Legacies

Parents Forum
1

<p>I just heard another HYPS "horror" story -- a kid who was rejected at two of them, despite multiple, multi-generational legacy ties (and multi-generational history of support), 2300+ SATs, top-10% status at a tippy-top prep school, and a unique multi-cultural, multi-continental educational background. (At one of the schools, the SCEA choice, not only were both parents alumni -- one BA, one JD -- but three out of four grandparents got their BAs there, and the fourth grandparent is a fairly famous academic at a peer institution. The other is the alma mater of that fourth grandparent, three of the grandparent's siblings, and six of their children, including one of the kid's parents.)</p>

<p>So . . . out of all the legacy applications I know of at HYPS this year -- about 20 -- only two kids were accepted at a legacy school (and one of them is a URM). Both accepted kids are very impressive, with scores and GPAs well in the top half of the relevant college's range, but so are most of the rejected kids, most of whom will be attending top-whatever schools (including non-legacy HYPS schools). People are reporting similar anecdotes for other Ivy-type schools as well ([cough]Penn[/cough]).</p>

<p>Regardless of what the statistics say, I can't believe there is any meaningful legacy preference at the hyper-selective schools any more. There are too many longstanding ties being crapped on, where the applicants are not merely qualified, but really, really qualified (as confirmed by their other admissions, scholarship offers, etc.). Legacies may still be getting admitted at a higher rate than average, but it doesn't look like a higher rate than average for students with similar profiles. Some of it is demographics: we are now well into the children of the first substantial wave of women at Yale, Princeton, and Harvard proper, so the sheer number of applicants with legacy ties is probably much greater than 10 years ago.</p>

<p>(By the way, I am distinguishing legacy applicants, even those whose families have a history of giving that may cumulate to seven figures, from developmental applicants, whose families have the potential to give multiples of that in the medium term.)</p>

<p>What have others observed? Have you seen any legacy applicants accepted who were not pretty good bets for acceptance anyway? (In the context of HYPS, I'll define that as top-5 academically in their classes, most challenging curriculum, 2200+ SATs, significant ECs, and/or some massive non-legacy hook. Or, was accepted at a non-legacy school with comparable selectivity and standards.) </p>

<p>I don't want to debate legacy preferences again. I take it for granted that they are classist, anti-democratic, and rational long-term strategies for educational institutions, and that they unquestionably existed in the recent past. The question is whether, at the most selective schools, they exist any more.</p>

2

<p>Sorry, you must know the families that don't give big. All of the generous, wealthy legacies I know, and there are lots, got in where they were supposed to. They are all smart and mostly qualified, but many were not in the top 10% of our tipy top prep.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
**top-10% status at a tippy-top prep school

[/quote]
**
That statement sets your candidate up to have been "not as good" as the other 15 students at that same tippy top school who were successful in gaining admission. Money, legacy and such might have very well been equal....or better.</p>

4

<p>I certainly think that at the least, the legacy connection is nowhere near as meaningful as most people seem to believe. I guess I can't boast multigenerational legacy (and not big money, either, but you eliminated that from the conversation), but I think that the fact that my double legacy at Princeton didn't even yield a waitlist was somewhat shocking for a lot of people, including my family members. I wouldn't say that I was shocked--I'm not quite that entitled--but I do have to admit that I was surprised. </p>

<p>I'm not sure quite what to make of my case....I don't fit into the "super qualified" range, but with 2290 SAT I/2320 SAT II/Top 2% rank/4 AP scores of 5, I feel confident in saying that I was more than qualified statistically. On the other hand, I know that I had some real weaknesses extracurricularly--I certainly wasn't uninvolved, but I do think that I had average at best extras for Princeton. I also didn't apply ED, which I don't think should matter, but I'm not sure that it didn't. </p>

<p>Many people (including my mother, I think, although she was too careful to say so), pretty much assumed that I would be accepted, or at least waitlisted. So, though there probably still is somewhat of a legacy advantage, it really does not seem to be anything like what most people assume it is...even the very qualified, multiple legacy student is by no means a shoo-in.</p>

5

<p>I suspect legacy may have given tip to my Mathson. He was deferred then rejected from MIT and Caltech. Also rejected from Stanford. He's no. 7 in a class of 640. 800V, 760M, 690W and all 800s on the SAT2s. One-sided computer nerd with state medals in Science Olympiad, and work experience (excellent recommendation there), but no research, no leadership. No URM. He'd be 3rd generation of he goes. We donate very modestly ($50 -$100). Harvard has pretty consistently accepted two or three students from our school every year. So he's got the stats and a passion, but the fact remains the one elite school he got into is the one where he's a legacy.</p>

6

<p>I do agree it's shocking that Princeton didn't waitlist you. It cost them nothing. Did your family diss the school or something?</p>

<p>Also, I think it's impt for legacies to apply ED at ivies and top LACs.</p>

7

<p>^^Another good point: your son goes to a school that consistently gets a few kids into Harvard--that can help as well. In contrast, my school only very rarely (one kid ever 2 or so years in classes of 700+) sends anyone to an Ivy period, and I don't know who was last admitted to Princeton, if anyone ever has been. As sad as it seems (to me), I do think that not having that responsibility, or at least history, of giving X school a few admits also works against the applicants...afterall, who's going to complain when no one gets in, if no one ever gets in?</p>

<p>There was a girl this year at my school similar to your son...top scores and academics, strong extras as well, and she was either rejected/waitlisted at Princeton, Stanford, UPenn, Duke, and Cornell and (besides her safety, U of I), only gained admission to Northwestern (which she will attend), where her brother is currently a student. Now, Northwestern is obviously not quite as selective as Harvard, but it is still a very selective school that turned down a lot of great applicants this year. I think that her legacy push, coupled with the fact that our school <em>does</em> send at least a few kids to Northwestern each year, helped her out where she may otherwise have not been quite so lucky.</p>

8

<p>Obviously, my candidates were all not as good as someone. I'm not suggesting that they were turned down irrationally, only that -- and I'm being honest here -- I don't think they are meaningfully distinguishable from the kids I know who were accepted at the same schools (all of whom are great kids, by the way, but none of whom walk on water). If there's a legacy preference, that would mean that there's some extra weight in the balance. So if, for instance, a kid gets into Princeton with no legacy ties, but not Stanford with legacy, that doesn't look like there's a meaningful legacy preference at work at Stanford.</p>

<p>Suze: I don't know the wealth and/or generosity levels of all the candidates of whom I am thinking, but I know enough of them to know that the results were pretty surprising to me -- as I said, mid-six-figure to low-seven-figure cumulative giving in some cases. (The two legacy kids I know who were accepted at the "right" school were nowhere near that ballpark, by they way. Neither were some of the rejected kids, of course.) Obviously, some families give considerably more than that; I think they belong in a somewhat different category.</p>

9

<p>No, my family only has good things to say about Princeton :). True, my parents aren't terribly active alums, but at the same time, they subscribe to all the alumni magazines/newspapers, and give some small sum of money (I don't know quite how much, but I'd guess $1000-2000/yr). I just think that when I didn't apply ED, when I didn't have the greatest extras (again, I WAS involved...just not to the extent that they probably expected), and when they didn't have to worry about how it would look at my school, they just decided to put me out of my misery and reject me. In a way, I prefer it like this, since Princeton probably won't take anyone off the waiting list this year and being on it would just make it harder for me to totally move on...but in another way, I do kind of wish that I could at least say "Oh, I was waitlisted". Whatever!</p>

10

<p>Notre Dame, which may not be "hyper-selective" like HYP but is still a top-20 school, will admit all academically qualified legacy applicants (with a few exceptions if a student shows significant character flaws, I'm assuming). The acceptance rate of legacies is about twice the overall rate, around 50%. Notre Dame hopes to fill at least 25% of each incoming class with legacies. So, it's still in existence at one school.</p>

11

<p>Mathmom: For what it's worth, Harvard has been the worst school for legacies in my vicarious experience. The last garden-variety legacy kid I know who got in there is a senior now. On the other hand, I know a couple kids at Harvard who were rejected (after applying ED or SCEA) at their legacy schools (and some who were accepted at the legacy school, too -- but if a kid gets into all of HYPS, that doesn't mean much about legacy preferences, either).</p>

<p>Corranged: I'm sure legacy is meaningful at a lot of schools, including as a marketing device, and I'm not surprised at all that Notre Dame has it as an official policy. But it's not at the hyper-selective level of HYPS.</p>

12

<p>Our local hs had 6 Stanford admits this year. 4 were ED legacies who were not admitted to other elites RD, one was URM, and one was RD.</p>

13

<p>JHS, if you look at income levels of Stanford and Harvard grads, especially those that attended the prof schools, you'll see a lot of multimillionaires. I work for an excellent private college counselor. Believe me, legacy tied to money is a major hook. Cumulative 7 figures isn't enough though. A solid candidate who can bring money are the legacies that get attention.</p>

14

<p>I have seen a couple of admits that I think are legacy admits this go round. I am sure the legacy game is still going on. I don't really have a problem with it in the cases I know because their parents are great, and the students will do fine. </p>

<p>The 2 schools are in HYPS.</p>

15

<p>Advantagious, I think you were poorly advised -- everything I have read says that legacy status counts only in the ED stage. I think they figure that a kid who truly wants to follow his parents footsteps will apply ED -- an RD app. looks a lot more like a kid who wants to go elsewhere, but is sending in an extra app to the parent's alma mater to keep them happy. </p>

<p>I think coupled with the fact that you are coming from a school that is obviously off the Princeton radar with no compelling hooks was enough to put you in the "reject" pile. I think that the top Ivies' (HYP) tend to maintain very small waitlists because they just don't need a huge waitlist -- so a rejection does NOT mean - "not good enough" -- it just means "we didn't pick you and don't want to string you along".</p>

16

<p>No, I wasn't poorly advised, although I can see what you would say that. My application to Princeton was serious--I tried to emphasize that in my interview, for what it's worth--but I was/am terrified of ED in general and was/am simply unsure of Princeton as THE right school for me. I knew that I was probably giving away a lot in not applying ED, but it just wasn't right for me. </p>

<p>On the school front, I think my school certainly may have hurt me, although that rankles me somewhat, since it certainly isn't my fault that the school/school body is not focused on sending kids to Eastern schools, period, and I really couldn't have done too much better on the standardized tests that can be used to validate one's HS curriculum. I do agree, though, that mainly, if you only accept 7% of the applicants and probably waitlist another 7 or so %, it doesn't take to much to push an application out of that range and really isn't--or so I will continue to believe!--a mark of your worth/intelligence. It isn't terribly easy to accept, though.</p>

17

<p>Calmom: The top Ivies maintan ridiculously large waiting lists relative to their use of them (0). I think they have cut back on their waiting lists, though, and that's probably the right thing to do.</p>

<p>Suze: If giving an average of $25-50,000/year for 20 years isn't "enough", then we're not talking about a meaningful legacy preference at all. Believe me, I know plenty of Harvard and Stanford grads who qualify as multi-millionaires. That level of giving pretty much requires multi-millionaire status; giving a lot more requires really significantly greater wealth.</p>

18

<p>It's actually pretty amazing how many big gifts in education were given by other than the very wealthy, but this Country has created great wealth in the last few decades. From Wall Street to Greenwich to Hollywood to Silicon Valley, there are many more people in the position to give millions than there used to be. The Price of Admission has interesting anecdotes.</p>

19

<p>Mathson didn't apply SCEA. The interviewer asked him about it and he quite honestly told him that Harvard wasn't his first choice. Maybe they liked his honesty!</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Another good point: your son goes to a school that consistently gets a few kids into Harvard--that can help as well. In contrast, my school only very rarely (one kid ever 2 or so years in classes of 700+) sends anyone to an Ivy period, and I don't know who was last admitted to Princeton, if anyone ever has been. As sad as it seems (to me), I do think that not having that responsibility, or at least history, of giving X school a few admits also works against the applicants.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How important is the school’s history? Kids from inner city or rural public schools are truly at a disadvantage.</p>