Sometimes “legacy” is defined as a parent attending. Other times it can be both a parent and a grandparent. Sometimes the definition is broadened to include siblings, other family members, etc. </p>
<p>The numbers for athletic recruits, legacies, faculty children, development cases, etc. add a new lens to accepted applicants. </p>
<p>Just be sure that you find a range of schools that your son would love to attend.</p>
<p>Excellent observation, neato. My son son applied to SPS for a sophomore slot last year, primarily because of me. I went to an Ivy school in the late 60’s/early 70’s. The school was then flooded with BS grads. Of all I saw, I was most inpressed with the SPS boys. Since then, I have always held SPS in the highest regard. In fact, when my son and I studied info on SPS last year, I thought even more of SPS. </p>
<p>All of that said, I’m not sure that, if my son could go through the BS app process again, I would encourage him to apply to SPS because, at the end of the day of this process last year, I figured that there were only about 8 spots available in the sophomore class at SPS for non-hooked, non-legacy, etc., etc. boy. So the true odds of his acceptance at SPS were not around 1 out of 5 (as with many of the other elite BS’s) but closer to 1 out of 50 (which is more competitive than Harvard), although I know my calculations on SPS acceptances fro last year were pretty rough, if not crude, at best. Ah, my boy was WL’ed…for what that is worth.</p>
<p>Still, I consider SPS a magnificent school. I just think that it is nearly impossible to get in for certain kids, especially with legacies so strong there. While, my son didn’t get into SPS, he is now enrolled in another HADES school and absolutely loves it and, based upon a visiit to the school last week by my wife and me for Parents’ Weekend, the school loves him. So, we have to say (a) that my son and his school seem, for now, to be a perfect fit, (b) SPS and the other great schools to which he applied last year are distant memories and (c) everything is working out beautifully.</p>
<p>According to the SPS website:
"Thirty-one percent of the new students have an alumni or sibling relationship with the School. "</p>
<p>I agree with burb parent - make sure your data reflects a straight comparison. Some define legacy as a parent connection only. SPS uses a broader definition.</p>
<p>I’m glad to hear that your son is having such a positive experience. One of the things that I have told my son (and myself) over and over again is to trust the process. He is looking at a range of schools, all of which he would be happy to attend. Come March 10th, we will see which schools will be happy to have him attend. The admissions officers are very good at their jobs. I have to trust that they can ferret out the kind of kids that will really thrive there…and maybe, just maybe, they’ll be willing to give an unhooked kid a shot. We’ll be thrilled if they do, but not bitter if they don’t. My son is not entitled to anything. </p>
<p>That said, I do try to be realistic. I wish the available stats weren’t so general. I suppose that my son has the greatest chances of acceptance at the schools to which he is best suited. That’s as specific as anyone can get, really. </p>
<p>That’s interesting Neato. I didn’t realize legacy rates were published and I wonder what the designation includes. Just one parent, more generations than that? Siblings? Aunts or uncles etc?</p>
<p>My gut tells me that the top boarding schools will always favor a legacy child of equal academic/extra-curricular abilities over an “unhooked” child. Is this good? I suppose, like everything else, it’s a judgment call and specific to the personality and intention of the School. Some I imagine, maybe SPS and Deerfield would be examples, are content to have high legacy admissions while others are more sensitive about mixing the gene pool. Personally, I favor the latter.</p>
<p>I know it’s tough to say “no” to a child of legacy parents, but the greater goal is the long-term health of the School. I remember speaking to an admission’s officer at Thacher a couple of years ago and he was bemoaning the fact that the School could have filled every single open slot that year with a legacy child. Thacher tries to call the parents of every non-admitted legacy applicant in an effort to preserve the overall family relationship, but the School remains adamant about keeping a strong flow of new blood onto campus. Those calls are difficult and there are lots of them.</p>
<p>I looked at some data the Winterset made available on the St. Paul’s thread. It was info given to parent volunteers, I think. At any rate, it states that 35 of the 536 students were “legacy” and 26 were siblings. Totaled, that’s 61/536, or 11%. I wonder what the other “alumni connection” that creative1 refers to is. I’m not doubting her information, just curious, as it a considerable number of kids - 105 students. Perhaps it’s grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. </p>
<p>It’s really a huge difference, and now that I’ve looked at some numbers, I see what Burb Parent and others were referring to when they warned me to make sure it was an apples to apples comparison. If Exeter, for instance, only considers parents for legacy status, then they have a higher rate than SPS at 13%</p>
<p>I guess there’s no way to really know and since it’s something that I have no control over anyway, I suppose it’s fruitless to spend more time thinking about it. </p>
<p>I hadn’t thought of the point that ThacherParent brought up, though. By rejecting or waitlisting a legacy child, a school not only risks hurt feelings, but donations as well. </p>
<p>Gosh, I wouldn’t want to be an admissions officer.</p>
<p>I think the most important thing you can understand for this data is how effective being a legacy is. Let’s be honest, among all of the applicant pool, legacies represent a small portion. While it is true that the alum parent will be more willing to push a student towards a specific school, the applicant pool is still represented, in the majority, by non alums.</p>
<p>Compared with recruited athlete, geographic diversity, or even URM, legacy is an unimportant aspect towards the overall integrity of the school. I think it is astounding that when such a small percent of students make up the legacy applicant class, a disproportionately high percent of legacies make up the overall student body.</p>
<p>To me, this indicates one thing. Being a legacy doesn’t just give you a boost up in admissions, meaning it doesn’t give you an extra point or so (Exeter uses a five point scale to “grade” their applicants). It is more intangible, aka they actively look for such students, with a much higher acceptance rate. Even at a school like Exeter, 20% is a big deal. </p>
<p>While it does show a great commitment on the parental front, it shows an even greater movement to maintain a high legacy population within the school–exhibited by the admissions committee. I do not know whether it is healthy or not, just that it is astounding.</p>
<p>If a BS wants a high percentage of its students to be legacies, I respect that decision. The BS is a private school and, therefore, can and should do pretty much as it pleases. Based on the incredible record of some BS’s with high legacy rates (SPS, Deerfield, Exeter, etc.), it is hard to argue against the admissions policies of these schools. Still, high legacy rates should, over time, discourage applications to these great schools from various sections of the population and, in time, impact the mix of its student body, for what that is worth. That said, these schools seem to be doing first rate work, without much doubt.</p>
<p>"I wonder what the other “alumni connection” that creative1 refers to is. I’m not doubting her information, just curious, as it a considerable number of kids - 105 students. Perhaps it’s grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. "</p>
<p>The info I quoted above is directly off the SPS website in an announcement by head of admissions for the new students accepted for 2009-10.</p>
<p>Yes, SPS’s definition of “alumni relationship” must be, indeed, much broader. </p>
<p>SPS’s transparency is one (of the many) things that I really like about the school. It is very easy to get information once you know where to look.</p>
<p>I don’t think I have the requisite experience to have a meaningful opinion on whether a high legacy percentage is positive or negative. I’m tempted to think it’s more positive for the overall health of the school than negative, but again, I’m hardly qualified to make such an assumption.</p>
<p>My initial question was just how it impacts admissions decisions. Even though it is a factor that neither my son nor I have any control over, I ask simply because I am trying to understand the entire admissions process. I don’t think I ever will because I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as I originally thought. I am beginning to understand that there are so many things to consider, (and that they likely change from year to year), that there is no “formula,” no “perfect applicant” that they are looking for. Furthermore, one part of the application puzzle may very well be more important for one applicant than it is for another.</p>
<p>Lacking more precise figures, speculation over legacy rates is only speculation. As with colleges, people complain about high rates of legacy admissions for the most desirable schools. No one complains about legacy admissions for schools teetering on the brink of losing their accreditation. </p>
<p>I’d argue that the alumni of those elite schools have contributed, over time, to building the institutions’ desirability. If a school gets into trouble, alumni do step in to help. Had the Conserve School had alumni, they would have had a presence on the board. I don’t think that a board comprised of alumni would agree to maim their school, in the way Conserve was maimed.</p>
<p>It’s a vicious circle, though, the effect of legacy on admissions. Many posters on this board are most interested in the schools with the lowest rates of admission. A strong stream of legacy applicants certainly helps to keep a school exclusive, which feeds the interest of non-legacy applicants. There’s a thesis in game theory in that. I would guess, in the current economic conditions, few schools will want to anger the alumni by decreasing their rates of legacy admits.</p>
<p>I’d say, apply to a range of schools. If you need FA, and don’t have a hook, apply to more schools than you think you need, even if you have strong feedback from the interview. Those schools with the most money to offer for FA have very strong alumni networks.</p>
<p>Very good point about Conserve. If it had had the kind of alumni network that the older, more established, schools had, it may still be around. Such a promising school, too. very sad.</p>
<p>It’s actually the schools with the 30%+ admissions rates that I’m more curious about regarding legacy admits. A high legacy admit rate could seriously confound the actual acceptance rate, making it much lower in reality for unconnected applicants.</p>
<p>But you’re right, it’s all speculation. I’m beginning to think I could be focusing my energy on more fruitful pursuits, like finding out if there are any Moe’s Restaurants en route to our next school visit trip!</p>
<p>Neato, I agree there are more fruitful pursuits. I think the leading boarding schools tend to see the same pool of kids, on the whole. They make their choices, and only the admissions departments, and the heads of school, know what the overall picture is.</p>
<p>I do think that there’s a difference between families who “get” boarding, and those who don’t. I can believe that parents who enjoyed their experience at BS, would be more likely to consider boarding as an option. So, it matters what percentage of the group of prospective boarders come from families with a tradition of boarding.</p>
<p>If they’re looking at boarding schools, they may check out their old schools. A legacy kid is more likely to come. Admissions departments care about yield. </p>
<p>I think the situation is worse in day schools, though. A family would rather have two kids at the same school, just from logistical reasons. If a school denies the younger sib, it may lose the older sib. Boarding schools at least have the comfort that a parent isn’t likely to pull out a boarding student if the younger one’s not admitted.</p>
<p>If one accepts the premise that it is the experience of the boarding school environment that is the most valuable thing one takes away from it – given that a school meets a minimum standard of quality (high quality, that is!), and there are scores of schools that qualify – then perhaps would-be students (and their parents) for the “top schools” should re-think their desire to pursue only those few institutions (especially where the odds of acceptance, due to having no legacy “hook”, are much lower) in favor of “settling for” a school of less reknown simply because they realize that to attend any one of the many really fine boarding schools is more than good enough for them. They will then have the beginnings of an appreciation for what the boarding experience will truly mean for them for the rest of their lives.</p>
<p>It is like admitting that while the first car in my family may not be a Rolls Royce, it is a BMW, and that’s a damn sight better than the mass-market cars out there…</p>
<p>What’s with all the entitlement?! That’s a ghetto mentality.</p>
<p>If you are referring to me, please reread post #5. </p>
<p>We are certainly not looking at only the most selective schools. At any time when my son has gone on about one of the top schools, I simply remind him of something equally awesome about one of the others.</p>
<p>I am simply struggling to understand the process and trying to get a better idea of what realistic odds are for my son at ALL schools, not just the top ones, because when one is in our position, the odds are slim all the way around, no matter which of the wonderful schools he’s looking at - so-called top, second or third tier. I do not say that with any bitterness or resentment. </p>
<p>I’m sorry if that was not clear. The LAST thing we feel is entitlement. It’s quite the opposite. We feel it would be an unbelievable gift.</p>
<p>This is kind of off topic, but whatever.
If my dad/mom/relative went to a boarding school that i was applyng to, I’d be really embarrassed if I got rejected.</p>
<p>My remarks, actually, were not aimed at you and I apologize if they seemed to be. </p>
<p>Rather, they were directed at the audience at large as a reminder of how very fortunate one would be to attend any of the many fine schools in this country, and that contrary to an implied (sometimes outright) declaration that only those schools with the “best” of everything are WORTH attending, there are many other schools out there that provide an experience whose ultimate value is missed by the narrow insistance on focusing only on the tangible assets of a school. It is, after all, the intangible ones that are held in high esteem long after one’s school days have concluded.</p>
<p>That is, I am quite sure, a source of amusement to the faculties and staffs of the “lower tier” schools. Because despite all the excitement generated around the “name” schools, the other schools are survivnig quite nicely, because they know that what they offer is tried and true. Those who have not had the boarding school experience cannot know this, therefore they are subject to outside influences that purport to give an accurate assessment of a school’s worth by dangling fancy tangibles in front of the poor newcomers’ eyes. …“repeat after me, HADES today, HADES tomorrow, Hades forever!” </p>
<p>In fairness to the HADES group, it offers the intangibles too – and you know what? – without them all of its tangibles would come crashing to the ground.</p>
<p>By the way, the “other” schools do have their share of tangibles too.</p>