<p>Hunt, this has been studied more than once using actual college data. I don't have the references at hand, but recall that the conclusion of those that looked at the data was that at elite colleges, legacy status made a huge difference, even controlling for the quality of the applicants. The advantage was second only to being an athlete.</p>
<p>But I could be suffering from bad recall, so I would welcome a correction from anyone with hard data.</p>
<p>I'm not kidding, and welcome any data from the schools I mention to disprove my allegation. </p>
<p>You aren't going to get ANY data from HYP to disprove what I'm asserting because it is either absolutely true, or so close to it that it will embarass the schools. Hunt is right. Knowing the admissions percentages doesn't tell you much. </p>
<p>I'd settle for knowing the stats of the rejected legacies compared to the rejected other applicants. Not holding my breath though.</p>
<p>Dadx,</p>
<p>Come on. You don't make a bold assertion and then ask others to DISPROVE it.</p>
<p>But heck, seeing how you are comfortable jumping to conclusions in the absence of data (anecdotal observations with trivial sample sizes do not count as data!), I'll leave you to your beliefs. Maybe they make you feel better!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The average boost in the odds of admission is about 30 percentage points for a recruited athlete, 28 points for a member of an underrepresented minority group, and 20 points for a legacy. For example, an applicant with an admissions probability of 40 percent based on SAT scores and other variables would have an admissions probability of 70 percent if he or she were a recruited athlete, 68 percent if an underrepresented minority, and 60 percent if a legacy. Applicants who participate in early decision programs also enjoy a definite admissions advantage—about 20 percentage points at the 13 institutions for which we have data... <snip>...In assessing the actual extent of legacy preference today, it is important to use the right numbers. Legacy applicants have stronger academic credentials than other applicants and would be accepted at higher rates if there were no legacy preference at all. Comparing legacies in competitive admissions situations with other candidates who present similar credentials gives a better sense of the extent of the true “break” legacies actually are given.</snip></p>
<p>Dean Fitzsimmons notes that at Harvard “legacy status is basically used as a tie-breaker between comparable candidates,” and our data confirm that legacy preferences are generally reserved for candidates with strong credentials. When we assign the applicants to the 13 colleges and universities for which we have sufficient data on legacies to three SAT categories, we find that the legacy advantage is much more pronounced in the highest SAT range than elsewhere. The adjusted admissions advantage for legacies with combined SAT scores below 1100 is just over 6 percentile points (and not statistically significant), the advantage for those with SAT scores between 1100 and 1300 is 18 percentile points, and the advantage for those with SAT scores of 1300 and above is 25 percentile points.
[/quote]
from [url=<a href="http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html%5DA">http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html]A</a> Thumb on the Scale (May-June 2005)<a href="Harvard%20Magazine">/url</a></p>
<p>Still sounds like it's an advantage any way you cut it. But remember an advantage is not a guarantee. Harvard rejects plenty of valedictorians, some of them are probably even legacies.</p>
<p>I couldn't find anything in that article indicating what 13 schools provided the data--although it's in Harvard Magazine and quotes a Harvard bigwig, that doesn't necessarily mean they had data from Harvard. I think it's interesting that legacy provides a much bigger advantage for the most qualified legacies--perhaps indicating that it really is true that legacy is largely a tipping factor for students who are highly qualified.</p>
<p>Hunt, </p>
<p>the dataset included Harvard. It did not use only Harvard data, so you (or maybe Dadx?) are welcome to argue that "Harvard is different from the other 18 in the dataset" but then I would ask for some evidence to back the statement up.</p>
<p>You must understand that universities rarely give out their admissions datasets without an understanding that the data will be pooled. Avery's book of a few years ago on early admissions was a rare exception.</p>
<p>I'll argue that HYP are different from virtually anyplace else.</p>
<p>I don't believe there really is any legacy preference of any import at those three schools. </p>
<p>Bowen et al. have been famous in the past for refusing to allow anyone to examine their data if the examiners agenda might differ from his own.</p>
<p>Just anecdotally, I will say that my (non-legacy) kid at Harvard knows an awful lot of legacies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bowen et al. have been famous in the past for refusing to allow anyone to examine their data if the examiners agenda might differ from his own.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's an <strong>odd</strong> statement, since the data is not Bowen's. The data belongs to those universities that provide it, and they are free to provide it to anyone else. I suppose you will tell me that HYP will not provide the data to anyone they suspect will not give a result that supports a legacy preference?</p>
<p>Dadx, nice to see that I predicted your response. At least you are consistent.</p>
<p>I find it amusing how alumni of elite colleges are in denial of the significance of their kids' legacy status in admission despite the colleges own admission. </p>
<p>Our large suburban public high school in Connecticut routinely sends a number of students to Yale each year. Over 75% of admitted students are legacies. Outside of the top 3% of the class (high honors students), only legacies have ever been admitted in the past ten years. The evidence of a significant thumb on the scale is certainly more than anecdotal. The number of students admitted to Princeton and Harvard from our school is too small to make any analysis statistically significant.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I will add that 8 of the 10 students from our local hs admitted to Stanford over the last two years were legacies. They were also 4.0 students and all-around good people (I don't know their test scores.)</p>
<p>Last time I checked, the "P" in "HYP" was Princeton and, by their own admission,</p>
<p>"According to Admission Office data, 39 percent of alumni children who applied for admission for the Class of 2010 were admitted, compared to 10.2 percent of applicants as a whole. Legacies make up 14 percent of the student body."</p>
<p>If you assume that 14 percent of the Class of 2010 are legacies, then the acceptance rate for non-legacies was 8.8% while the acceptance rate for legacies was 39% (this works out to 10.2% overall acceptance rate.) dadx, I'd call that a "legacy preference of import".</p>
<p>Legacy</a> study raises questions about policy - The Daily Princetonian</p>
<p>That is not to say that some of the legacies are not as qualified as the rest of the student population (about 8.8 out of every 39 are as qualified, by my estimation).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our large suburban public high school in Connecticut routinely sends a number of students to Yale each year. Over 75% of admitted students are legacies. Outside of the top 3% of the class (high honors students), only legacies have ever been admitted in the past ten years. The evidence of a significant thumb on the scale is certainly more than anecdotal. The number
[/quote]
Our middle sized public HS routinely got around 20 acceptances to one of the HYPs. Most are legacies, recruite athlete, urms, once in a while one or two extremly well qualified no 'hook' students took the 'ride'.</p>
<p>Years ago, there was this one neighbour kids got 1600 SAT(full score back then) got rejected from this college. but accepted by another HYP. "there are only so many kids they can take from one school, if they took all legacy kids in there is just no room for others".</p>
<p>Give the wide range of stats (grades, test score, ECs, etc.) there is just so much room there. I'm sure legacy's kids are qualified, but so are a lot number of others and in some cases may be better, but usually the legacy kids got the nod.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is not to say that some of the legacies are not as qualified as the rest of the student population (about 8.8 out of every 39 are as qualified, by my estimation).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me suggest that that not be submitted in any statistics course as an example of informed thought. There are any number of overrepresented groups in various institutions and endeavors who are not there because of favoritism. </p>
<p>Suffice to say that none of us has the data. I've looked at this for a long time and read everything about it that's out there, and I have yet to find any straightforward data on the Big Three that is convincing. Its always mixed with others to acheive the desired conclusion. Its one of the few times you'll see administrators in that group lumping themselves with others.</p>
<p>"If you assume that 14 percent of the Class of 2010 are legacies, then the acceptance rate for non-legacies was 8.8% while the acceptance rate for legacies was 39% (this works out to 10.2% overall acceptance rate.) dadx, I'd call that a "legacy preference of import"."</p>
<p>Well, it PROBABLY is a preference, but my point is just that those numbers don't prove it. Those numbers probably reflect but overstate the advantage (this is what the colleges say)--because the legacy pool is probably more qualified, on average, than the overall pool.</p>
<p>"Let me suggest that that not be submitted in any statistics course as an example of informed thought."</p>
<p>dadx, Let me suggest that your language is unkind and inaccurate. I don't recall saying that your thoughts were uninformed. We should be able to discuss an issue without resorting to such characterizations.</p>
<p>BTW, I did use the phrase "by my estimation" correctly. As I used it, the word "estimation" is defined as "approximate calculation" or "estimate".
estimation</a> - Definitions from Dictionary.com</p>
<p>Indeed, this is hardly the sort of analysis that anyone WOULD submit in a statistics course, and it wasn't intended as such. Yet it does make the point that, all other things being equal, the average admitted legacy at Princeton is most likely less "qualified" than the average non-legacy. I've heard it said that the legacy applicant pool may be stronger, but haven't seen any data to support that (or the converse, which is equally plausible--that legacies are as a group less qualified than general applicants and apply in greater numbers because they know their applications will receive preferential treatment.)</p>
<p>The legacy preference exists. We all understand why it exists, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing--unless it's taken too far and compromises the diversity of the student body (where I mean diversity in a broad sense).</p>
<p>I've seen schools claim that the average SAT scores of legacies are the same or higher than the class average. In every case, however, the school neglects to mention that perhaps 30% of the class (and more than a third of the non-legacies) are recruited athletes and URMs, who are seldom also legacies.
My son who attended an elite is against the legacy preference, largely because he thought that the legacies he knew were clearly not as qualified. One person's opinion of course.
As my kids (who got in under their own power) are beginning to establish legacy status for their children-to-be, I can picture myself arguing the other side in the future!</p>
<p>"That is not to say that some of the legacies are not as qualified as the rest of the student population (about 8.8 out of every 39 are as qualified, by my estimation)."</p>
<p>Huh? I disagree. No stats to back it up, but that just doesn't feel right to me.</p>
<p>There may have been a time when colleges accepted a lot of "unqualified" legacy candidates, and there may be schools who still do -- but I think times have changed. </p>
<p>Based on the many anecdotes I've heard of highly qualified legacies who were not accepted and what I've heard from admissions officers, I think most legacy applicants accepted are qualified. It's about time we put the myth to bed that legacy accepted students must have below average SATs and GPAs and don't belong at their schools.</p>
<p>Looking at some numbers at Brown: Class of 2011, legacy admit rate was 34 percent -- yes, significantly higher than the average acceptance rate. But the admit rate for valedictorians was 29%; for an 800 CR score 29% and a 36 ACT score 33%. So legacies are clearly not the only category with higher admit rates -- and there were twice as many valedictorians who applied than legacies and 3 times as many students with 800 CR scores. What we don't know is how many of the legacies were valedictorians or had 800 CR scores -- and one possibility is that there is overlap there (I know of one, actually).</p>
<p>In the last few years schools have come under a lot of pressure about their legacy preferences, and while they continue to have higher acceptance rates for them colleges must be more sensitive about accepting blatantly unqualified candidates. Any studies done years ago may not reflect today's reality.</p>
<p>If 14% of Yale's class is legacy, that means 86 percent is not. At Brown, the average for the last 5 years is 10% of its freshmen class is legacy -- that means 90% is not. (And 7% of admitted students last year were legacy -- meaning 93% were not.) That's a heck of a lot of kids who manage to get in without the legacy boost. </p>
<p>Oh, and the yield rate for legacies at Brown is significantly higher -- ranges from 70-78%.</p>
<p>I went to Brown and my kid is there now. Legacy may have helped her get in, although she brought a lot to the table on her own. More importantly, she's getting great grades and contributing significantly to college life through her ECs, so it would be hard to argue that she is not qualified to be there.</p>
<p>sly_vt,</p>
<p>Clever, equating legacies with valedictorians and those scoring 800 on a SAT section. But I think the numbers speak for themselves: Very few legacies are valedictorians; few legacies get an 800 CR score; few legacies get a 36 ACT score, yet they are accepted at a higher rate than any of these more accomplished applicants.</p>
<p>But let's look at your data a different way: yale graduates roughly 1300 kids per year. Let's assume they breed well and each product 2 kids (double legacies will need to be more fertile to keep the percentage up... :) ) That's 2600 POSSIBLE legacy applicants per year. If as you say, Yale's classes have 14% legacies, or 182 per class, that means Yale admits 7% of all possible legacies each year. Since only a fraction of all the legacies apply, their admit rate is of course quite a bit higher. </p>
<p>And of course the yield rate is higher. First, many legacies apply early, so for them it is 100% at Brown. For the rest, given the legacy boost, they may well not have had many other better alternatives.</p>
<p>If in fact the bar were really higher for legacies than for regular students, colleges would not be so reluctant to let the data out. It is not, so they won't.</p>
<p>I don't think there's any doubt that legacy status is an advantage, but I also think it's less of an advantage than most people assume. The legacy pool at elite schools is stronger than the overall pool - likely a product both of genes and access to high quality preparatory education (and perhaps some self-selection resulting from a realistic assessment of whether they're competitive as applicants). I wish I had saved the link - I can no longer find it - but I saw stats a couple of years ago that the admit rate at Harvard for children of Yale and Princeton alumni was in the high 20's (percent) compared to the admit rate for children of Harvard alumni (i.e., legacies) in the high 30's. This probably is more of an "apples to apples" comparison, reflecting some legacy advantage but far less than the comparison of the legacy admit rate to the overall admit rate. </p>
<p>Anecdotally, I know quite a few legacy admits at Harvard (and Yale and Princeton for that matter) and all of them are plenty impressive. Whether they'd have been admitted without the legacy factor is a question that can never be answered, but they would certainly have been in the running.</p>
<p>P.S. to newmassdad - my son, a legacy admit, scored 800 on both his CR and Writing SAT's. It does happen.</p>