<p>Anyone know any stats or have any experience as it relates to admission of legacies? I know it's generally easier, but I was wondering how much. Thanks!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only stated benefit is that the officer will read the application a third time. There was a particular applicant with strong stats on this forum that was rejected ED, despite the double legacy-- admissions seems to be difficult this year.</p>
<p>I think it depends on how involved the alumni are in duke. I know someone who got in ED this year with lower stats, but her family continues to donate and be involved in the duke community.</p>
<p>1) At Duke, legacy status helps, but – critically – not all legacies are equal. For example, the child of an alumnus who has not substantially participated in the life of the University, has not devoted significant time and talent to enhance Duke, and/or has not generously donated is less likely to receive any decisive advantage.</p>
<p>2) Further, and also crucially, legacies – precisely like EVERY other accepted candidate – MUST have outstanding grades, test scores, extracurriculars, and so forth. Legacy status alone simply will not overcome a less-than-excellent performance record.</p>
<p>Be glad you have it, but don’t count on it.</p>
<p>It is a tiebreaker. Most legacies apply ED which has a 25% acceptance rate for 2018. Regular applicants will have about an 8% acceptance rate.</p>
<p>alanhouston - It may be a tiebreaker ONLY if point #1 in post #4 (above) has been attained.</p>
<p>@toptier - I agree with you that not all legacies are alike… however, a legacy is a legacy and if your parent went to Duke, you will have a legacy advantage regardless of how much time/money/involvement the parent has had with Duke. Legacies who have donated lots of $$ may be developmental cases, or those who are significantly involved may have more of a boost. But overall, the legacy boost will be the same for someone who has had no involvement with Duke as the person who has donated average amounts of $$ and time.</p>
<p>@cba: In post #4 to this thread, I intentionally and specifically used the terms “substantially participated,” “devoted significant time and talent,” and “generously donated” (these are verbatim quotations). I did so to differentiate unambiguously between: (1) those legacy applicants whose alumni antecedents have contributed time, talent and treasury to Duke in ways that clearly exceed the average alumnus, and (2) those who have not. In addition, my post (#4) also indicated, “legacy status helps, but – critically – not all legacies are equal,” which certainly highlights the fact that all legacies receive some admissions advantage.</p>
<p>Based on the aforementioned quotations, I do not understand how my post (#4) is at odds with yours?</p>