<p>On November 8, 2006 and December 6, 2006 the record published two differing opinions about this highly charged issue.
The November article condemned legacy preferences as non-meritocratic.
The December article defended them for fostering a continuity of support for the school.
What do future Ephs think?</p>
<p>Given the increasing size and strength of the legacy pool, and Williams "target" of 12% or so legacies in each class, it <em>seems</em> that being a legacy is no longer that much of an advantage. Details here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ephblog.com/archives/002649.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ephblog.com/archives/002649.html</a></p>
<p>If you are thinking about legacy status as giving a "lesser qualified" applicant an advantage over a "more qualified" applicant, I don't believe that legacy status does help much. </p>
<p>We have just gone through the admissions process. I have a rough idea of the profiles of a number of legacy applicants and of both some successful and some unsuccessful non-legacy applicants (but of course I have not seen anyone's recommendations or essays, which could make a huge difference in any applicant's fate -- a very large caveat). Many of the legacy applicants are extremely well qualified and what legacy status seems to do for them is to help them stand out in a pool of other, equally or slightly less qualified applicants. In a bigger school where admissions were more stats-driven, that would not make much of a difference. At Williams, where each class is hand-crafted, it seems to make much more of a difference. No two candidates are alike, of course, but some are quite similar and it is there that legacy status, artistic talent, athleticism, geography, leadership, or just being a really smart and quirkily interesting person (and many legacies have a lot of these desired traits) makes a difference.</p>
<p>With the possible exception of "developmental" admits (and that's something I know nothing about, nor do I know of any examples at Williams), I don't see Williams "dipping" (accepting lower standards) for legacy applicants. The legacy applicant pool that I am aware of is highly self-selecting, with many of those applying having taken advantage of the college's offer to provide a college counseling chat over the pre-senior year summer (and effectively steer legacies elsewhere if they don't stand a decent chance). As a result, most of the legacy students who do apply are quite well qualified, which makes the percentage of legacy applicants who are accepted misleadingly large. </p>
<p>It's not a sure thing by any means even amongst high-stat legacy applicants. Some apparently highly qualified legacy applicants don't get in. That may be where the recommendations, essays, and other things we don't see play a large part or it could be that something else is going on (admissions decisions just aren't very transparent so none of us outside of Stetson can know exactly what's going on).</p>
<p>I am hoping that this thread is not going to turn into a bashing of legacy students. My child is already a little skittish about acknowledging that she is a legacy, which is a shame because I loved my time at Williams and am thrilled that she will have the (even better) opportunities that Williams (now) provides -- something I'd like for her to feel comfortable celebrating publicly. I think that a lot of CCers already know who she is so I'll respect her privacy and I won't post her stats; you'll have to trust me on this: she was extremely well qualified for Williams (as are virtually all of the other legacy accepted students that I know, not just in this incoming class but over the last decade). </p>
<p>When I read The Record, I often notice familiar surnames here and there. Williams is far from a closed world filled with generations from the same families, but there is a certain percentage of legacy students and, as a whole, they certainly make their marks, academically, athletically, in leadership, and in the arts (which speaks highly to me of their qualifications). </p>
<p>Reading over this posting, I see that I am somewhat defensive. My answer to the original poster is that I don't assume legacy admissions are anti-meritocratic.</p>
<p>"I don't assume legacy admissions are anti-meritocratic."</p>
<p>I too don't assume legacy admissions are anti-meritocratic; I DO assume that, for most, having Williams alumni parents will likely result in the applicants coming from higher income families, with more knowledge of prestige colleges, more access to scholastic resources, more verbal skills within the family, greater ability to package an applicant well. In other words, (and with exceptions), applicants with legacy status are more likely to exhibit certain kinds of "merit".</p>
<p>My d., who is a legacy, was heavily recruited at Williams, but for reasons having nothing to do with her legacy status. She turned them down, but I think it would be true that, with the exception of family income, she had all the advantages that are often associated with having Williams grads as parents.</p>
<p>From my own student days, I have some very, very funny stories about legacies, but they took place a long time ago.</p>
<p>I timed out. I was going to add that one could argue that legacy students have an advantage because they tend to attend high-performing schools and they have well-educated parents to guide them. Yet, I am confident that the Admissions people make allowances for students who come from weak schools (hence the advice to applicants to make the most of wherever they are) and that they reach out to students from less well-educated families. The one very clear advantage that Williams legacy applicants have over the general pool of other high school seniors is that they know to apply to (and tend to treasure) Williams -- an undeniably huge advantage in the Williams admissions process.</p>
<p>The question is not whether legacies are held to a lesser standard, but whether other factors justify the divergent standards.<br>
When an alumnus gives his heart and soul to Williams for thirty years, it is only natural that his or her child be given some extra consideration.
Nonetheless, to deny that certain legacies are the beneficiaries of a form of nepotism is less than honest.</p>
<p>Are state universities anti-meritocratic? State schools routinely give in-state residents preference in admissions over out-of-state residents. And they routinely charge different rates for in-state and out-of-state tuition as well.</p>
<p>Are religious universities anti-meritocratic? Would anyone be surprised if Georgetown, BYU, Principia, or Yeshiva gave preference to applicants of particular religious backgrounds? </p>
<p>You may respond that state schools are largely funded by in-state taxpayers, who therefore deserve special consideration in admissions. Or that religious schools are largely funded by religious organizations, who therefore deserve special consideration in admissions. Fair enough. But secular private schools are largely funded by alumni donations. By the same logic, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that those alumni deserve special consideration as well.</p>
<p>We accept that state universities can have a "favored constituency" based on financial support. We accept that religious schools can have a "favored constituency" based on financial support. </p>
<p>If these schools can have "favored constituencies" -- and they do -- can a secular private school have one as well ?</p>
<p>Incidentally, I am not a legacy myself.</p>