<p>But ED at our school is binding, Pizzagirl. Some of us had to compare financial aid packages; we couldn’t afford to apply ED. I subsequently heard you can get out of an ED for financial reasons. I still don’t know if that’s true or not. </p>
<p>I had not heard our school gave an edge in ED to legacies, Pizzagirl. Do you mind me asking where you heard that? It makes sense – I had been told the ONLY advantage legacies are given is the file is given an extra read if the decision is to deny. PM is fine.</p>
<p>My daughter felt closer to my alma mater than many kids may. In middle school she lived on campus during several summers while attending their program for gifted children. In high school, she attended overnight lacrosse camp on campus. She had developed her own bond and connection to the university. </p>
<p>We had no reason to think she would not be accepted. When I expressed any reservations to friends who knew my daughter’s background, they dismissed them as silly. The CC at our HS did tell me this particular university did not seem to always take whom she knew were the most qualified students. At least I had that preparation. When my daughter was waitlisted, I was hurt, but not completely shocked. I had been warned, after all. But when I saw who WAS admitted? It was simply unbelievable. </p>
<p>When I contacted my alma mater for an explanation, I was not rude or demanding. Not to get any reply to my calls or notes was salt in the wound. </p>
<p>So, needless to say, when the inevitable solicitations for donations came, I was not feeling inclined toward generosity! </p>
<p>I still believe it’s a fine university. I don’t want to let this experience tarnish the many fond memories I made there. I wish they hadn’t given me this bitter pill to swallow after I had felt such pride and loyalty.</p>
<p>Both on CC and I think I’ve read it on the website someplace. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I TOTALLY understand. My kids have done the same thing and have the same bond / fondness. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s where we differ. While I’d like to think that they would see my children’s obvious, innate brilliance :-), I just wouldn’t see it as any kind of given, at all, and if they choose to apply, I will do my best to communicate that it is STILL a crapshoot – a crapshoot where they may have a slight edge, but a crapshoot nonetheless. If anything, we have tried to go the other way – “only apply there if YOU really want to, not because of mom / dad.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s also where you and I differ. To be honest, I don’t really care about the other students in my kids’ hs (beyond a general wish-them-all-well). I wouldn’t take the time to try to analyze whether a classmate who got in was more or less qualified, because I don’t think some other classmate’s GPA, SAT scores, EC’s, or anything else are really any of my business or concern. I’m really mostly concerned with my own kids. I just don’t see what good it does me to try to puzzle out whether Johnny-who-got-in was “better” or not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But don’t you already know the explanation? The admit rate there is, what, 25%? Even if legacy brings you up to 35% (and I’m just making that up, I don’t really know), that’s still only a 1 in 3 chance of getting in. Plenty of perfectly qualified students get rejected there all the time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I TOTALLY get that, and I would imagine my donations would dry up too if my kids applied and weren’t admitted. Having said that, JHS is right - I’m sure they’ve figured out the impact on donations and honestly, I’m a drop in the bucket to them. </p>
<p>I am glad your D is happy where she is – maybe these things work out for a reason!</p>
<p>I just don’t see how an admissions office could give a reason for rejection to your daughter and all the other legacies rejected that year. Yes, je<em>ne</em>sais_quoi, you only asked for the reason your daughter was rejected-- but all the other angry alums only asked for the reason their children were rejected. Admissions offices don’t give reasons. They can’t give reasons.</p>
<p>Interesting topic! My D is applying to my alma mater, but I am actually somewhat hoping she does not get in or chooses not to attend! I guess I like the excitement of seeing what someplace new is like, and I am not completely sure my college is a good fit for her. So, no, I would not be upset nor would I reduce my modest annual donations. I am happy for parents that really love their college and have strong feelings about their child attending.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, does your situation assume a priori that within each size ball, the same proportion is red? That is, assuming legacies make up 10% of the applicant population (for the sake of argument), 10% of the big balls are red, 10% of the medium balls are red, and 10% of the small balls are red - that is, the legacies are equally as qualified as the population as a whole? Because it seems that whatever assumptions you make at that stage drive the results of picking all the big balls and then the red mediums over the green mediums. But perhaps I’m wrong.</p>
<p>It’s tough when you think your kid will get into a school and they don’t. It’s worse if they really wanted to go there. It’s even worse when other people who were admitted to the school weren’t as qualified. We saw that this last year and the edge given to the less qualified students was being a minority. If it helps not being accepted to schools they should have been admitted to happened to a lot of kids this year.</p>
<p>Remember, the quality of responses to contacts from questioning parents is a function of the PR department, I’m not surprised that a school like Stanford has a good PR department. But it doesn’t mean anything different is going on behind the scenes.</p>
<p>But you can take the “other people who were admitted to the school not being as qualified” out of the equation, if you just make it a point not to look. Which is pretty easy to do, since it takes devoted effort to look.</p>
<p>Honestly, let’s say my kids applied into my alma mater and didn’t get in and were upset. How would I know who else from our school applied / got in? I wouldn’t have any idea until or unless my kids came home and said “We heard Johnny got in where we didn’t.”</p>
<p>Johnny means nothing to me other than a name. I would have to go digging around in areas that are just not my business or concern to suss out Johnny’s GPA and SAT scores, since they aren’t sitting on my doorstep. How would I find that out anyway? Sneak into the GC office or something? I don’t know how all of you even know this stuff about other kids not your own. If there’s a culture of idle gossip, well, that’s easy enough to stay out of.</p>
<p>Good for you, Pizzagirl. Clearly you have a more rational, reasonable, appropriate approach toward the process, one which will mean less heart-ache and disappointment. I applaud you for it. </p>
<p>Best of luck to you and your children as you navigate these choppy waters. I’m confident you will all get through the voyage in fine form with excellent, satisfying results. </p>
<p>Hm. I guess I wanted to know where my daughter fell short, where she did not measure up. Many colleges make notes on files when they are read. </p>
<p>You are wrong, Cardinal Fang. Some colleges do give reasons and explanations. We got them elsewhere. </p>
<p>At the very least, a reply to an inquiry is in order, as is keeping one’s word. Promising that XYZ will call or write then not doing so is not right, good business practice, or a way to foster warm alumni relations.</p>
<p>^It’s also conceivable that they legally can’t give a reason. Suppose for example that the reason is a slightly less than enthusiastic teacher recommendation that you’ve waived your right to see.</p>
<p>That said most of the time, there won’t be any reason, they just didn’t get enthused about your child. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the admissions committee. What did the Harvard committee see in my son, that so many schools didn’t see? Was it just that they said “Oh heck he’s a legacy let’s invite him in”?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, good observation. You’re right. If the big balls are disproportionately red, that makes a difference. If they are, then the average red ball you picked might be smaller than the average green ball, or might not. That would correspond to legacies being overrepresented in the pool of superior applicants.</p>
<p>Do you think legacies are overrepresented in the very top of applicant pools? I don’t know the answer to that. In my example, I assumed they weren’t.</p>
<p>Sure they can. They made a decision and they claim they are not making them arbitrarily and “evaluating” all candidates. That means they chose K over L for X reason. Colleges make all kinds of claims. We’re attributing a whole lot of whoo whoo to this that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>I think trying to come up with any more reason than that isn’t helpful. And actually potentially more damaging to (rejected) junior. </p>
<p>I would think there would be greater comfort in “I don’t know why, honey, a lot of smart kids apply there and get turned down, it’s a crapshoot and at least you tried your best” than “Well, they say you’d have gotten in if you’d only gotten that A instead of a B sophomore year.” </p>
<p>That presupposes that if, indeed, kid had gotten that A instead of the B, or the 20 extra SAT points, that he would have gotten in, for sure. But how can that be guaranteed? At the end of the day, it’s whether the whole package captivated the adcom or not.</p>
<p>Well, sure they’re making them somewhat arbitrarily, because all of these schools say that the vast majority of their applicants are fully academically qualified, if their pool of applicants disappeared they could pick a fresh new pool from the remaining applicants without sacrificing quality. </p>
<p>It’s like a job interview. You interview X candidates who have the prerequisites for the job (education, experience, skills). But why do you ultimately choose one over the next? A lot of intangibles - he presented himself well, gave you a feeling of confidence, etc. It’s nothing the unsuccessful candidate didn’t do – it’s just that you got more intrigued by one over the other. It strikes me as much the same. Otherwise, it would all be test-score-GPA-based admissions.</p>
<p>Williams legacies’ SAT, on average, are about 40points higher than non-legacies’.
Your analogy is flawed.</p>
<p>To model college application process at a selective school, you’ll need a few more colored balls. (yellow, black, and brown)</p>
<p>Of the big balls
100% red will be picked
20% of the yellow will be picked
100% black (there is none) will be picked
100% brown (there’s some) will be picked</p>
<p>Of the medium balls
50% red will be picked
2% of the yellow will be picked
100% black will be picked
80% brown will be picked</p>
<p>Of the small balls
0% red will be picked. (some schools tell you ahead of time to not bother)
0% yellow
50% black<br>
30% brown</p>
<p>That’s why, on average, legacies’ stats are higher than non-legacies’. Get it?</p>
<p>Apparently, some parents are perfectly happy with a simple “sorry, but no,” when it comes to college applications and rejections. Their expectations are low, when it comes to a college’s obligations to its applicants. Those parents are lucky and will have a much easier time during the application process. </p>
<p>Others of us parents observed the hours and hours of careful work that our child put into his/her application (especially when the Common App is not used by the school), paid the app. fees and scores fees, read all the U’s published materials about who was likely to be admitted, wrote additional essays for alumni scholarships (in our case), combined with a decades-long monetary support of the U; and feel that perhaps something additional to a “sorry, but no,” form letter is in order, and make an inquiry. As evidenced by info shared in this thread, when asked, some colleges do at least take the time to peruse the applicant’s file once more and respond.</p>
<p>Some people here are apparently offended by the second approach, but why should they care and argue against it, if they are not required to do it, and doing it makes others feel better?</p>
<p>Really, Pizzagirl? College admissions at selective universities now boils down to intangibles like how intriguing one candidate appears over another? Wow. That’s too subjective for me. Would explain a lot, though, and certainly differs from what they say they use as criteria for admission. </p>
<p>I’ll have to tell my daughter the reason she didn’t get into her mom’s alma mater was that she just wasn’t intriguing enough!! Not enough “wow” factor. </p>
<p>If all A’s all terms in the most difficult classes offered, National Merit, AP National Scholar, three academic honor societies, 1st place state science competition, college lab assistant, varsity athlete, varsity scholastic team. literary magazine editor, 1st chair musician, along with choral, service and leadership involvement, plus being an all-around kind, compassionate person isn’t enough to WOW them, what the heck is?!</p>
<p>Full-pay, is my guess. Nothing intangible about that. </p>
<p>Truth be told, maybe I just wanted to make them squirm a little. I knew there was nothing lacking in her file. Perhaps that’s why they never called me back! Once they pulled and reviewed her file, they knew there was no adequate explanation for what they did!!</p>
<p>So, yes, a few hard feelings remain, the original point of this thread, I believe.</p>
<p>If that’s the case, though, what does the legacy factor have to do with it?</p>
<p>If you believe that it is a school’s obligation to tell rejected students why they were rejected (if they so inquire), then wouldn’t that apply both to legacy-applicants and non-legacy applicants? It would hardly seem right to say that legacy-applicants get to hear why they were denied but non-legacy applicants don’t.</p>
<p>Which means that the schools would have to be prepared to offer reasons-for-denial explanations for thousands of rejected applicants. It hardly seems tenable.</p>
<p>I don’t “care” in the sense that if you (generic you) want to spend your time chasing it down, go right ahead. But I do feel a bit uneasy at the idea that after the fact, people are second-guessing other kids who got in. </p>
<p>If the shoe were on the other foot, and my kid got into a school that some other kid wanted to get into but didn’t, I would hate to think that some parent, somewhere, was poring over my kid’s stats and qualifications and getting themselves all worked up that Pizzakid got in and their kid didn’t. I don’t know, I guess it wouldn’t affect me, but it doesn’t sit right with me. But that’s just me. </p>
<p>Certainly the idea of then comparing themselves to other kids is not something I want to model for my kids. If they want to apply to their legacy school, great. I wouldn’t want them wasting a minute of their time worrying about who else from their school is applying or gets in, as it’s nothing they have any control over anyway. And I don’t think it helps with the inevitable healing process to work oneself up over Johnny-down-the-block-got-in-and-I-didn’t.</p>