I agree with this. I would like to see legacy admissions abolished - the year after my youngest child is admitted. 
If legacy admissions were really as big a problem as they think, my eminently admissible children would have gotten into the school where they were a legacy. Just sayin’. ?
One of mine got in, one didn’t. I’d have made the same choices as an admissions officer, though I think in fact, the one who didn’t has more potential and is more interesting and more likely to make a real mark on the world. My double legacy niece who was #2 in class of over 600 did not get into Harvard. So I’m a little skeptical as to how valuable a tip it is.
CDS information suggests that about 58% of private non-profit and 30% of public colleges and universities use legacy in admissions. For comparison, about 24% and 17% respectively use race/ethnicity in admissions.
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/2131779-what-colleges-use-in-admissions-according-to-cds-listings.html
While it is one thing for a private college with a historic mission to serve generations of the inherited wealth elite (even though the scions must now earn more of their own achievement than in the past), is it appropriate for a public college to do so?
@skieurope’s line made me laugh.
Yes, legacy admissions seem unfair. Still, if you are a legacy and your parents’ school is a good fit for you and you would love to attend it, of course you can take advantage of the fact that a legacy advantage exists, while it still does. When admissions percentages are so low, any advantage helps!
When S and friends looked up their admissions files last spring, there was a wording in each file: “admissions decision rendered by…” followed by a name of a committee. There were separate committees for separate categories! E.g., a first gen kid was admitted by the First Generation Committee. A legacy kid was admitted by the Institutional Ties Committee. Etc.
Minority students were not admitted by minority-only committees, but rather by a Division I (languages/arts), Division 2 (social sciences) or Division 3 (math/science) committee. However, each had a box named “Attributes” on their file that mentioned their racial group.
Although the legacy student’s “academic rating” on his admissions file was sky high, and he has been getting high grades since he started college, so he clearly was fully qualified… the implication appears to be that, during the admissions process, he was being compared mainly to other children of alumni, faculty and staff, and any other category that would fit under Institutional Ties.
The implication of the separate committees and noted attributes seems to be that there are unofficial quotas. You can speculate (and of course it is only speculation- but the numbers are basically the same year after year!) that the college is attempting to admit a certain number of first generation kids, a certain number of legacies, a certain number of black kids, a certain number of Asian kids, a certain number of kids from each less represented state, etc., etc. And every athletic team is manned.
As far as legacies go, I notice that the college always releases info showing the percentage of admitted students that are legacies, followed immediately by a line that shows that the percentage of students who are first generation (neither parent graduated from a four year U.S. college), which is always at least twice as high. This wording simultaneously reassures alumni that some alumni children are admitted, while also making sure that the college looks egalitarian— after all, the number of students whose parents had no college education whatsoever is over twice as high as the number of legacies. An interesting political balance!!!
I would note that all of the friends who shared their data had high academic ratings. No matter what other attributes they might bring, they had to be super smart and have achieved a lot in high school even to be considered. Enough kids apply from each group that the college does not have to lower its standards to get the numbers it wants.
Well, just because it’s published in NYT doesn’t magically change it from an opinion piece.
The top college I know best has no separate admit committees. No separate “piles.” They do have input from various resources. Big difference.
This argument about legacy is like crabgrass, keeps coming up. Kids and their families should spend more mental energy on what woud make them a match, not imagining their own hs standing is enough. You aren’t applying to a better high school. It’s about the college leap. Know what you’re applying for. Be able to put your own best foot forward.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. On average, legacies at the most elite universities are weaker and less intelligent than non-legacies. Fact.
@dropbox77177 - Source for this “fact”?
Absolutely NOT a fact. Indefensible, except as opinion.
Legacies go through the same review process and standards. And get rejected when unsuitable.
Fact is, not enough bright kids do the work to understand what their targets are about. You’ve got to have seen this on CC. We have to tell them to look up testing requirements, course reccs, comparative stats info, and more.
And still, plenty argue on CC that being legacy is a shoo-in, some passing the torch of privilege and resources, that legacy is a sham. Not.
Why not try to self educate on what does matter to colleges? Enough info is out there to learn better.
My eyes automatically roll when someone states something as “fact” with no source.
I agree with @dropbox77177 on the need for transparency. The lack of transparency is precisely why we don’t have all the “facts”. In the absence of all the “facts”, we have to rely on our logic. If legacies are as well qualified as unhooked students on average, why is there a need for the legacy preferences in college admission? I grant that most legacies are qualified, and on average, are more qualified than the student body as a whole. But that doesn’t mean all of them would have been admitted without legacy preferences. Some of them were admitted at the expense of some more qualified and more deserving applicants.
IMO and talking with ivy friends, for the top colleges just being a legacy isn’t much of a tip unless you have given back to the college significantly over the years with donations and/or your time, or have some other strong connections. Said another way, if you went to Yale and never gave much in the way of $ to your university over the last 25 years and the only thing you did was a few alumni interviews each year for prospective students, I really doubt legacy tips the scale in your kids favor.
Legacy and the donor families that give millions of dollars are TWO different issues.
Want to get hot under the collar? Complain about athlete preferences. That’s where a sports talent can override academic basics. That’s where academic under-qualification can be swept aside- publics included.
Top colleges don’t “prefer” legacies. But plenty will set aside other great kids, to fill their sports rosters.
(No offense intended to parents of highly academically qualified athletes.)
It seems that few have realized that the Harvard litigation provided handy statistics in the expert report appendices. They contain z-score data between the unhooked and hooked applicant and enrolled pools on every metric that counts, normed against their respective pools.
It really doesn’t take much mathematical sophistication to disaggregate the data and draw conclusions. One begins by comparing z-score changes from the baseline (unhooked) to the expanded (including all hooked except athletes). The presentation already disaggregates by race so race preferences do not pollute the data. I wonder how many regular posters have done this?
Of course, it might just be that the legacies at Harvard are weaker but at the other elites they are stronger. It’s not like Harvard is particularly competitive (sarcasm).
The H litigation is a slice of reality, just a slice. Don’t assume you can dissect based on one view from the sidelines. How much did you understand about tippy top admissions before the lawsuit? How many apps have you seen, to support the idea legacies are less qualified than other Billys and Marys?
The unfortunate fact is, with an app/supp process, too many hs top performers slay themselves by being under-informed. They don’t offer the right balance of qualifications, they rely on hearsay, they make rookie mistakes. They can’t nswer a Why Us. Adcoms can roll their eyes.
But, nooo. People claim the lawsuit is all they need to understand. Not even close.
USC loves their legacies and they are not afraid to say it.
That seems to be a way to inflate the “first generation to college” number, since most definitions are based on neither parents earning a bachelor’s degree anywhere in the world. In the above definition, a kid whose parents graduated from an IIT and Tsinghua would be “first generation”.
At least the athletes did contribute to earning their hooks, rather than being dropped on first, second, or third base because of the birth lottery.
Also, the elite colleges (particularly LACs) are smaller than most publics, so they reserve a greater percentage of their classes for athletes than the big publics. A football team is a much smaller percentage of Arizona State’s students that it is of Harvard’s or Williams’ students.
Also, some publics are less selective, so that athletes’ NCAA minimum academic standards are no lower than the standards that non athletes meet (e.g. Mississippi publics).
To some of us, college isn’t about sports talent. Sports are part of community life, but shouldn’t be allowed to supercede academic purposes.
I do wonder if the hesitation to criticize recruiting hooks is because sports interests are too close to home, for many families. An advantage many can taste. In contrast, legacies make a nice, distant target. Think about it. I wonder how many parents would give up recruiting interest, to play admissions fair and square.
Again, many recruits are solid candidates. But not all.