<p>The attacks on legacy admits on these boards are so tiresome.</p>
<p>Our child was admitted in the late 1990's to the Ivy to which his parents went. He was more than qualified in every way. During freshman orientation we attended a brunch for legacy families, most of whom had parents who were admitted to the school as a result of the post-sputnik, post-Conant Ivy admissions reform era. The admissions office revealed the statistical profile for legacy freshmen, and as a group they exceeded all median academic statistics for the class as whole. Anecdotally, their accomplishments in and out of the classroom read like the usual highly impressive Ivy admits. Admissions also said they rejected the majority of legacy applicants. One parent joked that, "The admissions office knows a good gene pool when they see one." </p>
<p>A university is a large community involving many constituencies, and like any healthy community it seeks multi-generational commitment. It speaks well of the school when alumni parents think highly enough of their experience to want to send their children there. Every school seeks a well of good will and support-- including financial support-- that is essential to its survival. To the extent that legacy families, who obviously have close ties to the institution, are more likely to help provide that moral and financial support, they are an important part of any university community.</p>
<p>"The admissions office knows a good gene pool when they see one." </p>
<p>Wretch!!</p>
<p>I say let the genes speak for themselves in the performance of the student.
This sounds like a throw back to the 19th century. The next thing will be someone talking about superior breeding. The whole point of the Conant reforms was to move the academic world away from this nonsense and educate the best that America had to offer. A side benefit is improvement of the gene pool.</p>
<p>The thing that did in the French aristocracy was not so much that they were wealthy as that they used their wealth and power to shield themselves from competition from the rising middle class. To me the legacy preference smacks of the same kind of reprehensible behavior.</p>
<p>"Even though an essay doesn't relate specifically to a political topic, it's often apparent where a person stands politically/socially from their writing."</p>
<p>My daughter is extremely conservative and wrote one of her essays (a small one to a college she was accepted to but will not attend) about her opposition to the death penalty. That might be a surprise to some people. We were at an admitted student day last week to the school she will attend. It was great and we all felt welcome, but the Director of Student Life made an extremely snarky comment about the republican students' club. Which confirmed to me that both girls need to keep their politics to themselves in the admissions process. Although D1 is less political than moral in a conservative, respectful way. D2 is planning to volunteer for a democratic candidate at the extremely local level. Great guy, competent in his job, everything one could want in a local official. It will be a smoke screen for the fact that daughter is already strategizing potential college locations based upon red/state-blue/state in case she wants to run for office someday because she is serious about her politics.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm out of the loop, but the kids I know at Yale and other top universities do not fit the "elite" mold described here. None are varsity athletes, none come from wealthy parents, none are URM's, none have extraordinary EC's, none appeared overly concerned about the college admissions process, none had consultants, only a couple took the SAT/ACT more than once, few went to ACT/SAT prep courses or did much more than look at one of the test prep books, and all went to public schools. All-in-all, they were good natured, normal kids. This year two have decided to forgo the Ivy League and go the the local flagship U (and finances were not an issue, all had enough aid to go). They simply said that after visiting, they couldn't see much difference and liked the sports at the state U.</p>
<p>So what are you saying? I'm not challenging your observations, although I bet there is more to the story than just better sports at the state U, I just don't see what point you are trying to make.</p>
<p>You stated those points of view as though they were in conflict with one another. I hope you recognize that it is possible to agree with both of the view points that you mentioned.</p>
<p>^^But isn't this the way the discussion has been conducted? As if the points of view ARE in conflict? And that's why some posters, inlcuding myself, are reacting the way they are.</p>
<p>There is a real point here. Is the bottom 25% disproportionately made up of recruited athletes, urms, and legacy students? I think this is true but the evidence supporting this view is indirect. The second point of view that you mention, that some of these students are in the top 25%, is either true or false but has little to do with the truth of the above statement. In addition the second point of view that you mention is not in contention. I don't remember a single post that asserted that it was false. It's just irrelevant.</p>
<p>"Maybe I'm out of the loop, but the kids I know at Yale and other top universities do not fit the "elite" mold described here."</p>
<p>Well, then you don't know many.</p>
<p>At Yale, according to their own Common Data Set (2006-2007), 58.2% of students receive no need-based aid whatsoever, meaning the lowest income their families have is around $175k, with assets to match, putting them in the top 3% of all families nationwide. Median income is likely in the high 200ks; half have more than that. Of the remaining 41.8%, roughly half come from families in the the $100k-$175k range; and around 10% are Pell Grantees, with incomes below $45k. There are virtually no (<10%) middle-income students ($45k-$92k), and I'd be quite willing to bet that the bulk of them are recruited athletes (those are the only ones who ever get in from my community), or URMs.</p>
<p>If you don't agree, you should take it up with Yale - it is their Common Data Set.</p>
<p>My point was that many of the kids admitted are not so "elite" or as super competitive at these schools as is typically represented. Many are quite "normal."</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are virtually no (<10%) middle-income students ($45k-$92k)
<p>"Normal", but very, very, very rich (relatively speaking), and likely have many of the attributes (including excellent academic skills) that go with.</p>
<p>So here we are again.... we should hold it against the student if his parents earn a high income. </p>
<p>All this railing about priviledge is a pile of tripe from the professors and administrators who want to be social workers instead of educators. If you'd like to be Mother Teresa II, that job is open, and yours for the taking. If you'd like to educate people at the college level, you should take the best prospects. </p>
<p>Schools would do well to take note of whether they want to be educators or priviledge rectifiers.</p>
<p>Who's holding it against the students? Sounds like you have this big chip on your shoulder against actually looking at who gets to attend these schools.</p>
<p>These private schools have a right to take anyone they darn please, and I'm sure they know who it is they are accepting, and why. And I don't have any problem with that. Do you?</p>
<p>"There are virtually no (<10%) middle-income students ($45k-$92k) </p>
<p>"I must know them all!"</p>
<p>Yes, apparently you do. ;) (To be more exact, there are today approximately 534 of them, give or take 10%.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Normal", but very, very, very rich (relatively speaking), and likely have many of the attributes (including excellent academic skills) that go with.
[/quote]
None that I know are very very rich. They range from an unemployed dad and a working mom, to a physician who is not in the highest paying specialty, and who attended a state U himself. Most of the kids work to supplement their incomes as well.</p>
<p>58.2% come from the highest 3% of the population. The lowest-earning among them earns more than three times the national median household income. The median income among the students is roughly five times that of the national median. The assets held on average would be between 6 and 10 times the national median. </p>
<p>Are they Vanderbilts? Well, no. Or at least many aren't. But (as the book we are talking about illustrates), there were more students receiving aid at Yale 50 years ago than there are today, and the school is significantly less economically diverse today than it was 25 years ago. That's what the power of privilege is about, and extends to thinking of "privileged" as "normal".</p>
<p>idad, you're not a newbie. Why argue this with Mini? He's not interested in the son of a teacher and firefighter in the Bronx who are "statistically rich" even though they are squarely middle class in NYC. Kid attended public schools, grew up in a mixed neighborhood with a housing project at the end of the block, but somehow the vagaries of income statistics, high taxes, and soaring property values (which his family hasn't benefited from since they rent their apartment) marginalize this kid's experience and makes him rich.</p>
<p>Not worth belaboring the point that the gross income data on a national level in no way reflects the income/class issues that exist in parts of California, NY, Boston, DC, etc. Mini-- your wife still in nursing school? Neonatal nurses at my local hospital make $90K a year with moderate overtime. Sound like fun? Try finding a two bedroom apartment for $1900 a month...</p>
<p>
[quote]
These private schools have a right to take anyone they darn please, and I'm sure they know who it is they are accepting, and why. And I don't have any problem with that. Do you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, one might conclude from mosts of your posts that you do have a problem with a lot of it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sounds like you have this big chip on your shoulder against actually looking at who gets to attend these schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am quite balanced and have chips of equally large size on each shoulder. :)</p>
<p>Where one lives does indeed make a difference. A 1200 sqft, 2 bedroom home in my not top of the market neighborhood just sold for $400,000. To be "middle class" in these neck of the woods requires a joint income of at least $150,000. And that is not well-off by any means. Conversely, a friend who makes $70,000 as a college professor in a small town lives quite well, his 4 bedroom house cost $65,000 15 years ago, and now has appreciated to a whopping $110,000. That $70,000 goes a great deal further where he lives than $150,000 does around here. Who's wealthier?</p>