<p>This is second attempt at post..new to this site sorry
Question is about legacy admission chances
My daughter is a legacy applicant..does anyone know percentage of legacy applicants accepted?
Does it matter if applicant is out of state or instate?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance
CLAS 1979</p>
<p>Hi, capa. This is my third time through the college admission process. Each of my children has met with the Alumni Association’s Legacy folks, and it has been very informative. From what I have gathered from each information session, if you are out of state and a legacy, your application is compared (for admission purposes) with the in state pile of applicants, which does give you a better chance of admission. You are still considered out of state for tuition purposes. If you are in state, it might give you a bump in, if it somehow comes down to a legacy and a non-legacy with similar stats. In any case, as many on this site will tell you, being a legacy is no guarantee for admission. Even legacies who seemingly meet all the requirements can be denied admission because the applicant pool is so strong. Good luck to your daughter (and mine!) </p>
<p>Thank you so much…good luck to you and yours as well!</p>
<p>From the CDS, for 2013-2014:</p>
<p>Very Important:
Rigor of secondary school record
Class rank
Academic GPA
Recommendation(s)
First Generation
Alumni/ae relation
State residency
Racial/ethnic status</p>
<p>Important:
Standardized test scores
Application essay
Extracurricular activities
Talent/ability
Character/personal qualities</p>
<p>Considered:
Geographical residence
Volunteer work
Work experience</p>
<p>Not Considered:
Interview
Religious affiliation/commitment
Level of applicant’s interest</p>
<p>So according to their CDS response, legacy status (“Alumni/ae relation”) is more important (“very important”) than standardized test scores, application essay, ECs, talent/ability, and character/personal qualities (all “important”). That seems wrong - if two applicants are otherwise equal, they’d take the legacy over the non-legacy with the higher SAT score? But that’s what it says. Maybe they think a legacy applicant is more likely to accept an admission offer, and so would improve the yield? Maybe they think if there are more alumni in a family, they are more likely to donate?</p>
<p>avillage(dot)web(dot)virginia(dot)edu /iaas/cds/cds1314.shtm</p>
<p>Definitely set up a meeting at the alumni association with the legacy admissions advising program. Extremely helpful.</p>
<p>The main impact of legacy status is that legacies get considered at the in-state admissions standards (43% acceptance rate last year), which is a bit easier than full-on OOS (23%). Since the legacy admits are in the OOS data, that suggests that the non-legacy OOS acceptance rate is even lower. Probably in the teens. </p>
<p>Still, plenty of legacies don’t get accepted.</p>
<p>FC – all those things are important. You shouldn’t draw too many conclusions from the order of the list.</p>
<p>From my experience, though, UVA is more focused on the transcript than the test scores. An awesome transcript with strong (but no quite as awesome) test scores works better than the reverse.</p>
<p>My personal theory (for UVA and elsewhere) is that legacy admissions are mostly about (i) getting higher enrollment yield from (ii) a more well to do demographic. A good way to fill higher priced OOS seats with fuller payors. While alumni donations are great, most legacy families will send more money to UVA in the form of tuition ($200k per kid) than they ever will in donations.</p>
<p>If you search for legacy threads on this site you will see lots of discussion about the legacy advantage, if there is one. There is no stated policy other than that legacy apps are read with the IS pool. Anyone familiar with the vagaries of IS knows this could mean anything or nothing. My opinion is that it is brilliant marketing, in that the policy is vague enough to allow legacies to believe there is a bump without any evidence or data, thus increasing OOS applications from a largely priveleged, largely full pay applicant pool. As a bonus, this pool of smart kids from Chicago or Sacramento talk up the school to their friends, convincing other smart kids that UVa is a great school. Result: ever increasing, high quality OOS apps (and the ranking game goes on); some OOS legacies with stats that would have gotten them in anyway are admitted; some who thought legacy status would help hide their application flaws are disappointed – and again no data to prove or disprove that legacy had any effect. </p>
<p>A couple of years ago there were some numbers online showing OOS vs instate standardized test scores, but the page in question was disabled very soon after I posted a link to it (coincidence?) The bottom line was that the OOS admitted pool, including legacies, recruited athletes and all, had higher test scores than the IS pool. Realizing that these numbers do not reflect the entire holistic admissions review, they do seem to contradict the idea that legacy status will give a significant bump, or that having stats that are average for IS will work for OOS legacies. If anything, having a parent who attended is a way of scoring “interest” without opening that whole can of worms to the entire applicant pool. An interested candidate, as opposed to one who is randomly using UVa as a backup to higher ranked schools, is more likely to matriculate, improving yield (more of the required ranking game). As a tipping factor, perhaps this flavor of “demonstated interest” is relevant.</p>
<p>That being said, I would love to be wrong and get a bump for my DS’16, who may need it, where his sibling currently attending UVa did not.</p>
<p>There is definitely a nice advantage when an out-of-state student is a legacy. Because we don’t score or use a point system, I can’t define the advantage beyond saying that the legacy offer rates tend to be similar to the VA offer rates. Whether they are legacies or not, the students are going through a selective admission process. Legacy status nudges the door open a little wider. It doesn’t take the door off the hinges.</p>
<p>
Exactly. Please, please don’t rest your assumptions on testing data. </p>
<p>I killed that link you shared a while back, Mom2Twins (not a coincidence at all!). The document was for counselors.</p>
<p>Just as I suspected (wink)! I wonder why that information (IS vs OOS) would be exclusively for counsellors? We could speculate…</p>
<p>Knowing the offer rate for OOS legacy is similar to IS feels good, but in fact we don’t know how the quality of that applicant pool compares to non legacy. As I said, the testing data provide only a part of the equation, but in the absence of other data it nonetheless does not support the notion that OOS legacies should expect a significant advantage. I, and others on this site, have just too many anecdotal examples of qualified legacies who do not get in. And highly qualified legacies who are admitted and bring UP the average stats of the larger OOS pool. </p>
<p>To be clear, I don’t know a better system for balancing the desires of alumni, state taxpayers, and other stakeholders. I just think folks like the OP should go in with their eyes open. </p>
<p>The vast majority of the applicant pool is qualified. </p>
<p>
Here’s my take: Despite that profile having extensive information about the class, you fixated on the data about a four hour test. Someone (ETS? Kaplan? Princeton Review?) has made it so that people hold onto test scores with white knuckles despite admission officers repeatedly talking about transcripts and recommendations and essays. </p>
<p>Counseling professionals understand that testing is one component of an application that reflects four years of development.</p>
<p>I’m sorry I seem to have hit a nerve, Dean J. As I’ve said repeatedly, I acknowledge that the information in that now hidden data sheet was a glimpse into ONE component of admissions that is not normally disclosed. Calling that a fixation seems excessive. I wish I could talk about other parts of the information the sheet contained, but I failed to download it before it was removed.</p>
<p>Unless or until UVa goes test optional, there will be reasonable interest in data about a four hour test.</p>
<p>“The vast majority of the applicant pool is qualified.”</p>
<p>I think that’s the crux of the matter. Most applicants think they have at least an honest chance before spending the application fee; if they know they’re not in the ballpark, they (mostly) won’t waste their money. You get 30,000+ applications for, what, 3500 seats? So, suppose 80% of them are qualified (to pick a random percentage out of the air), that’s 24,000+ qualified applicants, and there will be about 9000 admission offers going out (to fill those 3500 seats), that they are competing for. That means 9k applicants are offered admission, and 15k <em>qualified</em> applicants are denied admission. </p>
<p>Everyone qualified who is denied will want to know (understandably) WHY someone else got an offer and they didn’t. If their numbers are below the average or 25% level of admitted students for GPA and/or test scores, that’s pretty easy to understand. But plenty of them will NOT be below the averages, and will instead be above a significant portion of the admission offers. Explaining it as, “Joe is a legacy and that’s why he got in and I didn’t,” might not be accurate, but it offers the comfort of at least being a rational explanation, a clear reason, instead of thinking the Joe was just luckier than you on the day your applications were read.</p>
<p>People want to understand the reasons why the things that happen in their lives happen the way they do. And even if the answer can’t be boiled down any more than, “we thought these were the best 9000 applications to offer admission to, to put together our incoming class,” that’s still not a satisfying answer. It doesn’t explain why your application wasn’t one of those 9000, or what (if different) could have made the difference and resulted in an admission offer.</p>
<p>People will grumble and say it’s not fair that test scores are merely “important,” but being a legacy is “very important.” Because these are objective criteria they can focus on, see clearly whether they had it or not, not subject to the vagaries of interpretation.</p>
<p>I think it is an incorrect expectation to believe it is the responsibility of Admissions to provide comfort or a “satisfying answer” to each non-admitted, yet qualified, applicant. It’s true we always want to know “why” or have something or someone to blame. But just because applicants “want” to have a reason to cling to, doesn’t mean there is one - nor that they can demand one be created for their personal comfort. Sometimes the answer may very truly be “we had to choose 1 out of the 10 in front of us, and ALL are excellent.” The selection may seemingly be random. In fact the reason the applicant ended up in that particular final pool of 10 could be random, or based on 100 factors - or yes, be the luck of the draw that day. </p>
<p>Are our children’s psyches really too fragile to accept this? I hope not. This is the way life works. We’re not always picked for the team, nor hired for the job. If I get 100 applicants for a job opening, 50 of them may be outstanding. I have to then choose 5 to interview and 1 to hire. Any of the 50 may have successfully filled the position - especially any of the final 5. When all is said and done, the best answer I can provide to all the applicants is: the position has been filled by a qualified applicant. Anything more than that is misleading. </p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that Admissions should explain each decision; they barely have time to make the decisions. </p>
<p>I’m simply suggesting there could be a basic human psychology reason for all the concern about what factors affect a decision on an individual’s application. People want to understand why things happen, and what control (if any) they have over outcomes. They will continue to want this understanding, regardless of whether or not it is possible to get it.</p>
<p>Mom2 – the legacy practice (at UVA and elsewhere) clearly is good business and marketing for the schools. That’s pretty obvious. That’s why the schools do it.</p>
<p>Without detailed data, you are right that we can’t specifically quantify how much or little edge an OOS legacy gets as compared to an unhooked OOS applicant. You doubt that there’s much or any edge. My anectodotal experience tells me otherwise. </p>
<ol>
<li> Unhooked OOS kids often get rejected or wait listed by UVA while being accepted at peer schools – UNC, UM, Emory, Tufts, G’town, BC. 2. If a legacy kid gets into some of those other schools (clearly strong applicants) they always get into UVA. 3. If a legacy kid does not get into those other schools, they sometimes get into UVA, sometimes not.</li>
</ol>
<p>Of course the overall stats for OOS (as a group) would be higher than in-state. The OOS pool includes some athletes. Also includes the #3 legacy kids (who should be at the in-state level). Also includes the #2 legacy kids who have high stats and for whom UVA is safety (and who don’t need the help like your kid). And also includes kids with even better stats than the #1 kids who get rejected.</p>
<p>My observation of the #1 kids and the #3 kids tells me that Dean J is shooting straight (of course). </p>
<p>Virginia by law can only offer 1/3 of their spots to OOS applicants. OOS legacies are fortunate to be included in the in state pool for admission purposes. I strongly recommend what others have said about reaching out to the Alumni Liaison Program at UVA. The people running that program for alumni and their legacies do a great job to explain the terrain. They don’t help you get in, but they do help you understand the process and give you an honest assessment of your child’s academic performance compared to previously admitted students.</p>
<p>And after all of this worry, it comes down to hitting submit and lots of praying. :)</p>
<p>@wherezwallace, actually, the agreement is that 2/3 of the UVa student population must be Virginia residents. Offers of admission have to be made with many factors in mind to maintain the 2/3 to 1/3 ratio in the population. </p>
<p>^^ “OOS legacies are fortunate to be included in the in state pool for admission purposes.”</p>
<p>I’m curious to know how you got from “Alumni relations are very important” to the above assertion. State residency is also very important; being a legatee has no effect on your residency, it is simply a factor in your favor for admissions. In no way does it negate or transform OOS status to IS.</p>
<p>OOS legacies are in the OOS admissions pool. But for admissions standards, they are considered at the same level as in-state students. I think we all understand how it works.</p>
<p>Dean J – I’ve seen Dean Roberts suggest that legacies are usually 10-15% of an incoming UVA class. Does he mean OOS legacies when he says that? Or is that all legacies (including in-staters who wouldn’t be getting any legacy admissions help since they are already in-staters)?</p>
<p>If OOS legatees were simply competing at the lower bar of standards that IS applicants compete under, what does the “very important” legatee status do for IS applicants then?</p>