Would a child effectively waive or reduce their legacy advantage if they don’t apply early action and they wait until regular decision to apply?
Based on the article that Stanford sent to alumni a few years ago (I think that it was in their magazine), it sounded like legacy really didn’t help all that much anyway. Of course, what really goes on in the admissions office is rather opaque from outside.
Thanks, @DadTwoGirls. I don’t remember seeing the article, but I was under the impression that it provided a bit of a bump, and that given the ~5% admit rate, was statistically significant.
Not specific to Stanford, but showing that the school is your first choice and applying ED definitely can give you an edge if you are a direct legacy – son or daughter of a grad. That being said, Stanford is a crap shoot for all applicants!
So what to do @astute12? How does a student know so early in the game which college will be best for him or her? ED ups the ante in that crap shoot, and it would seem, could lead to some not so great decisions. But, on the other hand, if you have a legacy advantage, and that advantage is greater during ED, wouldn’t you be foolish not to apply ED?
It’s a hard question…our son could have applied ED to Northwestern (dad went there) was on the line GPA wise, but had the ACT score and ECs. College counselor told him if he applied ED he would have best chance of getting in. He wasn’t sure and was thinking about applying to music schools. Ended up applying RD Northwestern, denied admission, but got into his top choice university with a music school with full tuition scholarship, so for him it worked out. He really wasn’t sure what he wanted in November, but by January he had a better idea, so I was glad he didn’t apply ED. I’m just glad we are done with the whole thing! What a stressful year it has been. If you kid really has a good feeling about a school and it has a legacy component, go for it.
If your kid is still on the fence about where to attend, remember that Stanford is just REA - she/he doesnt have to commit before hearing from other schools. My kid was admitted REA but only committed once waitlisted at UChicago. I am convinced the kid would have ended up at Stanford anyway.
My kid is a legacy (my PhD is from there), but we were told by HS counsellor that deferral was what to expect.
If yours does not have a strong preference, apply early where the possibility of admission is strongest, then wait until the kid hears from all schools and clears his/her head.
@astute12 --you faced exactly the choice we will face in the future. Thank you for sharing that it is possible to resist the lure of a legacy preference and have everything work out! Congratulations–and, I don’t blame you one bit for being relieved that it is all over.
@caesarcreek --thank you for pointing out the REA distinction. No matter how much I read on CC, I still have a lot to learn about the whole application process. From what you’re saying, there doesn’t seem to be a downside to applying REA–unless I’m missing something?
@ChezCurie the downside of REA is thar you can only apply to one school with that status.* So if a student is on the fence about a hard-to-get-in place like Stanford, but has a positive inclination towards a school with a better fit (though less “fancy”), I’d say go for fit early. An early acceptance at a place the student really looks forward to is way better than a deferral from a place he/she is skeptical about.
*exceptions made for public institutions. Michigan kids for example can also apply to Michigan
I am a Stanford grad and I have sources in admissions. Being a legacy is of minimal benefit unless you are contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the university. In fact, I believe your total contributions need to be over 1 million to really have much impact. Even then, I know of kids who have been rejected. Given that info, and the fact that I donate about $100 a year, we were nevertheless advised by the admissions people to apply REA if we wanted the legacy status to help at all. Well, it didn’t work, even though my daughter was a 1540, 4.4, URM, 5 on AP tests student in high school. That was 4 years ago. She got into some great schools, but nothing is guaranteed at Stanford unless your name is Katie Ledecky! 1600, straight A’s, and a bunch of EC’s guarantees nothing. They are looking for the exceptional.
There are not that many “exceptional” students. There are a lot of very strong students. Just like only a few professional athletes every year become All-Stars or make it into the Hall of Fame, there are only a few students every year that are clearly exceptional. Probably only a handful in the world in math and physics. What you are saying is that the odds against admittance keep going down because colleges are looking for every reason to admit various groups so they can check boxes and feel good that they are somehow doing what they can to cure perceived social injustices. So great candidates from good families get passed over for some admissions officer with a chip on their soldier.
“… great candidates from good families get passed over…”
can you please define “great candidates” and “good families”, I am at a loss here…
Stanford guarantees legacies a second reading of their application. That’s the advantage. Some protection against a reader in a dark mood.
The exception is for children of very large donors. They get some preference (and about 10% are admiited.) My takeaway was that if I could make a gift of that size, we’d be so wiped out that we’d qualify for free tuition.
This is what alumni were told on family tours at reunions a few years back.
I think the legacy flag needs to go with many other qualities to make a difference. REA at Stanford yields only about 750 places from some 8,000-9,000+ apps. Many of those places are for athletes. Many legacy applicants likely blend into the pool and can get admitted on their own merit, but it probably acts to tip a candidate over… this tip is probably more effective in the REA stage than in the RD stage where there are many more well-qualified candidates. And I have read about the second reading as well for legacies.
I am not so sure about legacies who contribute financially, whether that makes one a stronger legacy candidate. If the contribution is into the tens of millions, that becomes more of a “development” case than a legacy case.
On the other hand, a legacy whose family has been very involved in significant non-financial ways and is in regular contact with the development office will also get a bit of a lift.
Someone once described the legacy admission phenomenon to me his way: are you a true legacy, or are you just a prior customer who got educated at the institution? I think that may be true at most universities that take legacy status into account.