<p>I agree. My data are purely anecdotal. But I do question the assumption that underlies so many discussions that hooked applicants are weaker. Those I know among S's friends are extremely strong.</p>
<p>Different experience here. Many Ivy League acceptances, all recruited athletes, URM's, or legacies, none in top 1/5 of class, none were high scorers (on tests that is).</p>
<p>That's the problem, isn't it? We can't extrapolate from the little data we have. I happen to live in an area where many applicants have a fairly high probability of having at least one hook (being from the area; facbrats; legacies; attending feeder schools, either public or private), sometimes multiple hooks. Of S's friends who were athletes, both were legacies, high scorers and top 5% of their class. One was a facbrat as well. In other words, many of Ss friends had multiple hooks and were also high achievers.</p>
<p>I'm sure there are many legacies, urms, and even recruited athletes with top SATs and GPAs, but these students are obviously given a preference in admissions because the school is more concerned about these "hooks" than they are their academic abilities--as long as they’re smart enough to get by there.</p>
<p>I had no idea that the percentage of special admits at these schools was possibly as high as 40%. If so, I would raise my cut number for the ordinary student to about 730 or so, but it's clear that these schools are mostly looking for students who are smart enough and have something else that the school finds desirable—some other “hook”. The urban legend is that the ultra selective schools are looking for the smartest kids available, as measured by admissions test scores and grades in challenging coursework.</p>
<p>Anothervoice,</p>
<p>I had always heard that 750 was "good enough" but who knws 730 might work. It is clear that 25% of the Harvard stdents are 790+. I have also heard that the only "hooks" that have real power are: recruited athlets, urms, legacys (an this not everywhere), development candidates (donated serious money), celebrety parents, or celebrety students (movie stars etc.).</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>At last something we can agree on; anecdotal evidence means nothing. I have read that the minority "test gap" is frustratingly consistent at about 100 points per exam. This appears to be the case even at higher income and education levels in peer-to-peer analysis. Absent evidence to the contrary it's hard to believe this pattern stops at the doors of the Ivy League. I also understand that the benefit associated with being a recruited athlete is almost as large as the URM benefit. My understanding is that the legacy benefit is significantly smaller but I don't remember ever seeing any actual data. We have had overlap in some years too, but it's such a small sample that it is meaningless.</p>
<p>Back to the OP. I have seen data comparing test data from the Ivy League with state U's during the first half of the twentieth century and the difference is actually quite small. This is one of the reasosns why the legacy preference is such a bad idea.</p>
<p>Curious14:</p>
<p>My problem with many of the studies is that they test only for one variable. and while they hold for groups, they cannot explain individual cases. But adcoms make decisions based on individual files, not groups of applicants.
What to attribute admission success to when applicants are legacies/URMs/athletes/high scorers? Into which pool are they put?
In discussions of the percentage of students who are in the top or bottom 25% of an admission pool, there is the assumption that the bottom quarter is filled with legacies/URMs/athletes. Unless we know the scores of individual admits, it is risky to make such an assumption. Of the 11 students from our hs admitted to Harvard a couple of years ago, every single one had at least one hook, and several had multiple hooks; every single one was a high scorer.
I did read of a former captain of the women's soccer team. She was a recruited athlete and a 13th generation Harvard legacy. Her SATs were 1200/1600.</p>
<p>Re: post 47: why is the legacy preference such a bad idea?</p>
<p>I'll add a little anecdote. In our town, kids hardly ever get into HYP or elite schools. We only have a handful of black kids in the high school, either. Yet the first kid in decades who got into MIT was a black kid. He also was a state-level track star (also unusual in our town,) one of the top students, & had SATs over 1500.</p>
<p>SS, he sounds like a great kid. And it's too bad that many people will automatically assume that the "only" reason he got into MIT is because he's black....</p>
<p>The only folks who ever get into HYPS in our town are athletes, and they regularly reject the local vals and sals, science fair winners, math teams whizzes, etc.</p>
<p>People DO automatically assume that the "only" reason kids from our area get into these schools is because they are athletes...and they're right. (And I don't see anything wrong with that - at least students, and local GCs, know where they stand.)</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>Haven't we had it out over the legacy preference on another thread or am I confusing you with someone else. The legacy preference is bad because it is inconsistent with American values. It smells of class privilege. It interferes with social and economic mobility. It encourages students to go to colleges they may dislike but select because they can get in because their parents went there.</p>
<p>katliamim, actually our town has two newspapers that do pretty extensive write-ups on the top grads, complete with their stats. So his numbers were out there for all the world to see. I'd run into his family at CTY award presentations & I know he has a younger sibling coming up for graduation soon. I mentioned him because I was adding to marite's post about kids with multiple hooks. It's not wise to assume all the jocks & URMs are to be found in the bottom quarter of any elite admissions class. </p>
<p>We had another genius jock graduate that year. He broke a decades old state track record, achieved conservatory level piano proficieny, and went on to study physics at Tufts or Brown, can't remember which. Not a URM, but like the MIT kid, popular & social. I remember him as a ten year old at piano recitals....I thought it was the teacher playing.</p>
<p>Maybe someone else?
All you say is true to a point. But the browbeating over legacy preferences is happening just as minorities are in the position of having legacy kids. Like the URM friends of my S whose parents have 5 Yale and Harvard degrees between the two of them. One kid is at Yale the other at Harvard (and both are absolutely stellar, graduated at 16). Ditto for Asian-Americans.</p>
<p>From another perspective, legacies give money (particularly on my mind as I just received a message sent to parents of students reminding us to contribute and mentioning that last year the Parents fund raised $2million). You only need to attend one Harvard Commencement to hear about class of such and such raising record sums. I support giving financial aid to students; I can live with a few mediocre students in return for more generous financial aid to needy ones.</p>
<p>This is not to advocate admitting any and all legacies. In fact, there would be not enough room for them all. But children of highly educated parents are likely to be above average educationally; indeed, many of them are likely to be high scorers. And so, I don't see why they should not enjoy a little tip.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It encourages students to go to colleges they may dislike but select because they can get in because their parents went there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's assuming that the students couldn't get anywhere else. Of course parents will pressure their kids to follow in their footsteps. But the parents who have the Ivy or bust mentality are often those who never attended an Ivy.</p>
<p>EDIT: Did you see the news item about John Kluge pledging $400million to Columbia for scholarships? He's already given several millions. To be able to dole out so much in financial aid ($20 million per year at 5% payout), I'd welcome several Kluge legacies.</p>
<p>Well said, Marite!</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>"That's assuming that the students couldn't get anywhere else." No, it just assumes that like a large number of other folks they find the alure of the more prestigious school difficult to resist.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I distinguish between Development Candidates and Legacies. I know it seems that "I'm just bickering over the price" but a handful of less than stellar students in exchange for billions seems an ok tradeoff but a systematic preference for those who have the right parents seems odious to me.</p>
<p>A lot of those large gifts are meant to further some interest of the donor that has nothing to do with securing the admission of grandchildren.</p>
<p>I assume the list of anecdotal cases of preference candidates with high grades and test scores is over. Of course these people exist but their existence proves nothing. it would really help if someone with inside access to some real data would provide it.</p>
<p>Well, I hope that my S's existence proves Something! :)
No inside data, sorry, except as to S's existence and how that came about.</p>