Legacy preference ED v RD

Applying to College Early Decision / Early Action
1

I have a question about legacy status at the ED stage. I’ve seen articles mention how some Ivies etc admit 30% of legacy applicants but as far as I know these stats do not distinguish early from RD. Everyone knows that legacy preference is stronger for ED, and also I imagine that those who feel they have a better shot are more likely to apply then. But I would imagine a bunch of legacies who choose for any number of reasons to ED elsewhere will still end up applying RD when there’s no opportunity cost, so why not throw your hat in the ring? And I imagine those candidates will have a lower admit rate.

Is this true? And if so, is there any info on what legacy admit rates look like if you focus just on those who apply ED / EA as opposed to the over all acceptance rate?

2

I doubt there is a single university that published this level of detail to the general public

2 Likes
3

Some schools really only give legacy preference in the ED round, but they may still admit legacies in the RD round. Some legacy applicants are also athletic recruits. There is legacy and then there is legacy with major donor status. Many legacy applicants are very highly qualified.

You really need to explore this for your particular legacy schools and your particular situation. Agree that you’re highly unlikely to get this as broadly as you would like.

4 Likes
4

As always, I think it is worth be a little cautious about what “everyone knows”. My understanding is a few colleges over time have openly suggested they only had a legacy preference in ED, and some people have then generalized that to all colleges doing that, but that is not necessarily a valid assumption.

In terms of data, as another poster pointed out, colleges do not willingly give out really detailed admissions data, and legacy data in particular is not necessarily something colleges really love to discuss. However, Harvard was forced to as part of the litigation it was involved in.

This is complicated by the fact Harvard only introduced REA partway through the litigation (which helps explain why there were more RD legacy applicants than you might expect). But as I understand it, the numbers (admitted/applied) were:

Total: 1560/4644 (33.6%)
RD (including when there was no REA): 709/3011 (23.5%)
REA (once introduced): 851/1633 (52.1%)

Aha, some people said, Harvard gives more of a legacy boost in REA.

Well, maybe, but maybe also stronger, better-fitting legacies were more likely to apply REA to Harvard once that became an option.

Still, this is confirmation that the legacy admit rate is likely higher in ED/REA/SCEA at most colleges. But whether there would actually be a higher legacy “boost” at every college once you controlled for other factors? Not so clear.

And for what it is worth, Yale has specifically said no, meaning it tells alum parents early legacy applicants must meet exactly the same criteria for admission as regular legacy applicants, and that they only accept legacies early when they are confident they would accept them regular as well.

1 Like
5

100% agree with this. And in the case of Penn, the head of admissions who stated that doesn’t work there anymore…new leadership, often new policies.

3 Likes
6

That’s a really good point. Particularly with so much attention being given to legacy policies recently, I would not assume older statements are still valid.

1 Like
7

Which is likely the case for any statement made in the past.

2 Likes
8

Or data! That Harvard data I cited is from a different era at this point.

9

What year was that btw?

10

I think it depends - and the schools aren’t going to tell you. S24 is applying to a SLAC where he is a multi-generational legacy - but in RD. He likes the school a lot but it isn’t his first choice so he didn’t want to ED/EDII. This may or may not hurt his application - it is a reach but he is well above the 75% academically and, well, he is a boy - like most LACs, they get many more applications from girls than boys. So all that to say - apply to the schools you want to attend and don’t worry about the legacy affect. Don’t commit to ED just because of your legacy status if it isn’t your actual first choice.

1 Like
11

According to the expert reports, it started with the 2016 admission cycle.

1 Like
12

And I know I have said this before, but having reviewed discussions from prior cycles, I know we are just a few months away from a whole bunch of kids getting admitted to a whole bunch of very selective colleges RD, necessarily many of which they simply won’t choose.

And although I didn’t try to track this, I am dead sure that will involve a lot of legacy kids getting admitted RD . . . and again not infrequently just choosing a different college anyway.

So, yeah. As always, don’t apply binding somewhere just because it would be an “impressive” admit to the rankings crowd, not even if you think being a legacy improves that shot. Of course if it is a legit favorite and affordable and all that, then fine. But there is seriously no cosmic award waiting for you just because you figured out how to game the system to get a higher-ranked admission . . . which you don’t actually prefer.

13

If I were to generalize, the more selective the school and the higher its yield, the less likely applying EA, REA, SCEA is going to provide a boost for legacies or non-legacies. For schools that have ED, the bigger boost is likely to come from applying ED vs being a legacy. Those schools likely are using ED as a way to enhance yield and hopefully intercept some students that have a realistic chance at competing schools.

I actually think in most cases that REA/SCEA standards are higher than RD given that there are plenty of REA/SCEA deferreds who get in RD. This implies that those students (absent some huge positive development) didn’t quite make the grade for a clear yes in the early round and the school wanted to see if there were better candidates in the RD round, and there were not.

1 Like
14

Yes, the mere existence of deferral implies it usually makes no particular sense for a college to admit anyone ED/REA/SCEA who they would not also clearly admit in RD.

I do understand in some cases, some colleges would not want to risk “losing” someone who was deferred but then they decide they want to admit anyway. Of course necessarily their incentives can’t be too high, since otherwise they would then just admit them on their normal standards for clear admits. And for colleges with high RD yield anyway, that further weakens the incentive to compromise on those standards.

Still, a few colleges in a few cases might think it is better to admit an A-/B+ applicant in ED than take their chances on getting an A+/A admit to yield out of RD, based on their experience of yields among their A+/A admits in RD. The most likely colleges to think that way are the ones that get a ton of A+/A applications from people who actually have them buried deep on a preference list behind a bunch of other colleges that also admit A+/A applicants. Aka Tufts Syndrome.

I just think that is a way narrower case, both in terms of colleges and applicants, than some seem to assume.

And really I see no reason to think being a legacy would change that logic in favor of the applicant. If anything, more the opposite. Like, who is more likely to yield in the end, the ED/REA/SCEA legacy applicant you defer before admitting, or the ED/REA/SCEA non-legacy applicant you defer before admitting?

I’m going to guess their data shows that legacy deferrals-to-admits end up yielding at higher rates, which would then suggest they have less, not more, incentive to early-admit rather than defer legacies they are not sure about.

15

Some schools that encourage this are also known for merit, and they need to monitor yield on that group very carefully to stay within budget.

As a result, they’ll defer decent candidates because they can’t risk having too many say yes. But if they know they are committed, they can count on that kid showing up.

Iirc, Tulane offers merit so may be doing this to manage certainty.

Editted to note that I meant to post this on a different thread, so apologize if it seem non-sequitar ish!)

1 Like
16

Thanks for all the replies. Harvard data especially is interesting.

Confirms my intuition that when you read a stat like legacy admit rate is 30% or whatever it’s likely higher than that for early and lower for RD.

I’m sure a lot of it is the applicant pool. Given the opportunity cost there’s a disincentive to apply early if you think it’s a long shot. But that disincentive is gone when you get to RD. This is true for everyone of course, not just legacies.

And then I understand that colleges have to balance out the class during RD, pay more attention to socioeconomic diversity etc. So there are likely other factors at play as well.

17

It definitely is true for everyone, but I suspect it is also MOST true for legacies.

Like, of course if you don’t even like your legacy college(s), you won’t apply.

But if you actually would like the option to attend your legacy college(s), I assume if you get to the RD round they are normally going to be on your list, right? OK, not if they are like completely impossible. But if you have even a handful of RD reaches and actually like your reachy legacy college, conditional on all that I would think most kids will actually then have them on their final RD list.

In other words, if you told me 20 schools were plausible good RD reach fits for some kid, of which they were going to apply to 3 to 5, and I had to pick one to be in that 3 to 5 . . . if you then told me they were a legacy at one of those 20, I would very likely make that my bet.

2 Likes
18

I’d love to see whether/how this data changed since certain schools rolled out ED2.

19

Good question!

It seems almost inevitable to me that SOME legacy deferrals would then ED II somewhere else, and some would get admitted to their ED II choice, and that would reduce yield.

But is it a lot? That I do not know.

1 Like
20

I don’t think any of us have the data on legacy admissions that would provide the definitive answer. But in my mind there is at least some evidence that applying early is required to reap the full legacy benefit. At S24’s school, where many students are legacies at highly selective schools, the counselors are very clear that you can’t count on any legacy boost if you don’t apply ED. I have no idea what their basis is for this advice but I do trust that they have substantial experience getting legacy students into college. One of S24’s friends, who applied to college last year, was specifically advised that one college where the student was a double legacy would be out of reach in RD. The student applied to the school ED and was admitted. A single data point for sure, but an example of how S24’s college counselors approach this decision.

From the college’s point of view, one of the benefits of legacy admissions is that they help build and maintain a community of very committed alumni. If that is the case, it makes sense to me that the college would like the legacy student who signals that the school is their first choice quite a bit more than the legacy student who adds the school in RD, maybe just to take advantage of higher admissions chances. Given the pervasive negative opinions about legacy admissions these days, I imagine that colleges have an incentive to be extra careful which legacies they admit.