<p>All of the legacies whom I've seen get in recently have been very strong applicants who could have gotten in without the legacy tip. </p>
<p>I have seen legacies rejected by Harvard who ended up at places like Stanford.</p>
<p>The article linked below is worth a look for its commentary on admissions preferences for URMs, athletes, legacy candidates, and ED candidates. The book it excerpts makes the argument that similar preference should be given to low SES candidates. Here's the link:</p>
<p>and a few excerpts:</p>
<p>"The results for three special groups of applicantsunderrepresented minority students, legacies, and recruited athletesstand in sharp contrast. Members of each of these groups have a decidedly better chance of being admitted, at any specified SAT level, than do their fellow applicants, including those from low-SES categories. The average boost in the odds of admission is about 30 percentage points for a recruited athlete, 28 points for a member of an underrepresented minority group, and 20 points for a legacy. For example, an applicant with an admissions probability of 40 percent based on SAT scores and other variables would have an admissions probability of 70 percent if he or she were a recruited athlete, 68 percent if an underrepresented minority, and 60 percent if a legacy. Applicants who participate in early decision programs also enjoy a definite admissions advantageabout 20 percentage points at the 13 institutions for which we have data."</p>
<p>"Dean Fitzsimmons notes that at Harvard 'legacy status is basically used as a tie-breaker between comparable candidates,' and our data confirm that legacy preferences are generally reserved for candidates with strong credentials."</p>
<p>"The president of one of the universities in our study told us that he was not at all surprised by the finding that admissions at these highly selective institutions is truly need-blind, but not more than that. He said that when the admissions staff was considering an outstanding soccer player, it was as if 'lights went on' in the room; everyone paid close attention, and everyone knew that the coach and athletic director were, in effect, watching closely and would have to be dealt with. Similarly, when the staff considered a legacy candidate with strong ties to the university, it was clear that representatives of the alumni office, the development office, and perhaps even the presidents office, were 'present' in spirit if not in person. Minority candidates also were considered carefully and sympathetically, in part because of the active involvement of recruiters and admissions staff members with a special commitment to racial diversity. But, the president continued, when an otherwise 'normal' applicant from a family of modest circumstances was considered, the process just moved right ahead without anyone making a special pleaperhaps, at least in part, because the immediate institutional interests to be served are less evident, or more diffuse, in the case of socioeconomic status."</p>
<p>This also was notable in the Harvard Magazine article:
"Whereas minority admissions preferences serve educational and societal purposes, and legacy/development preferences serve institutional purposes tied to the pursuit of educational excellence, the preferences given to recruited athletes serve primarily the narrower purposes of the institutions athletic establishment and the interests of trustees and alumni/ae with strong feelings about athletics.... There is no evidence that athletic accomplishments have any significant effect on giving or on how alumni/ae in general view their institution (actually, a majority favor placing less emphasis on intercollegiate athletics)....</p>
<p>Today recruited athletes, men and women alike, at the Ivy League universities and at leading liberal arts colleges, enjoy a huge admissions advantage. Recruited athletes are less and less representative of their classes (clustering in certain fields of study and bunching heavily in the bottom third of the class), they underperform academically (earning much lower grades than they would be expected to earn on the basis of their high school credentials), and they are far more isolated socially from their classmates than were their predecessors.</p>
<p>It is also clear that recruited athletes as a group do not contribute to racial or socioeconomic diversity. As [William] Bowen and Sarah Levin point out in Reclaiming the Game, Recruited athletes in the schools in our study are in general appreciably less likely than students at large to be from underrepresented minority groups. Furthermore, just 6 percent of recruited athletes enrolled at the institutions in our study are from the bottom income quartile, compared to 12 percent of other students. In short, giving admissions preferences to recruited athletes does little if anything to promote the equity goal of higher education (and may, in fact, detract from it) at the same time that it raises troubling issues for the pursuit of educational excellence."</p>