<p>As soon as I find the data, I will post it.</p>
<p>By the way kamikazewave you havent given any numbers or references and you are only speaking on your unsupported opinion that I mentioned before.</p>
<p>Is this what you're looking for? It's from Spring '05. See page 8.</p>
<p>I do love how they explain that legacy status acts only as a tie-breaker, despite the fact that it quadruples one's chances.</p>
<p>There is a difference between development admit legacies (ie their families have been substantial financial contributors to the school) and regular legacies. Regular legacies I believe benefit from the tie breaker scenario if they are compelling candidates. Development admit legacies usually are accepted with lesser qualifications.</p>
<p>No, that link is the same as the WSJ reference I have earlier from 2003. I will show the link when I find it.</p>
<p>well, warblersrule, be careful--saying legacy status quadruples your chances doesn't tell the whole story. i would bet serious money that the legacy pool has higher stats than the regular pool of applicants. the fact that one is a legacy means that one comes from a high income (Harvard-educated!) college/education savvy family...basically, legacies have all these factors working for them to make them more competitive applicants...it's not just their legacy status that sets them apart. take a look at our dear grotongirlie for example...yeah, she's a legacy at yale and got in, but she is also evidently receiving encouraging nods from stanford and brown--where she is NOT a legacy. people from average backgrounds don't usually get that sort of treatment</p>
<p>Exactly, warblersrule- brush up on your statistics.</p>
<p>I am glad there are some sane people on this post who dont base everything that they say off of one or two anecdotes</p>
<p>Paulfin, I have given evidence, citing wherever I got statements that refute yours.</p>
<p>You still haven't shown me the statistics.</p>
<p>I am glad you enjoy saying inane comments and condemning people for theories while yet you have shown me only one comment by one person who supports your theory.</p>
<p>Paulfin, notice that I have been extremely respectful to everyone else on this board. Why don't you learn some internet manners to begin with, and so avoid some useless flame wars.</p>
<p>My opinions towards the majority of legacies have been changed, but only because Mallomar presents plausible arguments.</p>
<p>In an article in the Harvard Magazine that examined admissions policies at 19 higly selectives schools legacies got an average 20% boost - I'd be very surprised if Harvard's numbers weren't close to that average:
[quote]
The results for three special groups of applicants—underrepresented minority students, legacies, and recruited athletes—stand in sharp contrast. Members of each of these groups have a decidedly better chance of being admitted, at any specified SAT level, than do their fellow applicants, including those from low-SES categories. The average boost in the odds of admission is about 30 percentage points for a recruited athlete, 28 points for a member of an underrepresented minority group, and 20 points for a legacy. For example, an applicant with an admissions probability of 40 percent based on SAT scores and other variables would have an admissions probability of 70 percent if he or she were a recruited athlete, 68 percent if an underrepresented minority, and 60 percent if a legacy. Applicants who participate in early decision programs also enjoy a definite admissions advantage—about 20 percentage points at the 13 institutions for which we have data.
[/quote]
from <a href="http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050547.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050547.html</a></p>
<p>There is truth about the bump legacies and development cases get in admissions at the most selective schools. However, these students are usually a very, very small portion of the applicant pool. In addition, many legacy kids are quite strong academically, just like everyone else...however, these kids also need to do a lot of other things - just like everyone else - to get in to the colleges they apply to where they have legacy status. Alumni support the institution in a variety of ways - schools want to continue that, and legacy admits help them achieve that. </p>
<p>As far as development cases are concerned at Harvard...a friend of mine is a major gifts officer (development officer) there...a $10 million gift will get admissions interested in talking to you. Is that fair? Not necessarily. However, Harvard gets to decide what to do with the money <em>usually</em>...guess where it goes? To the financial aid budget. This is very similar to what happens at many elite colleges and universities...this is also what has made it possible for some institutions to got need-blind. </p>
<p>Yes, it does stink to hear about these cases, but there are wonderful things being done because of the money these kids can bring to an institution. And to the OP - I'm happy that you realize you are privileged. your high school, btw, helps to perpetuate what you are complaining about - groton is more than happy to encourage discussions about development cases with colleges...they do it every year. the advantage and privilege you have because you attend a place like groton (whether you pay for it or not) is enviable - don't forget that!</p>
<p>Stanford openly publishes their legacy admit rates. A couple of years ago (the last year for which I saw data) the rate was 26%. This compared to an overall rate of 13%. So this means that being a legacy basically doubles your chances. But it also means that three quarters of all legacies DON'T get accepted.</p>
<p>I don't really know, but I suspect that Harvard's numbers are comparable.</p>
<p>Is it possible that the legacies get better advising? We are calculating the chance of admission as the number of legacies admitted divided by the number that apply. Is it possible that many legacies are advised not to apply by their prep school GCs? That would be one way that prep schools might improve their records while avoiding disappointment of certain students. If I were Groton's GC advising a student with 2000 SATs and no hook I would tell him not to bother. My disappointments would then be limited to students like Mr. Park in the article who had a realistic chance of being admitted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
well, warblersrule, be careful--saying legacy status quadruples your chances doesn't tell the whole story. i would bet serious money that the legacy pool has higher stats than the regular pool of applicants.
[/quote]
Was this in the same article that said that legacies had an average SAT slightly lower (by 2 points) than the rest of the pool? As for "serious money," yes, that plays a role as well. ;)</p>
<p>Colleges also like to claim that the ED pool is stronger than the RD pool, but THAT isn't true either- as a Harvard study showed.</p>
<p>Edit: In response to marite's post, by no means do I think legacies are less qualified. I do think it acts as a significant tip between two similar applicants, however. With Harvard's reputation and yield, they could have pretty much any student they want; they don't need to lower their standards for anyone.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that legacies are admitted at a higher rate. But what does this mean, exactly? That better students are passed over in favor of weaker legacies? Or that, if two students are on the same fence--in other words, equally strong-- legacies are given a tip that will push them over the fence and onto the admit pile? Or still, as the case was made in an earlier post, that legacies are likely to be strong because of their own parents' educational achievements?<br>
Among my S's friends, the legacies who've been admitted to H or Y have been at the very top of their class. My own S, had he gotten the fabled 100 point boost, would have had a SAT score well over 1600.</p>
<p>Again, kamikazewave you actually have not cited anything in what you have said. I cant believe that you would claim you have when you havent. I have cited the Price of Admission and the WSJ, you said that recent books have said 100 points. Are you serious? I dont have the hard copy of the article anymore but it exists. The fact is that you havent read anything on this topic and you arent able to cite anything. By the way, the admit rate was 33% last year and obviously we dont have this years numbers yet. Anyway, kamikazewave stop speaking on this post because you really dont know anything and you cant produce anything either. My dad is in Cambridge right now and I just spoke to him. He said I was right. What have you cited?</p>
<p>2005 article about admissions at Harvard</p>
<p>
[quote]
The edge given to athletic recruits is dramatic: The football team usually proposes only 50 to 60 names to get its 30 or so guaranteed acceptances, constituting an admit rate comparable to that of, say, Hampshire College.</p>
<p>As of 2003, four out of 10 children of alumni who applied were admitted, a rate five times as high as that for nonlegacies</p>
<p>McGrath Lewis says that just 15 percent of Harvard students are accepted for primarily academic reasons
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SV2's excerpt is highly misleading, implying that 85% of Harvard students are accepted for non-academic reasons and are therefore academically weak. </p>
<p>The entire quote is as follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
McGrath Lewis says that just
15 percent of Harvard students are accepted for primarily academic
reasons—which in Harvard-speak means substantial progress toward
rewriting the history of Western Europe, not just acing a pre-calc
exam. As for your well-rounded, all-American, strong-B-plus student at
a good suburban public school who plays three sports fairly well,
serves as class vice president, and helps out at a local soup kitchen?
He should get ready to enjoy four frigid winters in Ithaca.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words, the "primarily academic reasons" require that a student be an academic superstar. Presumably, among the 85% other Harvard admits, there are some who are, by any standards, stars.</p>
<p>From the same article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Overall, says one former Harvard admissions officer, 80
percent of candidates have the smarts to succeed academically, and 40
percent are premier contenders with superb chances of admission at any
other school—which means SAT scores of 750 or higher, top class ranks,
and prodigious extracurricular accomplishments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When you have a pool like that, a little tip can make all the difference.</p>
<p>Thanks marite to provide full quote of what "McGrath Lewis says..." according to <a href="http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articl...to_the_kingdom%5B/url%5D">http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articl...to_the_kingdom</a>.
I wish when quotes were cited to support or imply a claim, certain care were employed. Partial citation or excerpt can be misleading.</p>
<p>mallomar for the record, I DO NOT under any circumstance come from any kind of "priveledged background", I am from a upper middle class family at best with two hard working parents, average house,etc.........please DO NOT at my expense paint me to be some lucky little spoiled girl who has all these colleges falling on my lap. That is not the case at all. When I say I have received some encouragement we are not talking anything out of the ordinary but I have developed a repore with someone at Stanford and they took an interest in something I got off the groud in my area ( a grassroots organization that took off) So they did keep in touch with me and were impressed with what I did, their words not mine by the way. Doesnt' mean I will get in by any strectch, and if I do it is strictly on my merit and through my own hard work, nothing more than that. So please lets not start on top of some of the other harsh comments, make me out to be some "poor little rich girl" when the very post was about my opposition to the perks it so easily affords. You seem to have a personal vendetta against me and I suggest you get over it, you don't know me and I find it rather hateful to judge me without knowing a thing about me.</p>