Do you see Ivies adopting this policy any time soon?
Not a chance.
This isn’t about a general trend of getting rid of the legacy preference, which is almost everywhere in the top tier schools. This is just Hopkins getting more in line with its closest peer schools.
The brand of Caltech and MIT is “we are the biggest, baddest, geekiest, pulsating brains on the planet and proud of it.” If that’s who you are, then it is totally off-brand to admit kids because of “hooks.”
Which is why Caltech and MIT don’t do legacy. And why they don’t do binding early decision (and the related admissions tip) or restricted/single choice early action. And why they don’t give tips to recruited athletes.
Hopkins isn’t quite as niche-ey and tech focused as Caltech and MIT, and it also has a bigger undergrad enrollment. So while it may be ditching legacy, its admissions policies continue to largely resemble its other elite peer schools too.
Hopkins still fills almost half its seats via ED. Just like so many of its peers do. And its athletic tips (outside of D1 lacrosse) are somewhat muted as a D3 school. But they still tip athletes.
Given the continued huge influence of binding ED (which is where the legacies would most be likely located within the admit pool anyway), it is probably pretty easy for Hopkins to give up its explicit legacy policy. Their admission results probably won’t change much and they get some brand good will too.
Congratulations to Hopkins! It’s a good first step and the right thing to do.
@northwesty Whatever is the reason, it’s a tough step in right direction towards merit and diversity. If it was so easy, ivies would’ve done it too.
Which other brainiacs may follow the suit? CMU? Rice?
MIT and CalTech do provide athletic tips, just not slots, as S was actively recruited by both. Huge debate among alums at Yale about legacy admissions, at least on our alumni social media pages. I don’t think it will go away soon.
It should be easier for schools with large endowments but they prefer donations and connections over fairness. They may abandon SAT/AP/IB to make admissions more hazy but legacy/donation boost isn’t going anywhere.
MIT, CIT, Johns Hopkins and Berkeley are in a different league. I see similar schools following their lead but doesn’t expect much from Ivies and LACs.
I’m sorry but could you explain athletic “tips”?
@FullSquishy Probably means instead of outright reserving X number of seats for recruited athletes, it’s just something noted on your application----provides a boost but no guarantee of admission.
As an MIT alumni and a dad, I am very happy that MIT does not provide any advantage to legacy students. IMHO it is not the type of school that a “strong but not quite strong enough” student should want to attend.
Having a parent or two who graduated from a top university is likely to help a student in several ways. For one thing the parent has some sense what you need to do to do well at a top school (such as study skills). There are things that I learned only as a graduate student that I at least tried to pass on my my kids early, such as the value of education and the huge advantage gained by always staying ahead in your class work. Many (not all) graduates from top universities for one reason or another have the financial means to allow their kids to get tutors if then need them, take some SAT preparation, and afford to have a laptop. The parents themselves can be tutors in many cases, including learning to read at a very young age and learning math at a very young age. Kids do inherit some of the abilities of their parents.
Of course a parent will want to help their children. However, I do not think that my kids need the additional advantage of being legacy at some top school.
I say good for all three of these great universities!