<p>Family ties no longer buy ticket to college
More schools opt not to give alumni's children extra boost
Chicago Tribune, May 3</p>
<p>Excerpt: "Legacy admissions--giving an edge to children of alumni--have always been a contentious issue. To some, they are a throwback to another era and, like restricted clubs and neighborhoods, deserve to be scrapped. To others, they are a deeply entrenched family tradition and a crucial link between a college's past and future."</p>
<p>It is an interesting conundrum. Colleges argue that legacies give an unfair advantage at such a time as they want to diversify their student bodies with more underrepresented minorities. At the same time, this is the first time in history that substantial numbers of underrepresented minorities would be able to claim legacy status.</p>
<p>From the Tribune article - "When Nora, a senior at Lincoln Park High School, was rejected last month, despite, he says, meeting the eligibility requirements, Smith was furious. "They'll never get another dime out of me," insisted the Chicago attorney."</p>
<p>I never realized we were all dealing with "meeting the eligibility requirements."</p>
<p>Perhaps Mr. Smith should peruse CC and get a clue as to the myriad ins and outs of the college application and acceptance process.</p>
<p>Well, to be fair the article also says that (according to her Dad) Nora had "stellar credentials". Still, it's hard to feel too sympathetic so someone who got rejected from BU but is trying to decide between Lawrence, Earlham and Mount Holyoke.</p>
<p>I have always felt that legacies should be a tipping factor* only, for both high schools & colleges, unless that legacy has been a significant donor. In the latter case, I recognize that it's a difficult call. I say this coming from a position of need, not donation, and acknowledging that my D's high school & anticipated college educations have probably been somewhat funded by generous donors to those institutions -- donors who are not necessarily stand-out students themselves, or have parented stand-out students. Those donations have made possible the intellectual endowments & intellectual legacies on which schools depend for their reputations.</p>
<p>*When I say tipping factor, I do not mean for the "minimum eligibility" crowd (LOL); rather, obviously for the pool of highly qualified, likely admits.</p>
<p>I also think that Mini introduces an important possible ironic result to this, which is one reason I continue to think that legacies have their place as tips. There are implications beyond URM's, btw. There has never been a single Ivy <em>applicant</em> in my family, let alone a multiple acceptee. That will be true for many families from CA & TX this yr, many of whom are lower-income, even if not URM.</p>
<p>there was an article in the Washingtonian mag a couple of years ago about the D of a top NBC talking head who was a big Northwestern alum, booster, donor, etc. He was even a keynote speaker at several NU functions. But, D who went to competitive prep school in DC, applied with a B+ average and was denied -- not even WL. The whiny article was written by her mom.</p>
<p>Just a data point...</p>
<p>My alma mater's stated policy is that legacies are tipping factors. You need to be in the running anyway for it to matter. Legacies have about 1.5x the admit rate of non-legacies (I think). This all changes, though, for big-name alums - they will take unqualified kids if the parent is quite the VIP. </p>
<p>Sure, I'm biased because I love my alma mater, but that seems like a sensible system. Keeps the (few, rare) VIPs happy (which, as epiphany points out, helps fund other kid's educations), while not making legacy too much of a factor.</p>
<p>Lets be honest: Legacies is all about money. Alums, who get their kids into the same college, will keep donating to that school. Likewise, when the kids don't get accepted, money tends to dry up. For schools like Harvard, this may be immaterial. However, for the bulk of other schools, this is a major dilemma of trying to balance fairness with keeping alums happy and .... donating.</p>
<p>Why not take a legacy kid or two if it brings in the $$ to help meet the needs of others? I think it is a fair trade-off.</p>
<p>The son of a generous-donor Patriot League school alum I know was rejected by the school last year. The boy had strong SATs but uneven grades (a slacker at a prep boarding school) and some behavior issues. The father was pretty upset, but it was probably the right call by the school.</p>
<p>Two points:</p>
<p>I read somewhere, might have been in their athletics report, that the "stats" of the enrolled legacies at Rice U. are slightly above the median for the enrolled class as a whole. I expect that this is mirrored at many elite colleges these days.</p>
<p>I suspect that the degree of additional legacy consideration is inversely proportional to the size of the college. Not to denigrate B.U., but why would anyone expect them to really care about personal attention to alums when the size of the school limits the personal attention to even their current students? Conversely, take a small school, like a Williams or a Swarthmore, and a self-sustaining campus culture is a big part of what they do. The relationship between the college, the students, and the alum is what the small schools is as the core of their instituional identity. Therefore, I would expect legacies to be given more consideration and, if they are competitive applicants, to be accepted more often then not.</p>
<p>taxguy and interesteddad have it right. It brings in $$ and fosters school spirit. Both are needed by most schools.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I can't speak for your or the school that you attended, but I get a call from both the school that I attended as an undergraduate and from my law school asking for money every year. Large schools may mean larger number of donors. </p>
<p>I do, however, see your point that each individual alum, who graduated from a small school, may have more of an economic influence. However, I don't think that schools look at it that way. Alums are a potentially constant sources of yearly donations. Large number of alums result in large number of donations. If possible, why tick off any potential donor if they can 't avoid it?</p>
<p>I know the %s are out there. I would expect the smaller schools to have a larger % of alumnii contributing back to the school.</p>
<p>My guess is that legacy is becoming less of a tip factor for the average alum's child. I saw a lot of rejections from my top LAC of basically qualified alumni kids in the past few years.</p>
<p>The very wealthy and connected and very active alum (fundraisers, class officers, heads of local alum associations) seem to be holding firmly to their legacy advantage.</p>
<p>I don't think school size is as much of a factor, after all, the Penn State alumni asssociation is huge and former students return there every year for alumni events and football games. Besides many large schools are broken into smaller colleges. </p>
<p>The legacy issue is tough. On one hand why should the legacy's familiy contribution to the school even be weighted into the mix in deciding admisions? As already stated--- is it a last vestige of a class based (nobles & commons) society? On the other hand, contributions help the school in general. Still, if a donor gives with an expectation of favoritism toward their child what does that really say about that person or the school's values?</p>
<br>
<p>when the kids don't get accepted, money tends to dry up. For schools like Harvard, this may be immaterial. </p>
<br>
<p>Unfortunately, Harvard doesn't see it that way -- they are extremely attentive to alumni and almost comically aggressive about pursuing donations. They don't just want to be in the black. They want to be tens of billions ahead of the game. Due to the more ambitious/expensive goals they set for themselves, the richest schools feel just as obligated to cater to their alumni as starving schools do.</p>
<p>My D, while at Amherst, talked to a girl who was certain she was going to H, since her grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, etc., had all gone there. She was outright rejected and is now an Amherst. She loves it, and is actually happy about this now.</p>
<p>I got rejected as a legacy from UVA. They called the next day thanking my parents for the money they have given. They also sent me what seems to be the legacy rejection letter, suggesting that I could transfer there after a year.</p>
<p>I'm more than happy on the other side of I64.</p>