<p>interesting NYT article about how some elite schools are looking at admissions of legacies, in light of the present tough economy:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/nyregion/at-elite-new-york-schools-admissions-policies-are-evolving.html?hpw%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/nyregion/at-elite-new-york-schools-admissions-policies-are-evolving.html?hpw</a></p>
<p>Very eye-opening how high the percentage of admission spots for legacies is.</p>
<p>GMTplus7, if you read the article carefully, the NYC day schools are considering cutting back on sibling admissions. I didn’t see any mention of cutting back on legacy admissions.</p>
<p>Although they claim development and diversity concerns are driving a change, I’ll believe it when I see it. I don’t think families will feel grateful and connected to a school which has just told them their four year old isn’t smart enough or cute enough to join his brother. I don’t think parents tend to take that well. </p>
<p>Of course, I’m sure some families must deal with such disappointment now. I would think that the families would feel more grateful to schools which don’t reject their children, though. School #1 declines to enroll younger sib. School #2 will be glad to admit both (or all) the family’s children. Which school do you think the family will think of fondly? Which school will be in line for large gifts? It should be interesting to see such a policy be widely implemented.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to know if they want to cut back on sibling admissions to make more space for legacy admissions.</p>
<p>@Periwinkle,
I sloppily lumped siblings w legacies-- my oversight. Thx for the clarification.</p>
<p>All the same, I was floored by the overwhelming number of slots given out to siblings/legacies.</p>
<p>
Well it’s a seller’s market after all. To me, it just means being a sibling ONLY might not be enough any more. You need other “hooks” as well, e.g. being rich (or richer) and a potential giver of large gifts etc. When a school has the status of Trinity, they wouldn’t worry too much about their competitors. They are having TOO many applications anyway (only 400 of them each year get interviews).</p>
<p>DAndrew, I don’t think being a sibling ONLY is sufficient at present. The New York prep schools are a different world. The sums mentioned in connection with these schools have always been mind-boggling.</p>
<p>Even if it’s a seller’s market, though, there’s a certain limit to family logistics. I know families who’ve changed schools out here in the 'burbs, because it was too difficult to get multiple children to multiple schools. If you’re able to afford a nanny for each child, I suppose it could work, but at some point, no matter how good the school may be, families will change schools. </p>
<p>And, large gifts don’t tend to come in in the first year. It’s a long-range thing, and annoying families at the end of their time at your school seems to be a risky strategy. It’s hard to predict who will be willing to give the large gifts. The younger sib of a (relatively) middle-class family just might be the next Mark Zuckerberg. </p>
<p>I’m intrigued by the implication that the younger siblings are often less qualified. I suspect it just means the parents don’t invest as much time and effort in prepping younger sibs for the entrance tests. As far as I know, the schools have no problem effectively kicking out students who are struggling in later years–I’ve heard that’s often why spots open up.</p>
<p>bumping this old thread</p>
<p>
I was surprised in the last admissions cycle how many sibs at D1’s school were WL’d. Will take nothing for granted for D2.</p>
<p>I noticed that some prep schools report percent legacies. Some numbers:</p>
<ul>
<li>Exeter 13%</li>
<li>Hill 30%</li>
<li>Episcopal 28%</li>
</ul>
<p>I wonder if these figures refer to ‘legacy’ in the strict sense, or whether it includes sibs.</p>
<p>Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think siblings have been considered legacy ever, so those numbers shouldn’t include siblings. From what I’ve heard though, schools <em>like to</em> admit siblings when possible, but sometimes there are just not enough spots, so do try for another year if the first year she doesn’t get in.</p>
<p>lol, I meant to edit DS to S1, and ended up w a girl! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>My child and his cousin both applied to a top boarding school and were considered legacy applicants. They both had strong SSAT scores (my child’s went up after taking it for a 2nd time and scored a 88% overall) and strong academic records from private schools. My child is from outside of New England and the cousin is from NYC (in case demographics played a role). Our child has some great extracurriculars and is a strong athlete. They both had aunts that attended, grandfather (my child had 2 grandfathers) and a great grandfather. Our family has been very supportive of this school for a number of years both with giving, time as an alumni rep and community/development support. Our child applied as a repeat 9th grader and cousin applied as a 10th grader. Outcome: cousin rejected and our child wait listed. I understand how competitive admissions is and we realized this school was a long shot based on the number of applicants, but at the same time the school was very encouraging and mention our legacy status several times. Fortunately, our child ended up with great options and even got off a wait list at another top school. We are very happy with our decision, but at the same time, it is sad that our family connection to this top school is over. This school was a “part of the family” and discussed often at family get togethers. We were surprised that neither cousins got in especially since they were both strong applicants that I know would have been able to handle the work. So in the end, being a legacy didn’t help… Who knows what happens in admission offices these days.</p>
<p>The school gets new donors by selecting newer families, as the existing families are already on the donor list. Thus the school is able to cast a wider net for future donations. Just another business decision as these schools are private.</p>
<p>pwalsh - I understand the new donor concept, but at the same time they are loosing our family as a donor. While we have family members on the existing donor list they will not continue to give at the same level as in the past, and we probably would have given more considering our history with the school. Now that money will be directed elsewhere. Some of these schools have so much money already sometimes loosing a donor doesn’t matter. And there is a risk involved on counting on a new family because they may not be able to predict how committed the new family will be.</p>
<p>Statistically the school will win with a larger pool of donors because the new families are also sorted out based on their ability to pay now and in the future. ie they look for the offspring of Gates, Bezos, and the likes. Yes, huge endowments enable them to be cocky.</p>
<p>Paultte, my impression is that in general, whether in college or in prep school application, legacy is becoming a “lesser hook”, compared with URM, atheletes, faculty kids and geographic diversity, in terms of making up “deficincies” in one’s profile. I think partly it’s because there are too many of them. While we still see a much higher admit rate in legacy pool than in the general applicant pool, it seems that legacy pool is more of a select select group with more qualified applicants. On the one hand, legacy applicants may still get that advantage when compared with non-legacy applicants with similar profiles. On the other hand, legacy applicants are often from previledged background with better opportunities so if they are deemed less qualified they’d be on a steeper upward battle. </p>
<p>I’ve been told that in prep school application, all legacy applicants automtically get “a second read”, which I understand will be from a higher level AO. From there, I imagine if an applicant is deemed not as qualified as the average of the legacy pool, then there’s gotta be something else to make up the deficiencies. It sounds like your kid could’ve been a development case candidate as well? I assume that is a very small pool, and the development office must have their own way of identifying who has the potenital of making substanial donations in the future. In any case, Paultte, considering you’ve been so active in the school community, I feel they should’ve at least given you a better explanation than a generic “too many applicants, too few spots”, which doesn’t sound like it happened?</p>
<p>All candidates have donor potential. But I surmise what makes a legacy candidate especially appealing is guaranteed YIELD. The legacy fish is less likely to wrestle free from that school’s fishing net and swim to some other boat.</p>
<p>
Sure, but the school can’t take all of them hence the discretion of who has greater potential. Then I don’t think they would look at every candidate from that perspective. There are other missions schools need to fulfill.
I agree. Nevertheless, in selective schools most legacy candidates get turned down. And it’s a card the school really knows how to play to its own advantage. See how in Paulette’s case, "the school was very encouraging and mention our legacy status several times. "?</p>