<p>I really don't understand the concept of legacy. IMO, it is the most unfair thing a college can do to a student.</p>
<p>How can my parents' alma mater make any difference to me? It is quite possible that my parents loved XYZ School, but I don't love it so much. I may not even be best fit for it. My parents' college cannot, in any way, decide my best fit college.</p>
<p>Further, giving importance to legacy gives an unfair advantage to some children. There might be some kid toiling through his academics and is at the borderline case but gets rejected just because the college admitted a lesser qualified 'legacy' child. Can the process get any more unfair? Isn't this just like corruption in politics?</p>
<p>Legacy is usually just a tip factor, if that. Sounds like you need to ask your parents why they didn’t attend the college you want to go to. Colleges that use legacy for admission are trying to develop relationships with large donors. A majority of colleges don’t even consider legacy.</p>
<p>Legacy doesn’t work quite like that, usually. The schools that give a legacy ‘advantage’ are careful to explain that the advantage is limited only to a tip of the legacy over an otherwise equally-qualified candidate (not a superior one). </p>
<p>The theory is that a legacy who applies to his parent’s college is doing so because he has been brought up to appreciate the school; there is no reason to apply if he doesn’t want to go there. Schools want the students who attend to love the school, to help carry on traditions, etc., and to contribute to school spirit–that’s why so many schools ask you to write a heartfelt “why this college” supplemental essay. </p>
<p>The bar for legacies at ivies may in fact be substantially higher than for regular applicants; ivies maintain a percentage of legacies that is pretty low, and that has only decreased over the years. Statistically, given the socio-economic advantage of having at least one well-educated parent, legacies are likely to be reasonably highly-qualified applicants, and they will be competing against each other for the limited number of legacy spots (I know quite a few disgruntled alums whose kids did not get in; those that didn’t outnumber, in my experience, those that did). Simply put, if highly-selective schools accepted all the legacies that applied, they would not have room for anyone else. </p>
<p>The playing field for college admissions isn’t level, but there are many more outrageous inequities than legacy admits, IMHO.</p>
<p>One could argue cause and effect, are they getting in because they are legacies or are they getting in because legacies at Harvard tend to be well-qualified? But you have to admit, it’s far better to be well-qualified and a legacy than to just be well-qualified. Even my own estimate of a well qualified acceptance rate at Harvard being a little over 15%, not the published 6%, would indicate that legacy has a factor of two, which is huge and not at all insubstantial, despite what they claim.</p>
<p>Looking over the results lists, legacy doesn’t seem to be a huge hook (like URM or being a recruited athlete or winning a national/international competition). By that, I mean that I don’t see legacies with inferior stats admitted but I do see applicants with one of the other qualities admitted. If a huge chunk of the applicant pool has great stats, however, you can argue that legacy is certainly an advantage.</p>
<p>In any case, there are far more unfair elements of the US college admission system. For instance, did you know that the offspring of royals and heads-of-state (and sometimes even celebrities) can write their ticket to almost anywhere?
Doesn’t seem fair, does it, huh? That’s life, though.</p>
Colleges that use legacy for admission are trying to develop relationships with large donors. A majority of colleges don’t even consider legacy.</p>