Legacy applications and Early Decision vs. Regular Decision

<p>OK Cpt, I got bored. Here’s what I figure based on the Crimson Article.</p>

<p>Harvard accepted class: ca. 1600
Harvard overall acceptance rate: ca. 7%
Harvard legacy acceptance rate: ca. 30%
Number in class that are legacies: 200 (12.5%)
Number in class that are not legacies: 1400</p>

<p>Number who applied total: 22,857 (assuming 7% accept rate)
Number who applied who were legacies: 667 (assuming 30% accept rate)
Number who applied who were not legacies: 22,857-667=22,190
Acceptance rate for non legacies: 6.3%</p>

<p>I don’t think the difference is something to get your panties in a wad about. If you have the goods to be accepted at Harvard. You should apply, the overall acceptance rate is not that different. Don’t forget that many of those athlete/musician etc spot will also be legacies, so I don’t think they have a huge impact on the final results, though obviously they will have some.</p>

<p>I don’t know what schools have 20% legacy populations, not HYP in any event.</p>

<p>I am not even a little bit worried about developmental admits. They are a tiny fraction of the population, and their money brings real benefits to the school. More power to them. Harvard became what it is because their alumni throw money at them.</p>

<p>I think Mathmom’s math assumes 100% yield for the sake of calculation, but nonetheless, her point still stands.
I think it’s a fool’s errand to sit there and worry about the acceptance rates of populations-not-you. It doesn’t change anything. Either you’re in the reasonable ballpark to apply, or you aren’t.</p>

<p>You can dig around and do the math for most colleges if you dig around a bit. For example everything you need to know is here <a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june04/merrow_6-22.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june04/merrow_6-22.html&lt;/a&gt; for Amherst (well you’ll have to look up the overall acceptance rate and the size of the class somewhere else.) Obviously its a huge boost to be a legacy at Amherst, but they are a smaller total percentage of the class than at HYP. Not being an athlete is probably more of an issue there!: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Pizzagirl is right, I forgot about yield, at Harvard it’s 80% or so if I remember correctly.</p>

<p>cpt – You are mixing things up a lot. I don’t know what the exact legacy percentage is at Yale right now, but for years it has bounced around between 10% and 15% – so probably 12-13%. Brenzel says 20% of legacies were admitted this year, which seems low to me, in historical terms, but not vastly so. For years, purely on the basis of my and my friends’ experience, I have been saying 25-30%. Of course, that’s much higher than the average admission rate, which has been in the vicinity of 6%.</p>

<p>A standard Yale class is about 1,300, of which 160-165 or so will be legacies. Yale’s general yield is around 70%, meaning it accepts about 1,850 students to fill its class. I have never seen anything that specifies the legacy yield, but based on my friends’ experience it would be darn close to 100% – I know of one legacy kid accepted in the past decade who enrolled someplace else (Harvard). I won’t assume a 100% yield, so it looks like something like 10% of those accepted, say 185, will be legacies.</p>

<p>The overall applicant pool is about 30,000. If 185 legacies are accepted with an acceptance rate of 20-25%, that would mean 750-900 legacies in the applicant pool. Note that a certain number of legacies are also URMs and/or recruited athletes, too; there’s some overlap between the legacy percentages and those categories, and also international students, who represent about 10% of the class. If you add up all of those groups, and adjust for the overlaps, you are probably talking about 40% of a class, maybe a bit more. In other words – and this should come as a shock to no one – in rough terms only a little more than half of any class is comprised of unhooked kids accepted solely on the basis of their academic and extracurricular high school records. They do probably represent a somewhat larger percentage of acceptances, since I think the legacy, international, and recruited athlete yields are very high.</p>

<p>As for developmental admits, that is maybe 4-5 kids/year, at most. Trust me, on the basis of quite a number of people I know, donating $1 million over the course of 15-20 years doesn’t move the admissions needle much, if at all. Five times that probably does, but in the case of an unqualified kid all it may get you is a very polite, very heartfelt meeting long before any applications would be submitted at which it is made clear that the child should not apply.</p>

<p>As for the supposed 150-point SAT advantage vs. Yale’s claim that legacies have higher-than-average SATs: The academic study that estimated the SAT advantage covered 14-15 colleges, most of which were meaningfully less selective than HYPS, and some of which I believe use legacy preference as a recruiting device, especially of full-pay kids. Also, in estimating that advantage, I believe the study factored out things like athletic and URM recruiting, and international students (whose CR scores are often below average if they are not native English speakers). The “average” SATs to which Dean Brenzel and President Levin refer no doubt includes all athletic recruits, URMs, and international students. So it’s theoretically possible that Yale legacy students as a group have SATs that are higher than the average for the class as a whole but lower than the average of their unhooked, non-URM classmates. Except, I doubt that’s true, or that it’s true by anything like 150 points. The legacies I know who have gotten in (and most of the legacies I know who were rejected), whose SATs I knew, did not have SATs low enough to be 150 points lower than anything.</p>

<p>Finally, I note the Harvard admissions office claim that I heard second-hand from a disappointed Harvard alum, and which various other people on CC have confirmed: Harvard periodically looks at its admission rate for Yale and Princeton legacies (who receive no special consideration, of course), and that rate is essentially the same as the rate at which it admits Harvard legacies. In other words, there is really no legacy preference beyond the many advantages conferred by having smart, sophisticated, and generally affluent parents. Or, in the alternative, what goes on in special legacy admissions is that a few legacy kids who might have gotten accepted on academic merit are shunted aside for slightly less qualified kids of parents who mean more to the university. It’s hard to get too worked up about that.</p>

<p>I will close by saying that, at least in my experience, legacy kids admitted to Yale (or similar colleges) who apply elsewhere generally are accepted elsewhere, often everywhere elsewhere. That happened with one friend’s child this year – accepted at Yale with legacy status, and also at Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Williams, and Swarthmore (and rejected nowhere). And plenty of legacy kids rejected at Yale are accepted someplace equally selective, like the friend of my kids who was rejected at Yale, despite legacy status, and accepted at Harvard and Oxford (and graduated summa cum laude from Harvard). In real life, legacy status does not seem to mean much.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Brenzel is no longer dean of admissions at Yale, so I doubt he is saying anything about this years #s. Maybe it’s just a slip of the tongue, and you meant Jeremiah Quinlan, who is now dean of admissions or maybe you are looking at old data. I can’t tell which.</p>

<p>Here’s an article about legacy admissions at Stanford. The admit rate is twice that of the overall rate. [Stanford</a> Daily | Connections to University can affect admissions decision](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12/connections-to-university-can-affect-admissions-decision/]Stanford”>Connections to University can affect admissions decision)</p>

<p>As to the percentage of the class they constitute, Stanford doesn’t say, but the estimate from Golden is 15-20%.</p>

<p>The other thing, cpt, is – if you suspect that (insert elite school of your choice) is letting in those darn underqualified legacies and / or developmental admits who are cutting unfairly into the students who “should” be there, and that they are doing so at such a magnitude that it meaningfully negatively impacts the caliber of the student body, the rational response would be to say - well, guess I don’t want to go there, cross that one off the list! - rather than want to go there soooo badly. I don’t get the concept that these places let in massive quantities of underqualified people but by golly, I’d give my left arm to go there, too.</p>

<p>So Stanford’s in the same ballpark. How many data points do people need, anyway? I see no reason you couldn’t extrapolate these schools to most top 20 schools.</p>

<p>Pizzagirl, I have quite a few posts on this board, and on none of them do I say anything of the sort. I suppport legacy and development admissions. Won’t find me ragging on that. I am not happy with the lack of transparency. I’ve personally been to some of these sessions where the hemming, hawing and “i don’t knows” are given, and in my case, I was there when Brenzel was doing a song and dance when he danged well knew the numbers. There was ten minutes wasted of implying that legacies might even be held to a higher standard! If that is the case, someone said, why even have a legacy flag? And there was no good answer given. </p>

<p>At one private school where I watched the college cycle for 8 years, it was clear as can be that the legacy card was a very strong one. At a prep schoool where most of the kids do go to selective colleges, one can see this very clearly. THose who got into HPY, pretty much had a strong hook, and legacy was one of them that superceded class rank and test scores. The counselors there figured it was a 150-200 SAT1 point advantage to be a legacy at the most selective schools, still less than a lot of other hooks. So when you watch someone at the college hedge and try to get out of telling it as it is, it’s not becoming at all. </p>

<p>But I do understand why it is done, and do support it. I am assuming that these schools are monitoring the stats for such admissions carefully and have good reason to have the proportions as they do. I am aso supportive of URM, first generation, challenging life situations, diversity, athletic, development and celebrity flags since I think it does add to the college community. </p>

<p>But for some schools like UPenn, where alums are specifically told that their kids will only get legacy preferance in ED, it does affect the accept stats considerably. I , for one, find the stats useful in a lot of way when one is assessing the situation. A lot of developments this year with misstated stats and outright lying about them has made me downright leary of some of the claims. And if you saw the stumbling and bumbling in answering straight forward questions that I did, one wonders what actual numbers are.</p>

<p>Yes, it’s too bad they don’t like to answer these questions, but I think it’s often because they fear they will be misinterpreted. Except for Stanford there was no evidence at our high school that being a legacy made much difference at all. Everyone who got into HYM etc had great grades, scores and ECs. And if a 150 point difference in scores means that legacies have 720s while non-legacies have 770s, I’m not sure that’s a big deal either. I’ve seen no evidence that this is true. Like JHS, the kids who get into HYPMCS usually get into multiple schools though not necessarily every one of the top schools they apply to.</p>

<p>I watched college admissions at a top-quality private school for 10 years, and at the public academic magnet where my kids finished high school, and through friends I was generally aware of what was happening at other private and public schools in my area, and I had no idea what legacy meant at HYPS. Legacy kids represented a high proportion of those who were accepted, but they were a high proportion of the applicants, too. I can’t remember seeing a single legacy accepted at those schools who wasn’t a legitimate candidate, one of the top four or five kids in a strong class. If there were two or three equally strong candidates, the legacy probably got chosen more often, but not anything like invariably. It’s hard to put too much weight on legacy when the legacy gets admitted to comparable schools as a non-legacy, and is either accepted or rejected at the legacy school. In one of my kids’ class, at the private school twelve kids applied to Yale early, six of whom were legacies, and only one student was accepted, a completely unhooked, non-legacy, un-flashy kid. And that was it; everyone else was deferred then rejected. At the public school, five kids applied early, including two legacies (who were academically the strongest of the five); everyone was deferred, and then one of the legacies (the strongest of the applicants) was accepted RD (there and everywhere else). I see really strong legacies accepted and rejected, just like everyone else. </p>

<p>At HYPS, at least, I haven’t seen less-strong legacies accepted over clearly superior non-legacies, other than as athletic recruits. I wouldn’t say the same of Penn. And you don’t have to go too far down the academic food chain before legacy becomes an automatic admission ticket for anyone remotely qualified.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My alma mater releases the regular acceptance rate and the legacy acceptance rate (I don’t know if it’s public-public, but it goes to alums). But what, precisely, am I supposed to do with that info anyway? </p>

<p>In counseling S, why on earth would I have communicated anything other than that legacy was at most a feather on the scale? What possible good would it do to think anything but? I know a lot of people on CC try to suss out what they think <em>their particular</em> chances are, but I think that’s really stupid. The Anyway, I don’t see one bit of difference in knowing that the legacy acceptance rate was (in this case) roughly twice the non-legacy rate. The rates were still LOW and it was nowhere near a sure thing, and prepare yourself for rejection and be pleasantly surprised if you’re accepted. THAT is the key takeaway, IMO. </p>

<p>And if I’m <em>not</em> a legacy, what possible good does it do to know what legacy acceptance rate is? It’s not like I can control whether or not a lot of legacies apply. It’s like complaining over the athlete acceptance rate. Well, yes, athletes with certain credentials get accepted. Good for them. Nothing I can do with it, so agonizing over that information seems stupid. If I really seriously morally object to legacy / development / athlete / celebrity / whatever admissions, I can vote with my money and not apply.</p>