<p>Cornell ED admitted students included 21% legacies (200+ students). I don´t know how many legacies applied, but that still seem like a large number to me. If you take out athletes, it doesn´t leave too many spots for regular people. </p>
<p>Legacy at Cornell means parents and grandparents, not siblings, so D2 didn´t qualify.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, students in probably 99% of high schools in this country “take care of the application process themselves” or in conjunction with parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If half of Cornell’s ED-applicant pool were legacies, would 21% of Cornell’s ED-admitted pool being legacies “feel like a large number”? Indeed, in that scenario Cornell legacies would be underrepresented, not overrepresented.</p>
<p>I’m really tired of people not understanding that % of a class being legacy is related to the % of the applicant pool who are legacies. Frankly I think it’s a good thing when a college is so appealing to its alumni that a good number of their children wish to apply there. That’s a source of strength, not weakness.</p>
<p>
You’d have to know how many legacy applicants there were as compared to the whole ED pool, and you’d have to know what their stats looked like as well. Consider that there may not be that many legacies in the RD pool, also.</p>
<p>And something to consider about legacies–super-qualified Cornell legacies may prefer to apply to and attend Cornell preferentially over equally or even more selective schools. Ditto for other similar schools. If that’s true, they will be significantly overrepresented in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>In other words, the main reason my wife and I wanted our kids to apply to Yale was not because we thought they’d have an advantage in terms of getting in–it was because we loved Yale and thought they would, too.</p>
<p>“Well, students in probably 99% of high schools in this country “take care of the application process themselves” or in conjunction with parents.”</p>
<p>Do you know what percent of these parents have paid their school 250k by the time of 12th grade not to be too invested in the school’s coolaid?</p>
<p>pg,
It would be interesting to see what percentage took care of apps “themselves” in top 50 colleges/unis- accepted, then enrolled.
“Themselves” would be defined as not having active and sophisticated GC, no help from a college consultant.</p>
<p>It would also be interesting to see of same population who did paid-for test prep, separated into two categories: individual tutoring, in groups.</p>
<p>Also, what percentage of this population had no parental involvement in the process?</p>
<p>This is far from a level playing field, as we all know. And aspirations vary significantly. As does need for FA.</p>
<p>As an aside, I have no idea how MT and Music applicants can apply as per their grueling process without significant help (time, resources, advice) from the parents, and other adults.
Athletes also need a bit of support to get recruited.</p>
<p>And a biggies, applying for FA, and also sending in separate apps for merit scholarships- very hard to do without adult involvement.</p>
<p>CollegeConfidential has become a crucial resource, in point of fact, for so many.</p>
<p>None of this is easy or obvious.
But that does not seem to bother the colleges or the AdComms very much.</p>
<p>It has become a bit of a circus IMO.</p>
<p>TPG, well, I could say that I would not like to take your hard earned money at a time you’re looking at several years of substantial contributions to one of our most august universities, but the biggest problem is that we could not settle the bet. </p>
<p>For the simplest of reasons that Chicago has never shown much interest in disclosing its data with a modicum of timeliness or accuracy to common mortals like us. Despite making occasional quips about it, I find it easier to let officials from that city play their usual games, and ignore them altogether. Why they decide to borrow pages from WUSTL is hard to understand, but that is their call.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think they are much more concerned with their specific pumpkin being crowded out than they are with the overall quality of the student body.</p>
<p>xiggi - Are you expecting Grace to respond to your query on the Chicago thread to make it transparent?</p>
<p>response to below - The students are involved and they can let parents know what they are choosing etc based on what their counselors and teachers tell them. Parents can’t tell the school about their own requirements of which schools they need to apply, only the kid can.</p>
<p>In return, school does the entire application paperwork of controlling overlaps etc. I suspect recruited athletes would be exempt since I have seen them signing their letters of intents for Stanford and a couple of other schools long before the EA results came out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who can make such investments should also be able to differentiate between the most appropriate advisors. It is doubtful that students with potential for athletic scholarships would rely solely on the guidance of their high school mentors for sports outside football and basketball. After spending 250,000, why would anyone be cutting corners. </p>
<p>Seeking advice is quite different from abdicating all decisions to high school officials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not any more than I would have expected Lee Stetson to do the same! By the way, who is Grace?</p>
<p>Grace Chapin is the admissions rep who posts as UChicago (f/k/a gracello and UChicagoPSAC when she was a student, until last June).</p>
<p>She is the UChicago user on the Chicago question thread and an adcom (Grace Chapin). She supposedly was a regular from high school through college as another user on CC (mentions her history in the very first post to the thread) and chose to represent UChicago since she has fond memories of her times on CC. :p</p>
<p>I have not seen any numbers for EA results for Chicago anywhere yet. Is that normal?</p>
<p>cross posted with JHS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My kids’ top 20 schools have PLENTY of kids who came from unhooked, only-one-from-their-high-school-ever-applied, relatively unsophisticated high school backgrounds.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think it’s silly to say that “this does not seem to bother the colleges very much.” Colleges go out of their way to get URM’s, to support Questbridge and similar programs, to start or fund programs in their home city to identify high-potential students who don’t have resources PRECISELY because they seek that diversity. And when that happens, half the people on CC whine that it’s not fair that the inner city kid with the 1800 SAT got n over the privileged suburbanite with the 2200 SAT. So don’t give me the bunch of bull that they really only want privileged suburbanites with 2200 SAT’s who have all been prepped-and-coached-to-death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TPG, could that be the issue I was bringing up? Obviously, colleges have no obligation to jump through hoops to publish that type of information. However, in this age of instant communication, there are few excuses to stick to tam-tam drums and smoke signals. While a few schools go through extraordinary pains to share details about the admitted pool, all it takes to please casual observers are the simplest of numbers. </p>
<p>Is it normal? I’d say that a slight delay is acceptable. The prolonged absence of any message on the admission page is, however, as questionable as it is expected from an office that still believes in the virtue of hiding its Common Data Set.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A bunch of Seven Sisters on that list!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a horrible college that would be, if it existed (I guess it probably does, somewhere…)</p>
<p>Here are UChicago’s EA results, a stunning 15.8% acceptance for 2015</p>
<p>[Admissions</a> rate falls – The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“Scalzi: From the U of C to a galaxy far, far away – Chicago Maroon”>Scalzi: From the U of C to a galaxy far, far away – Chicago Maroon)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>chocoholic - It is dated april 5th 2011 and talks of 2015 admits…</p>
<p>ugh, I just realized…</p>
<p>it’s all just a game anyway.</p>