<p>“I doubt if that happens too much, except when the kid actually applies and is rejected. I
wouldn’t blame my alma mater if my kid clearly had no chance at admission;”</p>
<p>Its not so much a matter of blaming the alma mater, but that the alma mater has drummed in that loyalty is about legacy so much, that it weakens any non quid pro quo sense of loyalty.</p>
<p>pizzagirl:</p>
<p>+1 to your post #31. (I’d find new friends/acquaintances to hang with…)</p>
<p>
I don’t know about other schools, but my alma mater certainly hasn’t made a point of wooing donations from me based on legacy; I don’t think it’s ever been mentioned in any document I’ve seen from them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is true. Look at Stanford: 50% of students are full-payors ($50K per year) and they are need blind and very big on legacy preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Answer: Of course. But there are so many other secret and not-so-secret ways for need-blind schools to increase the number of full pay students. Students from expensive private schools, or public schools from exclusive communities, students from certain zip codes, students who attended expensive summer programs, or pre-college music programs, and of course, children of plastic surgeons, investment bankers, celebrities, etc, all are more likely to be full pay. Need blind just means ‘not checking if you’ve applied for financial aid’.</p>
<p>Another serious question:</p>
<p>Are athletic recruits more likely to go on to become generous alumni?</p>
<p>I agree with #44. I heard USC does the same thing. As long as you donate a lot of money, you can get in. Unfortunately, as a result, these schools are hurting themselves. They are losing good students to other universities.</p>
<p>
But don’t you make that info available to AO’s on your application for admissions anyway? It’s not like the team in charge of admissions are unaware or have to guess if an applicant is applying for FA. I once asked an AO if the college is need-blind why it is necessary to check that box on the admissions application, and I was told so when the admission package is sent out they know what to include in the package.</p>
<p>I would think so if they make it to the NFL or NBA.</p>
<p>What % of NBA players actually graduated from college?</p>
<p>maybe the universities would be better off encouraging alumni loyalty based on real love for the school, rather than a possible legacy advantage? "</p>
<p>My son is applying ED to where he is a double legacy and the school has never mentioned possible legacy advantage as a reason to donate.</p>
<p>We are in a slightly different position. Our son (HS junior now) is a double legacy at a prestigious national university. We have given NO money since we graduated–I because I left college to work in a poor-paying field, son’s dad (ex-husband) because he was in grad school forever and is still paying off loans.</p>
<p>For various reasons our son has not distinguished himself in high school the way both of us did. He is extremely bright and takes some AP classes, but he is not competitive or motivated by grades, and his extracurricular involvement is so-so. He makes the honor roll, but barely and without really trying. (We just don’t think his high school is a good fit for him–it is huge and filled with incredibly ambitious, competitive kids. The more they get that way, the more he checks out.) One good thing–he will probably have extremely high test scores. </p>
<p>So…now, after visiting our alma mater, he has decided he wants to try to get in. And I know being a legacy will help him get a better look than if he weren’t one. Is that fair? Perhaps not. But other things aren’t “fair” either. He isn’t lucky enough to have an intact family with a lot of financial resources available to him. He has had to deal with some huge issues as a teenager that most kids don’t (major, life-changing things involving his family and closest friends). So yeah, we will probably use the legacy angle to our advantage, in the same way people use SAT prep courses, tutors, specialized summer programs, and so on (all things we cannot afford to do) to give their kids a leg up. I guess I don’t see anything wrong with it, and if he ended up at this school, his performance would be the proof of his qualifications, just like it is for everyone else. As his mother, I would never want to set him up to fail, and wouldn’t encourage him to apply if I thought he wouldn’t be able to handle the rigorous curriculum. (I would not recommend this school for my younger child, for instance.) So I think we might give it a try.</p>
<p>MOST legacies don’t get admitted, it’s just a tip between qualified applicants.
Unqualified legacies are not going to get admitted just because of their legacy status.</p>
<p>Many Schools cite the superior qualifications of the Legacy applicants.</p>
<p>[Legacies</a> still maintain edge in admissions | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2005/feb/16/legacies-still-maintain-edge-in-admissions/]Legacies”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2005/feb/16/legacies-still-maintain-edge-in-admissions/)
</p>
<p>[PAW</a> October 6, 2004: A moment with…](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW04-05/02-1006/moment.html]PAW”>PAW October 6, 2004: A moment with...)
The only way to keep the Better qualified legacy candidates out of a School would be to penalize them for where their parents attended, and what would be the point of that. 
It makes as much sense as saying that, if your Parents went to any College, you should be penalized for the “unfair advantage” that gives you in applying to College. :)</p>
<p>This is in response to #10, Cosar: He wrotes “At Harvard, for example, the average SAT scores and GPAs of legacy admits is equal to or greater than the average for the admitted class as a whole.”</p>
<p>In order to find the SAT of the Legacies, I assume that when Non-Legacy, Non-Athelete SAT is 9, the Athelete is 5, and the population is 50 and 25 respectively. I also assume Legacy population is 25 to make total 100 population.
x >= (9<em>50+5</em>25)/75, where x=the average SAT of the Legacies.
My calculation shows x=7.67. It means when Non-Legacy SAT is 2,300, the Legacy SAT is only 1,960.</p>
<p>That’s a lot of assumptions.</p>
<p>“Are athletic recruits more likely to go on to become generous alumni?”</p>
<p>According to a study done by Bill Bowen (former Princeton President), athletic recruits at the highly selective colleges and universities do give more to their schools after graduation.</p>
<p>This study is actually highly critical of athletic recruiting, and indicated that these athletes had lower academic credentials than those of the average IVY student (although by no means average for colleges nationally - these aren’t kids who are scoring as low as 1000 on their SAT’s). They also earn fewer graduate degrees and their academic performance is lower than it would be predicted by their test scores and grades.</p>
<p>By the same token, the study indicated that athletic recruits earn more money.</p>
<p>The explanation? Ivy athletes (as well as NESCAC atheletes, etc.) are recruited heavily by Wall Street firms where intelligence and aggressiveness are prime attributes.</p>
<p>Also, one reason that they may underperform academically is that college athletics is incredibly time-demanding.</p>
<p>And as a side note, one wealthy friend (assets of at least $50-million) stopped giving money to the university after his daughter and son were rejected. One had 1250 SAT’s and the other had 1400 SAT’s. So legacy status is no guarantee, and some people certainly stop donating when their kids don’t get in.</p>
<p>“And once they get to Yale, Levin said, legacies also tend to get higher grades than non-legacy students with comparable high school GPAs and test scores”</p>
<p>it is of course possible there is an “x factor” that kids of yale grads have, that doesnt show up in grades, test scores, or the rest of the application.</p>
<p>But wouldnt that x factor make them good candidates everywhere, including at Harvard, Columbia, etc? And vice versa, wouldnt the kids of Harvard grads, Columbia grads, etc have an x factor that makes them likely to succeed at Yale (just limiting it to ivies, for now)</p>
<p>but the way it works now, if a kid’s parent went to say, Princeton, and the kid is applying to, say, Columbia, but NOT to Princeton (for let’s assume good reasons) then the kid is out of luck, at least as far that tipping factor is concerned.</p>
<p>“The only way to keep the Better qualified legacy candidates out of a School would be to penalize them for where their parents attended, and what would be the point of that”</p>
<p>I think most people who don’t like legacy, would be quite happy if they just left the question off the admissions form.</p>
<p>^ Agree with Brooklynborndad. If legacies are being admitted at a higher rate simply because they’re better qualified, then why do you need to argue for a legacy preference? Why does the school even need to ask?</p>
<p>If it’s because Yale thinks Yale legacies will outperform even the non-legacies with comparable stats, then shouldn’t Yale also be looking at the performance of the offspring of Harvard and Princeton and Stanford grads, and perhaps also giving THEM bonus points at admissions time, too? Or does Yale have evidence that Yale legacies do better at Yale than they would do at other schools, and Harvard legacies do better at Harvard than they would at Yale? That seems unlikely.</p>
<p>And it’s a little disingenuous for Levin to compare the stats of legacies to the stats of the entire pool of admitted candidates, which includes a lot of recruited athletes and some affirmative action URMs whose stats may bring down the average for the entire pool. A more telling comparison would be, what’s the admit rate for legacies with stats in a given range, v. the admit rate for unhooked candidates with stats in that same range? My guess is the legacies still get in at a far higher rate than unhooked candidates with identical stats. In fact, that’s the whole idea of a “tip factor”: if it’s a toss-up between two candidates, A and B, who are otherwise identical in all respects, then the offer of admission will go to the one who is a legacy. That’s a HUGE advantage.</p>
<p>
Who says they don’t do that. 
They probably should ;)</p>
<p>I agree with bclinkonk’s post. Levin’s comments are a little hard to swallow. Why would Yale legacies do better than other similarly qualified applicants? Does he think they’d be more motivated so as not to disappoint Daddy or Mommy’s idea that they’re a chip off the old (Yale student) block?</p>