<p>I see queries on this website from time to time asking how much it helps to be a Yale legacy applicant. After just seeing my son rejected - despite qualifications that I believe meet Yale's standards - I question that it helps much. I am a Yale alum who has over the years contributed hundreds of hours and support to Yale and Yale alumni activities and played a senior role in at least one Yale alumni organization. I am not in a position to be a big donor. My son is a bright student with great grades and very strong faculty recommendations in his very competitive nonranking private school. He took a very demanding course load, maxing out with many AP and honors courses. His SATs totalled over 2250, and he was a National Merit Commended Scholar. He has unusual artistic talents that Yale would value one would think - garnering awards and recognition not only at his school but in national competitions. His essays reflect both his smarts and his artistic bent and should have been well-received at Yale. And he's an athlete - not an official recruit to a Yale team but good enought to start for two years on a state-ranked league championship team in a major sport and to be told by the Yale coaches that he would be welcome as a walk-on. I can't say that I was surprised that he was rejected. The competition was fierce. But I was certainly irritated. Why is Yale scouring the world for students to bring to Yale while it is rejecting Yale legacies with qualifications like these? I would welcome comments from others, legacies who were likewise rejected in particular.</p>
<p>I did residency training at Yale, and while not an alumnus like you, I have stayed active supporting Yale. When my son applied I used every lever I could find. I particularly relied on a close friend who started the endowment for one of the varsity teams (the team is completely funded by this endowment). He kindly sat me down at the beginning of the process and told me "I will try very hard for your son, but you should also know that neither of my sons made it to Yale. I hope you stay loyal to Yale even if your son doesn't make it" What can I say. I was humbled, nonplussed, and even embarrased to have asked the favor.
I know that your son, from the little you say, and from having a father like you, is going to be succesful. I myself did not make it to Yale until postgrad years but I still loved it and was enriched by having been there (I even got to be a Timothy Dwight "fellow"). For what it's worth, I attended Colgate and loved it with a passion. For a curious and lively mind, the world itself feels like Yale.</p>
<p>This isn't going to make you feel any better, but . . . </p>
<p>My daughter was rejected from both Dartmouth (double parent legacy plus grandfather and great-grandfather) and Princeton (grad school legacy with high profile service from father). Both her father and I interview prospective students. This year, admissions were probably the most competitive the Ivies (and all other colleges) have ever seen, probably because of the population bubble. While our d. did not have a perfect record, she would have been easily admitted to either school in my day. Yes, we are disappointed, but we saw it coming. When you meet freshmen who have started their own million dollars businesses or who have their names on published scientific papers or who have performed in Carnegie Hall, then you know the window for your own child has narrowed dramatically. </p>
<p>It seems today that more than a couple of B's during the entire high school career with knock out applicants. ECs need not only to be strong but brilliant. There no longer is room for the late bloomer or the student who faltered one semester because of mono or the student who is more introspective instead of a born leader. It kinda kills me to see threads here about kids accepted to the Ivies early decision who are now getting a few Cs and wondered whether their acceptance will be rescinded while my daughter gets straight As in a high school without grade inflation. But, hey, that's how it goes.</p>
<p>We know that our daughter will thrive at the LAC college she will be attending. She doesn't need Princeton or Dartmouth to reach her potential. Besides, there's always graduate school.</p>
<p>Comforting and I thank you</p>
<p>Not too sound insensitive, but since when has Legacy status become an entitlement to admission? While I'm sure that Yale appreciated your help throughout the years, they are basing their admission decision on your son's achievements- not yours. I am sure that as an alumnus, you were not volunteering your hours or donating your money in order to ensure your child a spot at Yale in the future. While admission to top schools could have been bought a few decades ago, I am very happy to see that this practice has been for the most part limited. Harvard, Yale, and other institutes of higher education are for the most talented and able, not for those whose parents can afford it. Once again, this post was not meant to sound snide, but one can't help feel offended at the expectation of admission that many Yale parents have for their offspring.</p>
<p>a kid from my school has double legacy also got flat our rejected, i honestly don't his gpa or sat scores but he is considered, for what thats worth to be a smart kid, who is pres. of debate team and v.president of upper school, sh_ _ happens.</p>
<p>I don't see my work for YAle as giving me an automatic "entitlement" or leading to an "expectation" that my son will be admitted. What I would hope it would do is give me serious difference/making consideration when I have a child who, in fact, by measurable standards is well into the ballpark of who is admitted.</p>
<p>It is unbelievable...who knows what will happen ten years from now as the number of applicants will keep on increasing</p>
<p>A double legacy from my school got deferred, then rejected. She was in the top 10% of the class, too....</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What I would hope it would do is give me serious difference/making consideration when I have a child who, in fact, by measurable standards is well into the ballpark of who is admitted.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>It probably DID give your son an extra consideration. But that doesn't necessarily add up to an acceptance.</p>
<p>I don't have stats for Yale, but Stanford publishes their legacy admit rates. A year ago the regular admit rate was around 13%. The legacy admit rate was 26%, so it basically doubled your chances. But it also means that THREE QUARTERS of all legacies got rejected - most of whom had stats and achievements that put them well within the range of accepted students.</p>
<p>Moral of the story: at the high end schools legacy helps significantly, but getting in is still a long shot.</p>
<p>In this book "A is for Admission" by Michelel Hernandez (former Dartmouth Adm & grad), there is a chapter discussing legacy.
All legacy applicants get flagged on their files.
However if one is not in the ballpark to "donate a building" or more,
there is not much extra consideration as she explained.</p>
<p>a kid at my school had double legacy to yale, (mom & dad both attended)</p>
<p>got deferred EA, then rejected</p>
<p>BUT got into harvard RD (no connections)</p>
<p>I wonder... did she tell Harvard both of her parents went to Yale.. or did she keep that to herself?</p>
<p>Well, parental info is part of the personal/biographical info supplied in every Common Application (H & Y only use this form).
So assuming it's the same info supplied to each college applied?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not in a position to be a big donor.
[/quote]
'nough said</p>
<p>I can tell you from a certain amount of fundraising experience that alumni are often quite bitter when a child is rejected, and either reduce or stop contributions for a long time, and sonetimes forever. Colleges are well aware of this syndrome, but there are limits to what they can do about it. The legacy admit rate may be far higher than the admit rate for "regular" applicants, but it can never be 100%.</p>
<p>With all due respect to alums and their children, I'm not sure colleges can ever justify legacy preferences on the account of merit. Granted, legacy preferences increase institution endowments, and may even improve the experience of everyone else. However, the fact remains that legacy preferences are elitist, economically discriminatory, and ultimately unfair; given the number of students of every stripe who are rejected, it's hard for me to shed an extra tear for deserving legacy applicants.</p>
<p>Why should they favor legacies at all?</p>
<p>Look at the factors. Yale, Harvard et al place their highest value on diversity. First comes racial / ethnic diversity, then geographic diversity. By way of hard facts, Harvard admits this year were about 21% African-American (10.5%), Latino (10%?) and Native-American (1.5%) - breaking down to 230 of the first and 30 of the last. (Compare those percentages with most other schools and you'll see there is a strong preference, up to double the percentage.) As anecdotal evidence, the only kids admitted to Columbia from our high school had lower than 1300 SAT's but qualified as African-American (1/4 blood), Native American (1/4) and Latino (Argentinian mother). Both are middle to upper middle class and have nothing to do with Af-Am, Native or Latino culture but they count. </p>
<p>The schools commit to taking kids from every state and many foreign countries. You don't need to be as good to get in from Montana as from New Jersey or Chicagoland. </p>
<p>Remember they need to satisfy Title IX too, which means they need women who'll participate in sports at club and varsity levels. Since more women than men apply these days, the competition for women's spots is more intense - and places a high value on athletics. Because the government rewards based on athletics, they are more favored than being an accomplished dancer or musician; you don't lose funding for those kids. </p>
<p>Then set aside spaces for favored programs. Bluntly, some schools - Brown admits this - set aside many spaces for engineers. The schools have decided this is a priority but it means fewer spaces available for the general students. (To get in if you're not minority or from Montana, apply early as a female engineer.)</p>
<p>Then set aside spaces for real legacies, those of multi-generation, because those are more likely to generate real dollars.</p>
<p>Finally, set aside places for the rich. That's reality. I see it all the time. </p>
<p>These factors create a market which defines the number and type of spaces available. My observation is the schools say they are looking for x type of kid but actually end up taking a mix to fit their various goals from diversity on down. Some of the remaining spaces, it appears, go to very high achievers who very few would consider well rounded, if Harvard's admissions are any gauge at all. </p>
<p>As to why give preference to legacies, the question is why give these other preferences? The schools are doing social engineering but is that even remotely sensible? If they want diversity, why aren't they seeking kids who are actually representative of those communities rather than middle and upper middle class kids who happen to be part minority but who are part of the white mainstream? Why are these kids being given an advantage over non-favored kids who are poorer? Is it right for schools which benefit so much from local tax relief to choose less accomplished students merely because they're from far away? Why do we put so much emphasis on athletics when that has the effect of reducing the importance of other activities?</p>
<p>I agree with much of what you say. However, white middle class students and parents continue to support a system that does not serve their interests in certain fundamental respects. Can anyone explain why?</p>