Legacies, full pay and donors. Misguided anger?

Are you referring to comments quoted by @Data10 in #135?

They do imply that certain applicants were kept on the back burner with a chance of admission because of lineage (legacy), but would have been rejected at that stage otherwise. I.e. the legacy applicants get extra stages/chances, even if they would not be admissible without legacy status.

Sorry, yes. But those sorts of comments are common for many, legacy or not Being kept on the burner is non-committal. Lots of kids get through first cut and first comments with similar. It’s more about the pool, waiting to see how an area or sub area sizes up, the competition.

Understand that until toward the end, when most or all apps are reviewed (several times, assuming the passed first cut,) few decisions are made outright. By roughly now, first week of March, they’ve been whttled down considerably. Interim comments are just running conversation.

I agree that the mention of legacy is telling- but only in that they consider it. NOT that it can pull an underqualified kid up. Not that they prefer legacies across the board, worthy or not.

The competition is immense. No tippy top is forced to take kids they don’t feel can thrive. Or who run counter to the community/cultural needs for stretch, vision, activation, good will, flexibility, etc.

These are summary sheet comments. None of the listed comments imply an admit is coming, even for recruited athletes. However, comments for both athletes and legacies imply the applicant would not have made it past this stage without their hook.

A partial summary of evidence for a strong legacy boost is below. Some of these would not be noteworthy factors in isolation, but it’s a different story when so many different sources point to the same strong legacy boost conclusion, including many sources directly from Harvard.
[ul][]Regression analysis from Harvard Office of Internal Research internal report shows a stronger boost for legacy than all other analyzed hooks except athlete… greater increased chance of admission than associated with changing a reader rating from 3 to 2 in academic, ECs, athletic, etc.
[]Regression analysis from SFFA shows extremely similar conclusions to Harvard in regards to legacies, with a very similar magnitude of legacy boost
[
]Harvard expert analysis (3rd model, different from Harvard OIR model) above found >70% of legacies would not have been admitted in the discussed no hooks, greater low SES boost model. There was a greater decrease in legacies than the decrease that occurred in all other hook groups except athletes. A similar or higher percentage decrease occurred in all other simulated no hook models.
[]Harvard OIR indicates majority of legacies with 2 (upper ~half of applicants) academic rating were admitted, while only 14% of non-legacies with same rating were admitted
[
]Admitted legacies averaged worse ratings than admitted non-athlete, non-legacies in all ratings categories and listed sub-categories except athletic
[]Overall admit rate for legacies was a high 34% during sample period
[
]Harvard reader summary sheet comments imply a notable legacy benefit (even if they don’t say admit is coming)
[li]Harvard comments imply a notable legacy benefit and say that benefit is one of the key reasons for the different overall admission results for Asian and White applicants[/ul][/li]Perhaps the issue is we have different definitions of a strong legacy boost. By “boost” I do not mean a guaranteed admit or admitting students who are not expected to be successful academically at Harvard. If 34% of legacy applicants were admitted, that means 66% of legacy applicants were rejected – the majority of legacy applicants are rejected. Legacies still have to do well under the usual admission criteria. This legacy “boost” is also a completely different order of magnitude than many get for being a recruited athlete. For example, in the lawsuit sample, non-athletes with a low 4 academic rating had only a 0.07% chance of admission – almost impossible. In contrast recruited athletes with the same rating had a ~70% admit rate – a thousand times higher. Roughly 1/7 of athletes had this poor academic rating, but I’d expect the number of admitted non-athlete legacies with this relatively weak academic rating to be close to zero.

“Even focusing so intently on ratings misses the impact of qualitative and how the whole factors in decisions.”

If this was the case, then why does Harvard use a rating to quantify qualitative features in the app? Maybe they’re not as holistic as they think they are. And if Harvard really wanted to use holistic as a defense, they shouldn’t have countered the SFFA’s analysis with their analysis, they should have said, hey we’re holistic, you don’t see the apps, you just see the numbers. But they didn’t, they got an economist and did their own regression testing that you denigrate. This case will be won on regression arguments and analysis, not crafting a class that the community will be proud off.

“See, ubclalumnus, awards revert to the hierarchical notion of better or more worthy. Most applicants, even admits, do not have national or intl awards. It’s nice, but far from determinative. In fact, you could have all that glory and still get rejected.”

It’s more than nice, about 25% of the past five years Intel finalists are at Harvard (Crimson article), how is that just nice? It’s not, and these kids know how to connect what they’re doing to the research at Harvard, so they can handle the why us essay. Yes, 75% get rejected, but 1 in 4 is pretty good, it’s not legacy of course but at least these have been earned. And the MIT admissions counselor shows up to the Intel science fair to check on how the mit admits did and try and discover who could be good fits for next year’s class. This is a significant accomplishment, and these kids will do well in college admissions.

In some ways full pay families whose students get in on merit are a real asset for the college and benefit hooked/financial aid students financially by subsidizing their education and academically by providing academically enriched environment.

Not only that but their taxes subsidize education for others at public schools and colleges as well. One full pay upper middle class parent practically pays for probably dozens of other people’s kids in a life time as well as their own instead of living a lavish life and having a comfy retirement. They partly earn and save because others can’t and colleges are expensive.

This is a great way to give back to the community, yes a forced charity but nonetheless they do make a difference in lives of many many families. All financial aid students should also be required to donate a small percentage of their annual income back to their colleges to give back and keep the wheels running for others like them.

@theloniusmonk I am always puzzled why these threads always go down these types of rabbit holes.

Yes you are 100% correct roughly 25 percent of Intel science search finalists are at Harvard (can’t be exactly unless 1/2 a student is counted ,LOL)

Since we are talking finalists, that represents 7 students! They aren’t representative of a big enough number to matter in the grand scheme of things.

Important to note as well. The competition looks at the applicants, get ready for this, holistically.

My bet they are powerhouse students who may have been admitted anyway. Maybe this hook gets them over the edge. But it’s 7 students. And I bet the other 75 percent of winners applied too.

Here’s what they review.

“The selection process is highly competitive, and besides the research paper, letters of recommendation, essays, test scores, extracurricular activities, and high school transcripts may be factored in the selection of finalists and winners.”

Sounds like a normal college application to me.

Based on this argument, colleges should be doing more to uplift first-generation-to-college students from low income families, since (unlike students from top 3% income families who make up about half of the students at the most selective private schools these forums focus on) they may be less likely to go to college at all due to front-end affordability problems, resulting in more of their talents, potential economic output, and contributions (whether through taxes or charity) being lost over the rest of their lives.

“Important to note as well. The competition looks at the applicants, get ready for this, holistically.”

Are you referring to the Intel science fair? They’re not holistic the way the selective colleges are, or say they are. There’s no legacy, URM, athlete, disadvantaged, first gen hooks, geographical considerations. 80% of the finalists are Asian, I believe this was one of the things that was pointed out to SFFA in showing an anti-Asian bias. It may be a little more holistic than National Merit Finalist, which is just PSAT with confirming SAT/transcript but it’s not holistic by any stretch, mostly merit based.

Yes. Intel. Its not just independent research. It’s the whole picture. And the whole picture can be shaped by economic support, test prep and a strong school with lots of AP options and fantastic teachers.

And we are talking about 7 students. How what or where the end up is not probative to the overall discussion. Imho

Actually there are 40 finalists in Intel-Regeneron Science Talent Search, so 25% is possible :slight_smile:

FWIW I was a finalist back in the Westinghouse days…and waitlisted at H!

It was 30 and 300 semi. But ok.

Hope it all worked out for you and you’re doing well!

@CupCakeMuffins Like your summary and the impact of paying in full at top meets full need schools as opposed to accepting merit. Makes paying the 150k/year sound charitable albeit very painful and not sustainable for our family.

Some full pay students are only the second generation receiving a full time conventional college experience, Their parents received financial aid. Their great grandparents may not have completed high school.

Yes, often these unhooked,?talented students from public schools arrive on campus and soar. Their stats were high > 75th accepted percentile but passion is what got their apps pulled from the pile.

I am a full pay parent and was first gen across the entire spectrum of my parents generation on both sides.

It’s not like every full pay parent hopped off the Mayflower. LOL.

And I don’t mind being full pay.

A) it is what it is
B) If it helps others who were in my shoes just 25 years ago. School was 2500 per year for me. Which was covered by the govt loans.

The great thing about kids who can soar is how they can influence others- in their lives, their families. It doesn’t matter whether they become wealthy or prominant, to have this leadership reach. In some parts of the country, they actively mentor. It’s a good thing. I’m not sure we ordinarily see this, as we live our own lives. We tend to stop at where they got their degrees.

@lookingforward That’s a great point.

My D is friends with kids from a super wealthy, dynasty-type family. The older S had a 30 ACT, 3.8 GPA with 3 AP courses, not many ECs and was accepted to Vanderbilt after the family charitable foundation donated an undisclosed amount to the school. That acceptance is tainted by what appears to be a purchased spot. The younger S was so nagged by it that he worked to become 3rd in his class, state champion tennis, 35 ACT, 4.0 (all As). He was accepted ED to Dartmouth - and no one second guesses that acceptance.

I guess my point is that schools need money to run. I don’t really begrudge the seemingly purchased acceptance if it allows Vanderbilt to build a library or offer more scholarships to deserving but needy students. However, these super expensive schools run the risk of only having rich (full pay) & poor (full financial aid) in their classrooms while eliminating the middle class (can’t full pay, don’t qualify for financial aid, don’t want to take on huge debt) due to costs. That leads to a weird dynamic on campus where it’s obvious there are “haves” and “have nots”.

Yes there have been a lot of posts on that “donut hole” for the middle class in relation to FA for top privates.

I would say that purely merit based admission is impossible. For example, for Intel ISEF and similar contests, it is a huge advantage to have parents who are research scientists. Having experienced multiple Regeneron STS projects in our family/friends, I can’t understate how helpful it is to have parents in the field. Not only does this provide access to Mentors, Sponsors, Supervisors and Qualified Scientists (positions you need to complete a project), scientist parents can also give the kind of guidance, editing, and even teaching that a high school student needs to pull off this level of research.

@privatebanker your post was thought provoking. I think it’s healthy for me to examine different types of privilege and to let go of resentment.

Some have mentioned studies claiming that alumni giving would not fall if legacy considerations were revoked. I’m not sure about those studies because the one I looked up was done by the authors of a book called, “Affirmative Action for the Rich”, who are neither scientists nor unbiased. After all, that question is very difficult to study because you would have to go generations ahead. Many alumni become far more active and generous after their children or even grandchildren attend their alma mater. I would also say that the importance of legacy to alumni depends on the culture of the school. MIT (who dropped legacy) is very different from a small LAC or a state school ranked in the 40s.

Here’s an interesting passage from that study about how abolishing legacy would not negatively impact alumni giving:
“Prior to controlling for wealth, however, the results indicate that schools with legacy preference policies indeed have much higher alumni giving. These combined results suggest that higher alumni giving at top institutions that employ legacy preferences is not a result of the preference policy exerting influence on alumni giving behavior, but rather that the policy allows elite schools to over-select from their own wealthy alumni. In other words, the preference policy effectively allows elite schools essentially to discriminate based on socioeconomic status by accepting their own wealthy alumni families rather than basing admissions on merit alone.”

First of all, I don’t know how they arrived at their “suggestion” that legacy preference is not connected to alumni giving. Second of all, I’m assuming that the above refers to “Need Blind” colleges. Why would “Need Aware” colleges need the smoke screen of legacy for choosing full pay students? And in the end, colleges need full pay students. If these students are also legacies, they come with a deep appreciation of the environment of that college. If they applied ED (which is the only way legacy counts at many schools) they are 100% committed and thrilled about being there. It would make sense for colleges to seek kids who are going to be comfortable, enthusiastic, spirited, joining everything etc.

It would be interesting to see the transfer and graduation rates of legacies . . . But I think the bottom line is that colleges wouldn’t give them an extra consideration if they were not bringing extra benefit. Even if the benefit is just increased alumni involvement and money, how is that ethically different from athletes?

I guess what I’m saying is that legacy may not be any more unfair than consideration for donors or full-pay students. From what I’ve seen, legacies have to have the entire rest of the package also. I’d like to see less resentment towards kids with all the different hooks, and more research into why college is getting so expensive in our country.

Its more expensive because its the best education system in the world. It needs a lot of money to keep that status. For public universities the costs have been transferred from the states to the student as states have not kept up in their budgets for higher education. There is also the demand part of the equation, as demand for quality higher education has driven up prices.

Reality is that the typical distribution at the most selective private schools is about half paying list price (top 3% or so), 12% to 22% with Pell Grant (bottom 50% or so), with the remaining 28% to 38% with financial aid but no Pell Grant (top 50% or so excluding the top 3% or so).

So it is not just the rich and the poor, although the rich are extremely overrepresented.

QUOTE=tmeg01 due to costs.

[/QUOTE]

The main group of “can’t full pay, don’t qualify for financial aid” students are the ones with uncooperative divorced parents, though there presumably are some parents with $250,000+ incomes who do not save any money for kids’ college or anything else.