LEGACY questions

<br>


<br>

<p>Harvard has also rejected more-qualified legacies than him. I've seen it happen. I wouldn't be surprised if he got in, but I would be surprised if he got rejected either. He just has to take his shot and hope for a good outcome - like everybody else.</p>

<p>After you've gone through several application cycles with Harvard and seen all the fabulous kids that get rejected, including some legacies, athletes, and URMs, you learn to never say "You're in."</p>

<p>quote from 436qj
"i asked an admissions officer when i was there and she said legacy does not count for more with EA like it does with some schools, but would i benefit from being in a smaller pool of applicants?"</p>

<p>This is interesting -- my understanding from reading this board is that you're pretty much losing your legacy advantage if you don't apply early. Maybe I'm mistaken.</p>

<p>that is what i though too, but i specifically asked the admissions officer and she told me that you do not get a bigger boost for legacy by applying early. even so, everyone probably benefits from being in a smaller pool of applicants and having the school be a definite first choice and be a legacy is porbably a good combination</p>

<p>"I wouldn't be surprised if he got in, but I would be surprised if he got rejected either."</p>

<p>So you are agreeing with me, coureur.</p>

<p>436qJ: feel free to PM me if you have any questions.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>No, not if you are sticking with this "you're in" nonsense.</p>

<p>Did you read my post (#24), where I quoted you?</p>

<p>Edit: I don't think his admission is an absolutely certain thing. But given his scores and the legacy factor, I think he has substantially better odds than the average, non-hooked applicant.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Of course. That is what I was responding to.</p>

<p>There is a huge gulf between an application that could go either way vs. "You're in." I hold with the former and not the latter.</p>