<p>so...i was thinking. exactly how do universities justify given places to vastly sub-standard candidates just because their grandfather went there? how does that make any sense?</p>
<p>also...doesn't it reek of corruption when someone gets into a uni because their family donated a lot of money?</p>
<p>your thoughts, please.</p>
<p>I think universities think that if they let someone son/daughter go there, the person may be more prone to donating money, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Doesn't it reek of corruption when someone gets into a uni because their family donated a lot of money?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are called "development kids" I believe. Why are you angry at this? Most colleges have elaborate budgets and resources because of this, don't take it for granted.</p>
<p>i'm not especially angry...its just a completely alien concept to me - i'm from england. if you tried to buy your way in to an english university there would be outrage.</p>
<p>also...if you're an ivy sitting on $10 billion, exactly how concerned are you about attracting super-rich people?</p>
<p>with money comes power.....Harvard</p>
<p>do you think its a good idea, or do you just accept that that's the way it is?</p>
<p>I dont like it either, but there is nothing we can do about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so...i was thinking. exactly how do universities justify given places to vastly sub-standard candidates just because their grandfather went there? how does that make any sense?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm not especially angry...its just a completely alien concept to me - i'm from england.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It shows. They don't let in "vastly sub-standard" students because of legacy, and legacy is really only if your parents went to the school. I know someone who wasn't even that far off and had legacy going back several generations and applied EA and was REJECTED, not even deferred. It doesn't help that much. People need to stop with this nonsense.</p>
<p>Universities prefer to take legacies because it's good to establish families that goes to that University for several generations because there's a stronger bond and more likeliness of donations. If two applicants are roughly the same they'll take the one with the legacy but...that's about it.</p>
<p>When deciding where to go to colleges, students often look at recent and past alumni. For example, our last presidential election had two Yale grads. Wouldnt you like to attend the same university as the President? Or attend a university with great networking (many CEOs of Fortune 500 companies)? Or attend a university with famous celebrities? Maybe? </p>
<p>In the case of a family legacy, if your parent runs a successful business or is a notable figure, chances are good that you will someday run the business, do well in the business, or take his place as President of the United States.</p>
<p>Universities justify it because its been proven that students who have legacy give more money to the school then students that are not.</p>
<p>simple as that.</p>
<p>I've also heard that if you're a legacy and your parents remained involved with the school (donations, attending alumni events, doing local interviews, sitting on college boards, whatever) then that counts much better than an average legacy. Any truth to this, or is it as long as your parents went there (and didn't donate MILLIONS) then all legacies are created equal?</p>
<p>If your parents have a visible presence within the university or they donated globs of money, then their kids would have the advantage. A legacy, who donates the average amount, would just be average. Universities seek passionate students and families that will help continue the schools prestige and excellence. Also, being a legacy doesnt guarantee anything; your credentials will still have to be somewhat close to the schools target scores and grades.</p>
<p>Universities are not pure, sanctified havens of knowledge. They are businesses, and their students are like "investments." Thus, the "development cases" and the "legacies"...legacies also raise their yield because legacies have more of a tendency to attend the school once accepted, even if they have offers from other outstanding schools...</p>
<p>Universities are not straight up meritocracies like in England, where everything is based on A levels. Here, the application is more personal - it's an evaluation of your entire persona, not just your scores on tests. US universities seek diversity and want to reward different things - they don't want just academic superstars, but athletes, and yes, rich and influential people too.</p>
<p>The boost given to legacies in prestigious universities is a complete myth. First of all, the overwhelming majority of select universities have such huge endowments that a donation of $10 million or even $50 million would be irrelevant. In fact the Ivies as a group could charge no tuition to anyone, and still be in the black every year due to the income off of their endowments.</p>
<p>Secondly, an exhaustive study was done in 2003 regarding admitted children of alumni in the Ivies. It was rejected for publication in the Crimson but published by the Hoover Instituion.</p>
<p>It showed that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ivy legacies that were admitted had aggreggate SAT';s and GPA's that were 6% higher than NON legacies.</p></li>
<li><p>88% of legacies admitted would have placed in the upper 70% of their admitted class. This means that legacies were held to even stricter standards than non legacies.</p></li>
<li><p>Legacies have a higher rate of graduating within 4 years than any other group correlation.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The end</p>
<p>Also, if someone comes from a family that has consistently performed well at a certain university in the past, it is in the university's best interests to accept such a student. Of course, I think that legacy status should only be considered; a tie-breaker, if you will...not a huge factor in admissions.</p>
<p>I agree with Heavenwood; it should be and mostly is used as a tie-breaker. Sorry if seemed otherwise in my last post; most of that is directed toward super-legacies/development cases, of which our current President is (unfortunately) a good example.</p>
<p>Of course. To be fair, John Kerry was no better in that department.</p>
<p>John Kerry was a legacy at Yale? I didnt know that. I do know that both their performances at Yale were equally disappointing. </p>
<p>Bushs college transcipt
<a href="http://www.inthetext.com/?p=20%5B/url%5D">http://www.inthetext.com/?p=20</a></p>
<p>Kerrys poor performance was similar to Dubyas
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/?page=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/?page=1</a></p>
<p>this is America where people want money</p>
<p>Blink needs to post a link to verify those stats. Legacies are by nature discriminatory against URM's (underrepresented minorities) because in our parent's generation their numbers were limited due to racism and prejudice not only institutionally within the broader educational system but also blatant discrimination in admissions decisions where qualified applicants were rejected based on race. So, until there is equality in terms of educational opportunity in the U.S. as in access to elite colleges legacy status should not be a factor in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Although Bush and Kerry's performances are not particularly impressive, people must keep in mind that this was all before the rampant grade inflation that we see today. C's were 40, 50, or 60 years ago acceptable, particularly at elite institutions. So, it's important not to overreact to this raw data and to strongly consider the historical conditions under which these grades were received.</p>