Agree with this. In one of my kid’s classes, a third generation Harvard legacy who refused to apply to Harvard but ended up at Princeton…
And at my last college reunion, much time spent bemoaning how insignificant the Brown legacy advantage had become. These were not disgruntled alums trying to squeeze their kid into Brown who otherwise would be off at an open enrollment college- these were kids who ended up at Dartmouth, Penn, JHU, Columbia, but who were rejected at one or both parents alma mater.
An average legacy applicant is probably more qualified than an average non-legacy applicant, and some of those legacy admits would have no doubt been admitted without the consideration of their legacy status. However, a portion of them were admitted because of the preference, at the expense of some other unhooked applicants who are likely more qualified. I don’t buy the argument that the preference only comes into play for identically qualified applicants (because there’s no such thing). The preference tilts the playing field in favor of the legacies.
Do they? It seems to me it’s posters who are the parents of students who benefit from various of these hooks who generally have different opinions from the person in the street (who is most likely unhooked or at least think they are). The posters who don’t have these hooks may well align with the views expressed in this survey: I certainly see no problem at all with it.
Of course everyone will defend their own advantages, in the same way as most doctors or lawyers (or even flower arrangers and hairdressers) will say it’s really important to have lots of expensive training so they face less competition.
In particular, it seems that support for legacy preferences is pretty strong and vocal on these forums, even though any individual poster’s kid would be more likely to be disadvantaged than advantaged (e.g. apply to eight or ten colleges that use legacy, advantage possibly at one or very few, disadvantage at others).
Also, it appears that many posters here would prefer to reverse the relative importance of the two most important factors (high school grades and standardized test scores).
I agree there are many kids that just take their shot but those aren’t kids panicking on CC. It’s kids in between Yo-Yo and Johnny that are the issue. Johnny’s parents are the easy target but a few tiers up from that? How good do you have to be in a sport or an instrument? State orchestra? First chair? State champions? Nationally ranked? Olympic hopeful/qualified? It’s the nuance that matters.
I also agree that the schools really can’t give adequate info because it changes every year and it is a bunch of random admissions people (many who are quite young and inexperienced) making the decisions, complete with all their flaws, biases and moods. That might be the better message to all the tippy top hopefuls. There’s no rhyme or reason so just do your best, hope for the best and have a plan B, C, and D.
That really depends on the strength of the candidate vs the targeted schools. If kid X is a fairly strong applicant at elite schools it may be a 20% shot at all 10 if legacy pref didn’t exist. With legacy pref, their chances at 8 schools may drop to 10%. But for mommy/daddy/grandpa’s two schools, legacy pref may be enough to push them from a 10% chance in a crowded field to 60%. For the purposes of getting into at least one of those 10 choices, legacy would be advantageous in that case.
Of course, if the applicant is well below grade and legacy doesn’t produce that bounce, it goes against them.
But why? How will that improve admissions, or decrease the focus on T20s, or achieve improvement in other metrics?
It’s one thing to want more transparency, and maybe at the margin that will help certain applicants understand they aren’t competitive for X school, but will increased transparency for some proportion of schools improve things, and how? And if not, why put on more layers of reporting requirements for colleges? They already have too many non-teaching staff costs, partially due to the many reporting requirements already placed on them (federal, state, ncaa, etc).
ETA: I do agree that it’s helpful for the schools that are rack and stack (Iowa, Iowa state, etc) and/or those that provide large merit based on stats to provide those criteria (and many do AFAIK). My question is more focused on holistic admissions.
It will help a large number of high school seniors make suitable application lists. Remember, outside these forums, lots of college students go to their state schools, so giving them better information on which of their state schools (including division or major) are admissions-realistic for them would be helpful. While the “T20” seems to be an obsession on these forums, it is not relevant to most high school seniors.
For the state universities, particularly those which admit largely or entirely by non-holistic point systems, such reporting should be trivial and desirable. For example, SJSU has been doing it for several years: Freshmen Impaction Results | Admissions . Indeed, it may help them reduce the number of questions about (for example) “why didn’t I (computer science major) get in with a 4.1 HS GPA but my friend (chemistry major) got in with a 2.7 HS GPA?”.
But even with more holistic admission state universities, it would also be helpful to show how admission rates vary by GPA, test scores (if used), division, major, etc., so that potential applicants can be more realistic about their application lists. Such reporting should not be all that difficult given the data they presumably already have.
For highly selective private schools where a mysterious air of exclusivity is part of their appeal, and are not theoretically committed to serving a state’s general public, they obviously have motivation to be less transparent.
The missing link for most parents is that if their kid isn’t Yo-Yo-Ma…being the second best cello applicant means almost nothing to Harvard and Stanford. If you believe being an amazing cellist is the difference (assuming everything else aligns)…you are wrong. Being that good at cello is amazing…but there is always somebody better, and most people just can’t imagine the level of competition.
You can’t “create” that sorta thing in high school…it started at a very young age for almost everyone with a special talent.
Many schools do provide that information. Students just need to do a bit of digging or ask admissions directly. Our experience is that schools would answer just about anything.
EyeVee- agree with you 100%. I am sad (yes, I’m a softy) about the number of kids who get misdirected by parents who lack perspective on just how big this country is (i.e. they have no idea how many valedictorians there are-- just the sheer volume) and how talented many kids are outside their own HS or regional bubble. I had a conversation with a parent this past weekend who is shocked- absolutely shocked- by their first GC Zoom to discuss their rising senior. The GC rattled off the statistics on every school the family planned to visit this summer (GC seems highly informed about elite U admissions) and the parents were monstrously upset to learn that their kid (who I know well- lovely, smart, curious) wasn’t going to have the red carpet rolled out for him at single digit acceptance schools. And this is not their eldest child so they’ve already been to the rodeo!
The fact that there are hundreds of colleges where this kid could literally send in a half baked essay and be welcomed with open arms? Nope. a few dozen colleges in the top 100 where the kid would be an auto-admit based on grades and scores? Nope. So trying to retrofit the kid now- senior year- into someone who has “more” than just grades and scores (and polite and respectful)??? Anguish. I feel for the kid and what life will be like until April 2022.
I don’t think that is the case. Opposing test blind and thinking that long tail tests (as a supplement to GPA) are a good way to identify the most talented students, is not the same as thinking standardized test scores (especially the current ones that have been made easier than a few decades ago) are more important than GPA.
In a perfect world: long tailed tests and GPA including course rigor adjusted for SES/adversity indices would probably be as transparent and equitable as it would get.
I’m 100% in support of the concept that the student body should be reasonably diverse (race, SES, residential location, etc) and different target bands would still support the notion of admitting the best/brightest.
Oh, and ditch the legacy/athletic preference for the top schools. I don’t know if they form some sort of accreditation body or what. But if the Dukes, Stanfords and Northwesterns of the world want to keep athletic preference, they aren’t included in that accreditation admissions body. Same with the Ivies. They have their point system for athletic admits, but roughly 50% of their athletes would not be admitted but for their athletic hook.
Most of the world is far more transparent, and finds that useful. Not sure why American colleges shouldn’t be. For those saying the info is available to those who search for it, I point out the group of students and families with time to do that is largely wealthy and educated.
Going back to the other thread, is it really a kid’s fault if he didn’t realize at 14 that he had to take Spanish 1 that year, even though neither colleges nor the state said it was required? Yes, he can attend college elsewhere ( and will have to do so), but maybe he needs the finaid the T20 can provide, or the resources for research, or whatever. Like most kids, he didn’t understand that recommended means required. Do most 14 year Olds, or just those who have parents and counselors guiding them?
The poster without FL said his guidance counselor advised him to take FL so in that case he did have a counselor guiding him. He just chose to ignore the advice.
And yes, students who are applying to college need to do some legwork. It’s not like their college degree is going to be handed to them either.
IMO, personal accountability has to come into play at some point.
I agree, but I wonder why college leadership/enrollment managers/AOs (UCs, several schools within Cornell, CalTech, USD, Reed, U Washington, Dickinson) are comfortable going test blind? I think it’s likely they have data that support that decision…meaning they believe they are able to make admission decisions without any test scores, and still predict with a high degree of certainty which students will succeed at their schools.