<blockquote>
<p>A study by two Princeton sociologists has found that students admitted to colleges primarily because of their legacy status are more likely to face academic difficulty than students admitted primarily because they are athletes or members of ethnic minorities.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Legacy students whose SAT scores are below the average scores of their peers earn consistently lower grade point averages in college?a phenomenon not experienced by minorities or athletes, according to the study.</p>
<p>The study did not, however, show that legacy admits tended to perform worse overall. The disparity applies only to those admitted with lower-than-average SAT scores.>></p>
<p>I thought at many selective schools legacies had average SAT scores above the school average. Legacies with lower-than-average SAT scores is a pretty rare subset at these schools.</p>
<p>Yes, indeed. I was wondering if anyone has access to the study reported by the Crimson. I wonder how large a subset these Low-SAT legacies represent.
And anyway, they do not seem to be struggling. I was more interested in the case made about URMs and athletes performing better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Legacy students whose SAT scores are below the average scores of their peers earn consistently lower grade point averages in college a phenomenon not experienced by minorities or athletes, according to the study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The studies I've seen for very selective institutions run the other way, particularly when you start to look at the data and ask: "how do these special admits do GPA-wise relative to how you'd predict that they'll perform."</p>
<p>Recruited athletes (tips) tend to underperform what you'd predict based on their (already low) SAT scores. Legacies tend to perform about where you'd expect them to. </p>
<p>Sorry if I jumped on you on that other thread about merit aid, but that argument really bugs me. In this case I think the explanation of the data is in the courses taken. I'm guessing that the legacies take a curriculum similar to their peers, and do less well at it. I would also guess that the recruited athletes and URM's frequently (certainly not always) take an easier curriculum.</p>
<p>It's interesting that the study is by Princeton profs, as was the Bowen study you linked to. But the new study is much more restrictive, from the little I read in the Crimson. It seeks to compare low-SAT legacies, which, as jrpar argued, are a small subset of legacy admits in general, with low-SAT URMS and low-SAT admits. I'd really would like to know more details from the study, for example, how low is low, and which institutions were included in the study.</p>
<p>No great surprise to me (I roomed with two of 'em!) But why is that a problem? Someone's gotta be in the 'happy bottom quarter', it makes the curve better for everyone else; I'll bet they do better than the average student in the game of life; and contribute far more than average back to dear alma mater.</p>
<p>Perhaps they have the same occupational outcome no matter what the GPA. A Princeton degree hanging on the wall of the family business does not to my knowledge include a space for GPA. Further, Andrew Abbott an occupational sociologist reported that for elite colleges, a full point difference in GPA, 2.8 vs. 3.8, had little (<9%) difference on future income of graduating students. Perhaps, as legacies, they have figured that out.</p>
<p>If it is difficult to compare HS students GPA's, it is virtualy impossible to compare college GPA's without knowing the courses the student took.</p>
<p>marite: ask aditi the names of two sociologist she is refering to (<a href="mailto:balakris@fas.harvard.edu">balakris@fas.harvard.edu</a>). It would be easier to find the study if we knew the names.</p>
<p>If the premise raised by the OP is true, could it be because low-SAT legacies would be 'spoiled rich kids,' whereas URMs or athletic recruits with low SATs might have a better overall work ethic?</p>
<p>IMO, legacies that are admitted with low stats are the very rich or the very connected. Johnny from Austin whose dad became a family doctor is not getting in with sub par stats. The senator's son is and the uber wealthy Wall Street daughter is. For many of these kids they learned at a young age that their status and connections got them most of what they wanted, not grades.</p>
<p>I should say most who fit this description at Harvard in the day were smart people. They simply had too much to do because they had "fuller" lives. One I knew spent considerable time in NY because he was managing his trust fund. Another sat on the board of her family's major corporation. They all did very well in real life except for one drunk (at 18 he was already is trouble as an alcoholic) and another who was probably mentally ill.</p>
<p>Gosh....I had read that item....old people can't remember.</p>
<p>I think the key paragraph is:</p>
<p>The study found that legacies as a whole tend to do better than their peers at their respective colleges, and they also have less of a gap between their SAT scores and their schools' average scores than do athletes and minorities. </p>
<p>"But those who are admitted with lower SAT scores do worse compared to their non-legacy peers who were also admitted despite low scores, the study found."</p>
<p>"The study found that legacies as a whole tend to do better than their peers at their respective colleges, and they also have less of a gap between their SAT scores and their schools' average scores than do athletes and minorities."</p>
<p>Corrected for income, race, and class? (I'd say if they weren't - as a group - doing better, there's likely a problem.)</p>
<p>Beats me. Unless you have a single child attending Yale and Podunk State at the same time (cloning), why do you believe one is better than the other? :eek:</p>