<p>Son's grandfather was MIT alum and National Medal of Science recipient. He established a $15-20 million trust in MIT's name, and it's still paying out. Son is junior and is considering whether to apply to MIT next year. His stats are good but not through the roof: GPA 3.75, ACT 31, Eagle Scout, First Robotics 100+ hours each year, team leader this year and most likely next; last year First Robotics Innovation Award winner. Would the legacy connection to MIT make any difference or not?</p>
<p>The legacy would improve his chances, but it won’t be a guarantee. Your S should try to improve his stats/ECs nonetheless.</p>
<p>The official position is that legacy does not increase admission chances. Admissions staff at MIT has said that the Dean of Admissions will give legacy rejects a once-over to see if there was an egregious error as a courtesy to alumni parents. Even so, having a grandfather alumnus is not typically thought of as a legacy. </p>
<p>Also, giving money to the school does not matter either.</p>
<p>It doesn’t help your son’s case, but it is why it was one of two elite schools which was held up in Golden’s “The Price of Admissions” as being meritocracies. The other school was Caltech.</p>
<p>collegealum314 is correct.</p>
<p>A “a once-over” is basically a quiet way of admitting that, yes, legacy admissions is used at MIT.</p>
<p>How much? Well, unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure, since admissions decisions do not need to be revealed publicly.</p>
<p>I would just keep in mind that MIT is a school that has invested a great deal of money on the admissions public relations front. They can claim that legacy matters as much or as little as they want, and there is no legal obligation for them to tell the whole truth or even the truth. </p>
<p>One thing is certain: MIT has a very strong incentive to make people believe that legacy status or wealth plays no role in admissions. Normalizing for this incentive, the fact that they still admit a “little bit” of preference is probably quite telling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But not in the way that you think. The reaon for the once over is not to improve chances for admission. Why does Dean Stuart Schmill glance at each alumni file? Largely because alumni, particularly active, big-donor alumni are much more likely to call and complain if an admissions decision goes against them, those who are active in the alumni association even more so. Stu reads these to prepare himself for those difficult conversations. Alumni status really does not help you get in. Heck, if it did, Stu would not have to read these files, it would not be necessary.</p>
<p>Applicants from wealthy families who have a track record of donating buildings to institutions, they are a slightly different category (ordinarily wealthy just doesn’t cut it). The MIT development office does provide a very short list of these students to the admissions office. MIT Admissions is truly lucky in that it does not have to admit these students. That is a luxury, but being on that list does give a tiny benefit, roughly equivalent to being a recruited athlete (meaning it doesn’t help much, but it cannot hurt). The overwhelming majority of the names on that list are also not admitted.</p>
<p>MIT does not offer preference to legacy applicants at all.</p>
<p>The absence of preference for legacies was quite apparent when I first attended parents weekend during our D’s freshman year. During the welcoming speech, Susan Hockfield, the president of MIT, asked MIT alumni in the audience to stand up. In the vast auditorium packed with parents only about a handful stood up. Hardly a definitive proof but pretty convincing!</p>
<p>Thanks for the input. He’s decided it would be better to focus on schools which are a good match for him. Let the touring begin this summer!</p>