Yale Daily News: Legacy Hook

Parents Forum
21

<p>Amazing Prediction: some Ivy legacies will outperform some non-legacies, including those admitted EA or ED.</p>

<p>More-Amazing Prediction: some Ivy legacies will <em>be</em> outperformed by some non-legacies, including those admitted EA or ED. One of the outperformers may end up being my D, who has surpassed students at her h.s. of far greater wealth & advantages than she has (including Ivy Legacy status), & thus may continue that trend in college. So has one of her classmates of similar circumstances. (I did the same -- high school, then college -- & with test scores lower than some of my college freshman classmates.)</p>

<p>Both (contrary but compatible) predictions have in common a predictive factor far more potent, i.m.o., than enrollment legacy. That factor is biological legacy, also known as genes. Both my D and I have in common a genius grandmother/mother. (Wow! Knock me over with a feather! Brainpower inherited!)</p>

<p>The quote from the Yale administrator above is absolutely no surprise. While a few mentally inferior celebrity legacies will squeeze through the cracks, they will be the exception in the legacy pool, & among legacy admits.</p>

<p>And yes, highly intelligent, very educated graduates tend to supply their own progeny with above-average colllege admissions guidance & preparation -- which also logically follows, both biologically & practically. That aspect is also not "news," i.m.o.</p>

<p>Let's hear it for biology. (No, I'm not deterministic, & yes, I know that motivation is also a key factor in effort & outcomes. I'm just realistic, & I think the Yale article is reporting similar realism.)</p>

<p>So, "dummies"? Um, no. (Generally) However, there may be now (have been in the past) some legacy admits who underperformed in h.s. relative to their inherited ability & provided advantages -- thus presenting with lower GPAs (especially) than some non-legacies rejected or deferred. That would understandably anger or disillusion the latter group, but it also leads into a divergent issue of post-admission performance that I'd like to open later on another thread. And the admissions syndrome mentioned in this paragraph seems to be on the decline, thankfully -- with legacies now more & more having to prove their competitiveness with non-legacies.</p>

22

<p>While I understand your logic - that is, the definition of "hook" would have to do with getting in at a higher rate despite lower scores - it does not necessarily apply to highly selective schools where there are so MANY kids with acceptable scores - so many that they routinely deny enough people to fill another class (as the adcoms often admit!).</p>

<p>In this case, legacies have a 30% admit rate - higher than normal, and the hook that gets them the higher rate is that they are legacies. Grades do not come into play at all in this definition. Just uncouple scores from tghe equation and instead look simply at admit rate, and it will be perfectly clear.</p>

<p>The stats about Yale legacies are correct, BTW, and have been reported before.</p>

23

<p>Whoa, Epiphany - biology? Can of worms par excellence!!! :)</p>

<p>I am not saying what I think either way, but I remember a LONG thread awhile back on a NY Times forum that argued that generally speaking, people with more money were smarter, had more initiative, were more willing to be challened and take risks, etc. than people that didn't. The thread deliberately left out artists and people who chose to do social service work at low pay.</p>

<p>So there you have thefirestarters: do good genes (nature) combined with the nurture found in highly intelligent and successful families make it inevitable that a large percentage of their kids will do well both intellectually and academically? The thread listed a number of studies in which it was purportedly shown that this was the case. Of course, many people posted counter-example anecdotes, but the claim was that non-anecdotal studies actually proved this.</p>

<p>Cue to Hammer's "Can't Touch This!" - I never posted on that thread. It got hot and heavy!</p>

24

<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>From the Sunday NYT article on the impact of AA on law school students:</p>

<p>*The basic numbers are not in serious dispute. </p>

<p>Using a standard 1,000-point scale to reflect both L.S.A.T. scores and undergraduate grade-point averages, Professor Sander writes, the average black student's score was 130 to 170 points below that of the average white student.</p>

<p>Once at law school, the average black student gets lower grades than white students: 52 percent of black students are in the bottom 10th of their first-year law school classes, while only 8 percent are in the top half. And the grades of black students drop slightly in relative terms from the first year of law school to the third.</p>

<p>Black students are twice as likely as whites to fail to finish law school. Nineteen percent of the black students who started law school in 1991 had failed to graduate five years later; the corresponding figure for whites was 8 percent.</p>

<p>About 88 percent of all law students pass a bar exam on the first attempt; 95 percent pass eventually. For blacks, the corresponding figures are 61 percent and 78 percent.*</p>

25

<p>The article also states;</p>

<p>James Lindgren, a law professor at Northwestern who has followed the debate, cautioned that none of these numbers should be taken seriously.</p>

<p>"In the real world, too many things would change," he said in an interview.</p>

<p>*Professor Sander's study may be most vulnerable in its assessment of the top law schools, where the vast majority of law students of all races graduate and pass the bar.</p>

<p>For instance, Richard O. Lempert, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said that the university's law school had found little difference between its black and white students in rates of graduation, in passing the bar or in income afterward. "We think the fact that Michigan is an elite law school has a lot to do with it," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Sander's data, though he barely mentions it, convey essentially the same story. Thus his analysis provides no case for the Harvards, Yales and Columbias of this world to abandon affirmative action."*</p>

<p>But the situation may be different at less prestigious schools.</p>

<p>Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks, two Yale Law School professors who are harshly critical of other aspects of the Sander study, used its data for their own study of law schools, which showed that 41.2 percent of black law students - based on their undergraduate credentials and the law schools they attend - have less than a fifty-fifty chance of becoming lawyers. The corresponding number for whites is 0.2 percent. "For some of these people," they write in a draft critique, "the investment in law school seems riskier than getting married in Las Vegas."</p>

<p>"While we reject Sander's conclusion that affirmative action has reduced the number of black attorneys," Professors Ayres and Brooks write, "we are more sympathetic to his idea that there is a class of black law students who shouldn't have gone to law school."</p>

<p>Wherever the debate ultimately leads, said Ed Johnson, a research economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Professor Sander's overall hypothesis is a valuable step in trying to understand a complex phenomenon.</p>

<p>"His story does seem to fit the data pretty well," Mr. Johnson said. "That doesn't mean it's true. But it's hard to come up with an alternative explanation. In his favor, he's told a story that's at least a story."</p>

26

<p>NJRes - no serious critique. Just wondering, if my kid doesn't get into Y, but does get into HPS - think my grandkids will still be prodigies?</p>

27

<p>""While we reject Sander's conclusion that affirmative action has reduced the number of black attorneys," Professors Ayres and Brooks write, "we are more sympathetic to his idea that there is a class of black law students who shouldn't have gone to law school."</p>

<p>Well, of course! The study didn't look at the relationship between family ASSETS (not income, but assets) and law school success. What were the Black law students doing during the time they weren't in classes?</p>

<p>(Only rich folks -- Black or white -- should go to law schools, especially those that cost $50k a year.)</p>

28

<p>With $50k per year tuition, we should proclaim
“Rich men of all races, Unite! The bourgeoisie have nothing to lose but their entitlement to Ivies and law schools.” LOL</p>

29

<p>"My S has suffered hideous antiSemitism at his own h.s. for years as the only Jewish student there (besides his sister)." Berurah, why did he suffer this for more than one day??? Couldn't the school do anything to stop it? Didn't the school care?</p>

30

<p>""But, alas, Berliner is now a freshman at Columbia University."</p>

<p>Like is Columbia chopped liver?"</p>

<p>Ah, but now she knows the truth about herself, she doesn't measure up, and she'll end up washing car windows on 2nd and Bleeker. (Hey, at least she had the sense to go to a college that is closer.)</p>

31

<p>Voronwe, it holds even with the more elite schools. I am willing to bet the averages are slightly lower for legacies on the stats end than for the rest of the admitted pool. So is the nature of the hook. But if stats are taken out of the picture, according to Levin , the legacy pool is MORE talented than the regulars. So they don't need a hook over all to get in. THey would be better off going as non legacies and that 30% rate would be serving as a ceiling not as a favor if these kids are so far above the non legacy applicants. </p>

<p>I don't have any problems with legacies having 'hooks". BUt it does bother me when the colleges try to justify it with gobblidy goop which I feel this all is.</p>

32

<p>We don't even now what "talented" is. As the CollegeBoard reports in their data, in aggregate a 1400 SAT score is essentially a 1200 plus $100,000 in family income. Is the the first chair English Horn player (there is only one chair!), more "talented" than the kid who juggles a 30-hour-a-week job to contribute to family income, on top of school, has no APs because the school doesn't offer any, has no ECs outside of the church choir because she is working the rest of the time, and is 2nd in her class where 70% of the kids don't graduate?</p>

<p>Levin shouldn't be able to get away with such tripe. (And that's said by someone who thinks they should accept MORE legacies rather than fewer, and charge them more for the privilege.)</p>

33

<p>I agree with your opinion of Levin's "tripe". But I will say, Mini, that English Horn player will be scooped right up if the orchestra is short of those players. Otherwise, he will be put in the pool with everyone else.</p>

34

<p>I have no problem with Yale (or any other place) meeting their "institutional need" - either for English horn players, or rich (usually white) folks, equestrians, tiddlywinks champs, or owners of medieval castles. It is their money, and they can use it anyway they see fit.</p>

<p>But Levin's remarks about "talent" are garbage (and deep down, he knows it, which is what makes it the more despicable.)</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
'My S has suffered hideous antiSemitism at his own h.s. for years as the only Jewish student there (besides his sister).' Berurah, why did he suffer this for more than one day??? Couldn't the school do anything to stop it? Didn't the school care?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>searchingavalon,</p>

<p>The short answers are "yes" and "no". The longer answer I will send you in a pm as soon as I get the chance. ~berurah</p>

36

<p>Berurah, I wish I could give you a big hug. It is so tough to be a minority in beliefs of any kind. And to be raising a large family with strong values and an appreciation for education and culture in such an environment is a challenge. It is tough to be diffferent. Though my kids were not a religious minority, we were unusual in that our kids went to schools where most of the kids were much more affluent than we were and we had a large blended family. Many people resented us. I know some kids were not permitted to our house as we lived in a student ghetto neighborhood rather than the nice big houses where most of the families lived. My little niche had a number of families in the same boat as we were; university families, poor as church mice but living in the luxeries provided in a university community. I always had to ask for aid in the music and sports programs, and that too was often resented. Plus the fact that we had so many kids made many grimace, purse their lips and shake their heads. No wonder those kids were so wild, they would say. </p>

<p>But the older ones who grew up that way are much more able to manage money, and seem very aware the value of the dollar. Starting with this S2 who is a senior, we really had enough so that we were not pinching every penny twice, and his value system is quite different. There is something lost when it is easier just to pay for something. I am much older now so I appreciate the conveniences, but I do worry about these kids who will have to support themselves once they grow up. </p>

<p>God bless you and your family. You have done well with your son, for him to overcome this adversity and be such a talented young man. It so saddens me to hear that there are still "cats in America" (from Fieval).</p>

37

<p>jamimom,</p>

<p>I very much appreciate your supportive words, and my heart and empathy go out to you and your family as well. I can very much relate to everything you said in your post. In addition to the religious issue, we've also had to contend with some of what you have also, though mostly just surprise that kids who come from such a large family could "do so well" at school. Those teachers who are not familiar with our family seem quite surprised that my oldest son is the oldest of six--like they would expect much less from those with large families. That also leads to the money issues...my children certainly can't have everything they want, like many of their friends, but we do make sure they get everything they need, such as braces, etc. </p>

<p>It must have been so painful for your children to have some of their friends disallowed from your home. Sheesh....We have had the same thing here a couple of times, but I think it is more religiously based than anything else. It was very difficult to face at first, but now, we just concentrate on those who are able to look beyond outward differences to see the person/family inside.</p>

<p>The lemonade from the lemons is that my children have a level of tolerance that is rarely seen in this overwhelmingly closed-minded area of the country (yes, we as a state are back with the evolution discussion with the drive to remove it from the state standards stronger than ever). </p>

<p>At any rate, I very much appreciate your support. It means a great deal.</p>

<p>fondly, ~berurah</p>

38

<p>Large families are oddities now, aren't they? I grew up as the oldest of six--in eight years--but there were 150 kids on the block. The largest family had eleven children. Growing up in a big family gave me immense freedom. Who knew what I was up to? :)</p>

<p>A friend of mine has eight children under the age of 13. A few months ago, a man stopped her and asked, "Do all them kids have the same daddy?" (Uh, yes, and The Daddy is a successful professional). </p>

<p>He shook his head and passed a $20 bill to her oldest son.</p>

<p>**jnmom: I know a Harvard ED deferral/reject who was admitted to Princeton and Yale. (Chose Yale).</p>

39

<p>I have to agree with you cheers! We have four kids and we are definitely the exception, not the rule.</p>

40

<p>cheers, berurah and jamimom - how times change, huh? Parent of an "only" here and no one bats an eye. Remember when "onlies" were the weird ones and parents needed to explain why they were so selfish/were harming their child.....?</p>