<p>Mary:</p>
<p>A different way to view it:</p>
<p>Unhooked ED is “a few points” over RD, let’s say, 10% instead of 7%. Thus, the ED ‘boost’ is 43% (3/7), which is not insignificant.</p>
<p>Legacy in ED round is “twice” that as unhooked, or from 7% to 14%, which works out to a 100% boost; still long odds, but much better than the alternative. :)</p>
<p>Bluebayou: I’m not disagreeing with you, but the conclusion that is sometimes drawn is, I think, untrue: that is, just because the percentage of legacies that are accepted is higher than that of “unhooked” applicants, does not mean that all legacies were, in fact, given a boost in application that gave them an advantage over unhooked applicants. That is, perhaps the legacies that apply ED are, as Standrews seems to indicate, actually of higher average attractiveness than the average unhooked student. At least some of them, head to head with an unhooked applicant, will necessarily be as good as or better. So the perceived “boost” is actually less, since the number of legacies that get in because they are legacies is diminished by the number that would have gotten in anyway. I’m not trying to argue that legacy doesn’t give some kind of a boost, just that I don’t think it’s as much of one as people seem to assume. The odds are still stacked heavily against anyone who is not a recruited athlete, crunch the numbers as you like.</p>
<p>According to today’s “The Dartmouth” newspaper, the college has received a record number of ED applications. Here’s the link to the article:</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com</a> | Early decision apps reach record numbers](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2010/11/16/news/earlydecision]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2010/11/16/news/earlydecision)</p>
<p>Damn… At this point, I’ll feel lucky with a deferral.</p>
<p>“Recruited athletes make up 30 to 35 percent of the students admitted early decision to Dartmouth” (from [TheDartmouth.com</a> | Ivy League recruiting practices: Does Dartmouth lower its standards?](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2009/01/12/sportsweekly/recruiting]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2009/01/12/sportsweekly/recruiting))
This means that there are about 280 spots for regular applicants. </p>
<p>From [url=<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2009/01/05/news/ed]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2009/01/05/news/ed]TheDartmouth.com</a> | 401 members of Class of 2013 admitted early<a href=“in%20reference%20to%20class%20of%202013”>/url</a>:
“About 27 percent of the early-admitted students are people of color.”
“There are 62 children of Dartmouth alumni among the early-admitted students, whereas 65 legacies were admitted early last year and 58 the year before.”</p>
<p>^Just thought I’d throw that out there.</p>
<p>By, “students that are of color,” that also means asians. So, really, there are only between 12-15% of URMs accepted in the early applicant pool.</p>
<p>Ok, so athletes at 35%, legacies at 15%, then there have to be development and staff kids, let’s say 5%, and half the ED seats are gone before my DS gets read. Not complaining, it’s the way the world works, but it does put things in perspective.</p>
<p>Legacies can be fully qualified at top schools, they are a high IQ, well educated group. I’m thinking Dartmouth and other schools upped their number recently because in addition to being well qualified, most are full pay.</p>
<p>Ipackmam, what new aid initiative? From what I’ve read Dartmouth made aid worse this year by making loans part of aid packages for most again. I was wondering if it would lower number of apps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mary: I’d love to see some data on that speculation. Why would legacies be stronger as a group than the unhooked ED candidates? What part of “attractiveness” makes them so?</p>
<p>btw: I personally don’t care that legacies receive an admission tip, even if they have lower stats.</p>
<p>Maybe they’re more attractive because all those Dartmouth grad investment bankers married beautiful women? J/K!</p>
<p>…or that some of those Dartmouth investment banker grads married beautiful men…</p>
<p>Haha, clearly you don’t hang around banks. The number of women of mom age working in banks is very low, they were still discriminating 25 years ago. Plus Dartmouth had few women back then, there was a quota. It was the joke of the ivy league in the day, Dartmouth was the last to go coed and the guys were so against having women on campus they had a 3:1 enforced ratio. Always though it would have been fun to be there!</p>
<p>Almost any Ivy web site or informational site will state that legacies are admitted at rate between 30-40 percent, depending on school (and this is no reflection on qualifications which i am sure is up to ADCOMs wisdom and not mine). While URM status is used almost interchangeably with “students of color” it is a misnomer since Asians are students of color but not truly URMs/underrepresented (5 pct. US population, 15% admits).
The “44 percent” URM admit rate that someone listed below seems pretty high compared to the overall admit rates I have read for the ivies which states about 25 percent (again varying by college). It would be really helpful if they would not use URM as interchangeable with “students of color” among a bunch of other inconsistencies in terminology. This is purely from ability to understand applicant pool not to comment on any group’s merits in the pool.</p>
<p>IV, i missed your post, you said it a lot more briefly but I think the point is the same in general</p>
<p>2college. My uncle, who is a former double ivy leaguer (HY) swears the opposite. He stated that Dartmouth’s bad rap as a heavy drinking school started during his days in the late 50s and early 60s when the guys were stuck alone for the long NH winter with no females around-his quote “nothing to do for fun but drink themselves silly!”-LOL. </p>
<p>At another recent co-ed addition, Amherst now has no males having asked for an all male floor (no jokes needed-lol) - and only about one all female floor which was requested. Either the times they are a changin’ (doubt it too much) or woman have had a distinctly positive effect on Dartmouth and other colleges(at least according to my uncle it has)…</p>
<p>BTW–you naughty girl ("always thought it would be fun to go there (3 to 1 boy to girl ratio-lol).
In my day Oneonta was the road trip school. As the beach boys sang, “2 girls for every boy!” my turn…</p>
<p>if you go to the inside guide for students on the web (*******) Dartmouth guys rate a B on looks and girls a B+. On our tour we were told 10 percent of the students there have wound up married…usually you need an A and a B to get an A child but ever notice that some really really ugly people (D+s) can pull off an A! LOL.
BTW, Yale ranked the best looking in the survey guide with A and A-, forget which got which. Hmm, maybe that is the reason for mandatory interviews…more likely your theory about wealthy spouses selecting better looking other halves…too funny.</p>
<p>Regarding your post above on URMs, Hispanics hold a 3X% population, much larger than the 5% Asians hold. Isn’t that a little unfair to Asians lol?</p>
<p>Hey, tell your guys to multiply more. Latinos never seem to have a problem! LOL…
I would prefer Latinos were 5 percent with 15 percent in top colleges but then again since I have a bias I think I still like that its the number one growing ethnic group…muy caliente!</p>
<p>Dartmouth had a 53% yield last year, but if you subtract out the ED accepted applicants the yield for RD accepted applicants was 40%. i.e., 2 out of 5 accepted applicants matriculate. If as The D article states the number of ED accepted applicants drops from 460 to 400 and the desired class size drops by about 40 students, that means an additional 20 students will need to come from the RD pool. Assuming a 40% yield would mean 50 more applicants than last year will be admitted RD. 60 fewer ED and 50 more RD is just about a wash. Tougher for ED this year, about the same for RD if the total number of applicants doesn’t increase too much.</p>
<p>Standrews, ya, that’s why I thought they’d take more ED—doing so bulks up their yield number and steals from the other IVies. You look at the NESCACs–they take half their classes ED, sweeping up a ton of ED Ivy rejects and deferrals with their EDII–and their yield numbers look good for it.</p>
<p>2College—my mom was on an i-banker who married a good looking guy. She didn’t go to D, but she was also not alone on Wall Street. She also went to B-school and says both B-school and Wall Street were and continue to be self-selecting b/c women have shown less interest in quantitative career paths, not from discrimination, which is something dorky women whine about because they can’t get a long with guys.
Anyway, a little investigation shows that by 1985, the coed situation at D was not what you describe. My dad went to Tuck in the mid-eighties and he confirms that.</p>
<p>Maddowg, I attended an ivy undergrad and top B school too. Really, a lot of very smart women of my and your mother’s generation stayed home with kids. 10 years out, only 20% of the women who graduated in my class from my very top B school were working. Many have reentered the work force as kids leave home, but it was their choice to stay home those years. We married good looking AND successful men and produced boat loads of qualified little legacies!</p>
<p>As for Wall Street, there were several class action suits against banks in the 80s and 90s claiming discrimination against women. All were quietly settled with many more women becoming MDs in the process:) hope it’s different for this generation.</p>
<p>Well at the beginning of this thread I was freaking out (I was deferred last year and I waited a whole year just to apply again). So reading all the stats creeped me out! But then I came to “banker this banker that” part and I started having a good time.</p>
<p>So 2college2college and wailistman and co. keep amusing us:-)</p>
<p>peace</p>