<p>I have a friend who wants me to ask this- how much of a legacy is his father being a graduate student at Stanford?
thanks</p>
<p>I wonder why people do a lot of "A friend of mine wants to know..." questions.</p>
<p>His father is a graduate student right now?</p>
<p>Or did he graduate from the graduate school?</p>
<p>If so, then legacy status wouldn't be considered.</p>
<p>either way i dont think it helps much. that is just my suspicion.</p>
<p>I think this is one of those topics where no one will actually publish statistics... so it's a mystery. Every one I have met who had a relative attend Stanford is extremely intelligent or capable, so if legacy gives a bump, it's only to those who deserve to be at the college anyway.</p>
<p>"According to Dean of Admission Robin Mamlet, the admit rate for legacies at Stanford is a little over double the admit rate for the general pool..."</p>
<p>Good news for josmith's friend, but not for his/her kid's unless he/she gets in:</p>
<p>Is there any special preference given to children of Stanford alumni?</p>
<p>Children and stepchildren of parent(s) who have earned either an undergraduate, graduate or professional degree from Stanford are considered “legacies” in our application process. The definition does not extend to an applicant whose grandparents, siblings, or other relatives earned Stanford degrees. No students are ever admitted simply because they are a legacy applicant, but that connection may give them a slight advantage over a similarly competitive non-legacy applicant.</p>
<p>It is still true that the admit rate for legacies is about twice that for the general pool. This means, however, that about 3 out of every 4 legacy applicants are denied admission.</p>
<p>By way of comparison, at Harvard (but not Yale), "legacy" status is accorded only to the children of Harvard <em>College</em> graduates. No legacy status for the offspring of graduates of the Graduate School or any of the professional schools.</p>
<hr>
<p>PS: isn't there a semantic distinction between "the admit rate for the general pool" and the admit rate for those not enjoying legacy status at all? I wonder if legacies aren't admitted at closer to 3 times higher than the rate for unhooked applicants. At Harvard (where, as I have said, only graduates of the <em>College</em> qualify for the tip
0 the ratio is closer to 4 times higher.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, not all of that higher admit rate for legacies is necessarily explained by outright preference. I wouldn't be surprised if children of Stanford grads were more likely to get into, say, Harvard as well. There could very well be genetic or environmental factors at work outside of the admissions office that make legacies more likely to get in.</p>
<p>Do you know for a fact that legacy admits have, say, SAT scores matching or exceeding other admits?</p>
<p>According to an information sheet that accompanied a letter from Dean Shaw to alumni parents of legacy candidates for the class of 2010, "No student is ever admitted simply because he/she is a legacy, but that connection may be considered a 'plus factor' over a similarly competitive non-legacy applicant." This suggests that the grades and scores would be comparable.</p>
<p>Your earlier point is well-taken, Byerly, and got me scratching my head. The same information sheet does indeed confirm that "legacy candidates have maintained an acceptance rate that is on average double the overall rate." It adds, "We expect this rate to be similar this year." This means that the acceeptance rate for class of2010 legacies was about 21.8%, necessitating that the acceptance rate for non-legacies was below the overall rate of 10.9%. How much below depends on the number of legacies who applied. For example, if 1000 legacies applied, then the admit rate for non-legacies would be about 8.4%, or 2.6 times less than the legacy rate.</p>
<p>Not to pick on Stanford, but it reminds me of an annoying little boilerplate point their admissions stories always included in "the bad old days" of binding Early Decision, in an effort to downplay the fraction of the class filled in this manner.</p>
<p>They would always say something like "only one-third of the admits" are from the Early Decision pool, without mentioning that ALL of them were bound to matriculate, while only about HALF of the other "two thirds of admits" - in the so-called "Regular" pool - matriculated.</p>
<p>The bottom line was that at Stanford, as at the other top elites, half the class or more came from the early pool (and still does, if you count deferred early applicants admitted later.)</p>
<p>graduate school counts - I got legacy for my Dad's graduation from the business school</p>
<p>i heard that at some places, legacy only factors in if you apply early.
Is Stanford like this?</p>
<p>Byerly: No, I don't know for a fact that legacy admits have at least the stats of non-legacies. I also don't know for a fact that this is not true.</p>
<p>My point, which I may have failed to make adequately, is that if your parent or parents went to Stanford, they're probably much more likely to provide a stimulating environment for your intellectual development, which in turn makes you more likely to get into Stanford. The question is just how much "more likely" in both cases. And I have no idea what the answer is.</p>
<p>Not so at Stanford, josmith. Legacy serves as a "plus factor" irrespective of whether one applies early or regular.</p>