<p>Yale President Richard Levin also said legacies may have an advantage in the application process. But he noted that the **average grades and test scores of admitted legacies are higher than the average grades and test scores of the rest of the class. And once they get to Yale, Levin said, legacies also tend to get higher grades than non-legacy students with comparable high school GPAs and test scores.*</p>
<p>The former admission officer agreed with Levin that the pool of legacy applicants is stronger than the pool of non-legacy applicants.</p>
<p>"To a certain extent, legacies obviously have an advantage in the process, but they also happen to be the best applicants because one or more of their parents went to Yale," the officer said. "They've had the advantages of that background But the applications are better than the rest of the pool. They have a hook into the class, so sure, that helps them, but at the same time you have a higher expectation for them because they are Yale kids. You expect the applications to be stronger."*</p>
<p>I have seen these fatcs before, and they are, indeed, facts. I get tired of people on the kids' board automatically assuming that legacies are dummies.</p>
<p>I think people make too much of the legacy hook. Once you are in, no one cares if your grandpa donated a wing of the chemistry building or if you get full tuition. I don't think people are ostracized because they came in as legacy.</p>
<p>Reading this makes me think, I need to move on from CC.</p>
<p>Nedad, I never have assumed legacies are dummies. However, the stats I have seen, albeit not for Yale, but for Princeton and Harvard for previous years, show that the legacy pool does have slightly lower stats than those of other accepted students. Not a lot lower, but slightly lower. Which is more logical as it does demonstrate th slight preference given to legacies.</p>
<p>With this data from Yale, I wonder if it is advantageous not to be put in the legacy pool and take one's chances in the general pool as those stats would be lower.</p>
<p>And the point is???</p>
<p>Legacies get preference in the admissions process. O.K., now tell us something we don't know.</p>
<p>And as for those legacies who "suffer" emotional angst over the fact that some may assume they are less qualified---come sit next to my son, an exceedingly bright, incredibly motivated, intrinsically driven, imminently passionate student, AND a Yale EA outright reject, and cry him a river. I think my son would gladly live with that burden for the sake of attending his dream school. </p>
<p>Do I believe everything that comes out of the admission offices at the elite schools? No. Show me the statistics (like, for example, the grades of legacies being generally higher than those of other admits), adjusted for the families' abilities to pay for expensive tutors and such. Then, we'll see.</p>
<p>We all have to live with imposed stereotypes and the burdens that they bring. My S has suffered hideous antiSemitism at his own h.s. for years as the only Jewish student there (besides his sister). My dh has had to live with the "bubba" image of being a hunter. As a college educated SAHM, I have had to live with the mistaken views of others that I have stayed home because I <em>couldn't</em> do anything else. So, you see, we all live with these burdens. No biggie...we just carry on and do what we need to do.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>"But, alas, Berliner is now a freshman at Columbia University."</p>
<p>Like is Columbia chopped liver?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I get tired of people on the kids' board automatically assuming that legacies are dummies.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't disagree with the legacy preference notion in general, but unfortunately we currently have a rather prominent national leader, a Yale legacy, who sometimes seems to confirm rather than refute this unfortunate stereotype.</p>
<p>I'd much rather been in the legacy pile jamimom. So many legacies went to top private schools and had every advantage. They had that hurdle to jump under any circumstances. The funny thing is people always argue that ivy grads don't make more yet these schools always say that their grads kid's had advantages others have not. What's the truth?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Achat, I don't follow? Would you elaborate? I am interested.</p>
<p>One of my son's best friends was a double legacy at Yale. His father and mother both graduated from Yale. The kid went to a top NE prep school (feeder school), had good stats, and was a ranked squash player. He applied last year EA, and was deferred and ultimately rejected. Everyone was very surprised. Legacy status didn't help him.</p>
<p>I don't know Curmudgeon - I'm airing my dirty laundry. I just don't find CC interesting any more. It doesn't float my boat. I need to move on. That's all.....</p>
<p>I like looking at people's essays, so I suppose I'll come back next season. I like and admire a whole lot of people and wish them well...</p>
<p>Jazzpiano, the situation is that when an extensive study was made comparing those who had similar stats and profiles, those who graduated from the "elite" schools, were not making more than those that did not. All other things equal, the "elite" school experience did not come up with more on the economic front. </p>
<p>However, just by its nature, a private school like Yale is going to have a more priviliged group for alums than, say, a large state school. But those top kids at that state school may well do much better than most of the Yalies. </p>
<p>I just read the Yale article more closely, and I am not so sure what Levin means by the applicant pool being stronger. I am pretty sure that I have read a number of studies that the legacy pool for the top schools tend to be a tad lighter on the actual measurable, reportable hard stats. Besides the more I think about it, how would legacies be gettin any hook if they are more qualifed than the other matriculating kids--makes no sense to me.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>And as for those legacies who "suffer" emotional angst over the fact that some may assume they are less qualified. . .<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This problem is much more prevalent in the arena of affirmative action. Many people automatically assume that if you are African-American and go to a highly selective school, you are really "less qualified" and must be have gotten in because of affirmative action. This may not be the case. </p>
<p>I know of one person who applied to a highly selective law school and did not divulge that she was African American because she wanted to get into the school "on her own merits." Of course, the fact that she was telling everyone this means that she was still feeling the "angst" over people's perceptions.</p>
<p>Jamimom, I only skimmed the article, but I believe their idea of a hook was simply that fact that every legacy got to the table - that is, a personal discussion among all adcoms.</p>
<p>I have read stats elsewhere that said overall, legacies scored an average of 10 points lower on standardized tests (statistically insignificant). I cannot find the link, however.</p>
<p>If you are a legacy, URM, or any other "tagged" category, you might as well enjoy the privilige. Enough times in life you are not going to draw that card.</p>
<p>As long as they give lots and lots of money, what's the problem? But they shouldn't accept poor legacies - after all, that would just be perpetuating the original error.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This problem is much more prevalent in the arena of affirmative action. Many people automatically assume that if you are African-American and go to a highly selective school, you are really "less qualified" and must be have gotten in because of affirmative action. This may not be the case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would totally agree with this.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Achat: just take a sabbatical. We'd miss you too much. I was suffering cc burnout a year ago, said something like what you did, and took a few months off, but came back. Sometimes it seems like the same stuff is being repeated on an endless loop. (I sometimes used to think the same thing about teaching). I'm drawn back by the new personalities, the little changes--e.g., I think cc is funnier this year, and mainly the renewed what, not innocence, but maybe freshness of the repeating cycle.</p>
<p>The hook to me is not just that every legacy was more carefully examined, but the end result which is more out of that stack accepted than in the general pool even though the stats are lower than those accepted in the general pool overall. That is the crux of a hook is that you get in over those without the hook. I am more convinced as I think about it that the article makes no sense. Of course, legacies have a leg up, and in defining leg up it means more get in with less than the general pool, otherwise they would have no advantage by definition.</p>
<p>I always knew that going to Yale would make a person smarter, but who woulda thunk it would even make your kids smarter!?! One more reason to send your kids to Yale!!! =smart grandkids!!! :) </p>
<p>*.... if I get a serious critique of this post I am going to deregister from this forum!!!! *</p>