<p>well, I do think U. of Chicago may be a little more holistic (maybe even more than that) in thinking “outside of the box” w/regard to its applicants. Still, the middle range of the freshman class for each SAT section is 700-780. So for the biggest part of the class, they are splitting hairs among probably the top 3-5% of scorers nationally. Now as for what they are doing outside of that middle 50% range (i.e.,at the lower end), that is where you would find maybe some dramatic flexibility in who they consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With my kids at a good-but-not-outstanding public hs school, I’m laughing at these questions. The GC’s have hundreds of kids and their primary focus is finding scholarships for needy kids, not helping top kids distinguish between elite schools. They move transcripts from one place to another and that’s that. My kids applied to the schools they wanted to apply to, and the GC wouldn’t have given an opinion if they had applied solely to Northern Illinois, Eastern Illinois and Western Illinois University, or if they had applied to Harvard, Yale and Princeton, or anywhere in between. Thinking that the GC had ANY input on the number, reach / match / safety, the rank order, etc. is about as ludicrous as thinking that the bank teller (or more accurately the ATM) has an opinion on where I spend the money I take out of the account!</p>
<p>also, I’m not sure, but do the private universities have a lot more flexibility legally and otherwise in whom they either accept or reject, while certain state colleges can mandate not only percentage of in-state vs. OOS acceptances but may have other guidelines as well over and above whatever federal law dictates w/regard to quota, bias etc? I know some private schools are very upfront about being either need aware or giving a distinct acceptance advantage to legacies. Harvard for one, I believe ,admits about 30% of legacy applicants out of a total pool applicants admitted at a single digit rate.</p>
<p>pleaseadvise - None of the Ivies exceed 15% for legacy in an admit class. The 30% you are pointing to is admit rate for legacies which compares very favorably when you see 6% for the rest of the pool. However, Harvard limits legacy to only those who did undergrad.</p>
<p>Harvard is not “upfront” about giving “a distinct acceptance advantage” to legacies. One of the things admissions people there say on a regular basis is that their admission rate for Harvard legacies is not meaningfully higher than their admission rate for Yale and Princeton legacies. Even though they have a separate review process for Harvard legacies and don’t give any special consideration to Yale or Princeton legacies (not even disadvantaging them for being somewhat more likely to choose another college if accepted at Harvard). The point is that Harvard (and Yale, and Princeton) legacies are, on average, a pretty privileged, sophisticated group, that has lots of natural advantages in the admissions process. So of course they do very well, relative to other groups. But they don’t do any better than similarly privileged kids who aren’t Harvard legacies.</p>
<p>texas and pg,
Do not laugh, but public competitive admissions magnets (cobrat may have attended one, for instance) DO have these rules!
My niece was a “victim” of such practices at one of these.
Her parents never considered suing… not sure why these NYC publics are not worried about being sued…</p>
<p>My post anticipated a “…” reaction like yours, pg. Hope it was fun responding!</p>
<p>performersmom - NYC may have a different set of rules. I know that Houston does not have a single public school where they have such a restriction. I am familiar with a well known magnet school which does send about 30-40 kids each year to top 20 schools and as I mentioned in earlier post in the thread referring to applying to a lot of schools, they have no restrictions about whether a student applies to one or 30.</p>
<p>I do know of one private school in Houston where the parents have to sign waiver stating they will allow the school to make all decisions on where to apply and they will not interfere whatsoever. This school distributes the applications so everyone has a shot and the parents are happy with their kids outcomes since 25k an year investment over 4 or 12 years results in a school admission appropriate to their status.</p>
<p>on a side note, looks like your D and Hunt’s D will be college classmates!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This probably depends on one’s definition of unusual and often.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, “deferred” has become an utterly meaningless term in the context of admission. Schools could make it easier on everyone by dropping the “rejected” category in the early admission rounds; it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Legacy</a> Admit Rate at 30 Percent | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/]Legacy”>Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>texaspg thanks for the clarification of admitted class versus admitted. I suppose the latter should be referred to as accepted, and maybe the former as enrolled. When one is splitting hairs between applicants all of whom are terrifically well-qualified, a “tip” factor can be more enormous than the word implies. Not sure a single word can be an oxymoron, but here it may apply. “Tip” it sounds so small and insignificant–kind of like the tip of an iceberg.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And there ought to be a simple explanation for the consistency in yield. Chicago has attracted more applications from students who were previously unimpressed by the uncommon application, from students who compose an application list based on Morse code, and from the growing “what is there to lose” pool. </p>
<p>However, there is little indication that the admitted and enrolled pool has changed coinsiderably. Students who find a different set of schools more prestigious or more affordable still enroll at such schools. </p>
<p>In fact, a case could be made easily that very little to nothing has changed in the entire pool of applicants in the past decade. Only the number of multiple applicants and increase in trivial applications have. The admitted pool at the most selective schools is very much the same as it was years ago. </p>
<p>We only like to pretend it is different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People need to distinguish between “what % of a freshman class are legacies” (which is, to a large extent, dependent upon what % of the freshman applicant pool are legacies) and “what % of legacy applicants are accepted.” Those two are VERY different numbers, and they seem to get conflated all the time on CC. </p>
<p>Anyway, I still don’t understand why, if selective colleges are watering down their pool with all the unqualified legacies / athletes / URM’s / development kids, why you’d want your precious pumpkin to go there and have all those unqualified students as classmates. Seems to me you’d want to find where the qualified kids go who are allegedly being shut out of the top schools, and send your kid there.</p>
<p>xiggi - is it your opinion that chicago yield won’t be going up above 40% this year? I would like to start a betting pool!</p>
<p>my pumpkin is a legacy at an ivy, but simply has decided not to apply at the ivy which i attended (Freud might be able to explain that as I cannot). BTW never said legacies were unqualified, they may or may not be.</p>
<p>TPG, why don’t we bet about the yield of the Class of 2015? It’s pretty silly to bet about numbers that are irrelevant as well as unknown, and probably will never be known with a reasonable degree of accuracy. A fact that is acceptable as a yield analysis lacks total relevance to students and their family. With the exception of enrollment managers and a few bragging alumnis, it means absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>Now, if you want my idle speculation about it, I am happy to say that I doubt the yield would change from 2015 to 2016, especially after the summer melt and waiting list uses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My S decided to apply to H’s / my alma mater. My D wouldn’t have touched it with a 10-foot pole. Different students, different preferences and desires in a college experience. There’s really nothing to explain. And it doesn’t particularly matter if the parents’ alma mater is an Ivy, Big State U or Third-Tier U.</p>
<p>Texaspg,</p>
<p>“I do know of one private school in Houston where the parents have to sign waiver stating they will allow the school to make all decisions on where to apply and they will not interfere whatsoever.”</p>
<p>I probably missed something, but are you saying at this H.S. the GCs decide where the kids will apply w/o parental input?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fitz used to be pretty open about personally reviewing/reading every single legacy applicant before a decision was issued - but I don’t know if he still does that. IMHO, the Harvard legacy tie is a fairly significant tip for “otherwise academically qualified” applicants. Sometimes people will hear about a “Harvard legacy rejected” and not realize that that “Harvard legacy” in question is not a “real” “Harvard legacy.” (No, I’m not saying that “real” Harvard legacies are always admitted either, but just a point of clarification).</p>
<p>Harvard considers only the children of Harvard College (Radcliffe) alumni/ae as legacies - not the children of HLS, the B school, the grad school, the Divinity School, etc. etc. I think this fact can skew public perception about the “value” of being a legacy applicant to Harvard in the admissions process because (at least in my experience) many applicants will talk about being a “Harvard legacy” when the school does not consider them as such.</p>
<p>That school toyed with the idea to rename itself San Quentin Academy.</p>
<p>xiggi - I feel you are losing your Texas touch - not taking wagers.</p>
<p>muckdog07 - yes. I know parents who told me they had to sign a waiver or else take care of the application process themselves.</p>