<p>I have been cruising through the posts and a number of things don't add up. There seems to be an enormous number of remarkable students who are deferred or rejected by Yale. At the same time it seems (reading interviews on the Yale web site) legacies get in at a rate of about 33%. Does that mean a full third of the legacies have the same remarkable grades and scores as the rejected candidates or have they jumped over the credentiailed applications ? I know years ago one admissions person said that the BIG schools basically had a cut off and once you were over that, your scores don't matter (you know anywhere from 1500 up for example) Anybody know?</p>
<p>Here's what President Levin had to say about legacy admissions in the November/December 2004 Yale Alumni Magazine:</p>
<p>Y: About 14 percent of last year's entering freshmen were children or grandchildren of alumni of the college, graduate school, or professional schools. The admissions rate for legacies is about 30 percent -- three times the rate for non-legacies.</p>
<p>L: It's important to understand that being a legacy does not guarantee admission to Yale College. But the pool of legacy applicants is substantially stronger than the average of the rest of the pool. The grades and test scores of the legacies we admit are higher than the average of the rest of the admitted class, and the legacies that matriculate achieve higher grades at Yale than non-legacy students with the same high school grades and test scores. </p>
<p>When you stop to think about it, this isn't so surprising. Legacy students are coming from highly educated households, where books, reading, and cultural life are prized. They tend to be more exposed to and more serious about intellectual matters. We are admitting very strong students as legacies.</p>
<hr>
<p>As I noted in the "What am I missing" thread, I've seen lots of highly qualified legacy applicants be rejected. There is absolutely no threshold above which your scores don't matter and you are guaranteed admission. This is totally contrary to Yale's admissions philosophy. The comment you heard may be referring to top public schools like UC Berkeley, UMich, UVa, etc. which are more numbers driven.</p>
<p>The calibre of students who are denied admission to elite colleges is shocking, but it becomes less so when you see a few rounds of admissions. The applicant pool is deeper with talent than a lot of people realize so they think something fishy is going on when a top applicant they know doesn't get in.</p>
<p>i am still a little confused. do you think that legacys get in at a higher rate as a coincidence? they happen to have the best apps? or is it that they have an advantage regardless? thanks</p>
<p>It's not a coincidence. Legacies are given preference. If you are a legacy from a family that has made substantial donations over the years (7 figures), you will get in with a C average and much lower SATs. If your family has not made significant donations and has not been active as alumni, don't expect much help, but it's still a tip factor if all else is equal.</p>
<p>I'll grant you that being a legacy is a tip factor if all else is equal. I'll also grant you that some legacies undoubtedly count more than others based on money given and how active an alumnus/alumna your parent has been. I strongly disagree with bandit_TX that someone with a C average and low SATs will get in if his/her family has donated 7 figures. I personally know someone who shares a last name with a building on campus and was a legacy many times over who was denied admission and whose GPA was 3.75ish (A-average) with solid SATs. I'm sure giving lots of money makes a difference, but I seriously doubt it will help you if you've got C average. </p>
<p>KStern, I don't think it's a coincidence. As President Levin's comments show, legacy admits have, on average, higher stats than non-legacy admits. This means that, in fact, legacies are on average being held to a higher standard than non-legacy applicants. </p>
<p>I credit the high legacy admit rate to applicants being raised in households where education is a priority, where there is money for and interest in a variety of enrichment activities, and where the parents are savvy about the admissions "game" and therefore plant the seeds for success early in a child's life (starting Chinese language lessons at age 6, studying an obscure African instrument, etc.). So I wouldn't be surprised if, as a pool, legacies have better applications than non-legacies. Then they get a tip if all else is equal. All this leads to a higher admit rate.</p>
<p>i'm sorry, but the constant discussion of the lack of a real advantage in the eyes of admisssions officers is kind of ridiculous. if 80% or so of applicants are qualified this would generally mean that they have the same type of environment as a yale legacy did growing up. My parents instilled the same values you mentioned, yet I really think that all being equal (which it often is) a legacy would get in. i don't think it's fair to all the people who've worked so hard without an advantage like being a legacy to say, "well their applicant pool is just more qualified," when the rate of admissions must show something more than just qualifications. if the difference was 5%, i could understand this explanation. but come on, less than 10% to 33%? people aren't idiots.</p>
<p>Legacy status helps less at Yale than at any major school. Levin basically says this in the article.</p>
<p>If, as Levin says, Yale legacies have, on average, higher grades and SATs than non-legacy admits, then, at least based on those two metrics, legacies are held to a HIGHER standard, not a lower one.</p>
<p>I agree with Addict. Yale's Alumnus Fund people should be behind bars for even suggesting there is a legacy preference. Go Harvard!</p>
<p>right, again, i'm not completely saying there isnt a difference in quality of the applications, but i somehow doubt this accounts for a 23% jump in acceptances. thats 3 times as many. are the legacies 3 times as qualified? let me clear something up, im not just complaining about my lack of "connections" at Yale when it comes to being a legacy. everyone brings something different to the table, whether it be their legacy-status, race, athletics, geographic location, whatever. i'm just saying its silly to pretend that there isnt at least somewhat of a preference given. this would make the application process less stressful. the same goes for ea vs. rd, we shouldn't pretend the only reason more early applicants get in is because of the "siginificantly higher" quality of their applications. yale says it considers alumni relation, just like racial status and location, so why not admit it?</p>
<p>"just like racial status and location, so why not admit it?"</p>
<p>Because it not even close to race as a consideration, for one reason.</p>
<p>The "legacy"advantage is absolutely HUGE at Yale, as it is a virtually every Ivy.</p>
<p>Don't let anybody tell you different.</p>
<p>There is ZERO evidence that legacy applicants are that much stronger than "normal" applicants - and they are certainly not THREE TIMES STRONGER!!!</p>
<p>I urge anybody looking for the true facts - and not the misleading party-line propaganda that (most) of the admissions offices put out, to read the new book "The Chosen" - about the evolution of admissions practices at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>Any claim that legacies are not given a HUGE edge over applicants with similar qualifications is either lying or believes lies that have been told to them.</p>
<p>See also the stats and tables in "The Early Admissions Game."</p>
<hr>
<p>The evidence seems to show that legacies are admitted at a higher rate than anyother "preferred group" - including URMs - with the single exception of recruited athletes.</p>
<p>Not quite, Byerly. The son or daughter of any Ivy League grad will have an advantage not only at the alma mater but at any elite school. If the advantage of a yale legacy at Yale is 100 points, the advantage of a Harvard legacy who happens to apply to Yale certainly isn't zero. Elite families breed elite kids. This isn't captured by the crude comparisons of SATs and GPA. But it's there in the essays, the interviews, types of courses, the kinds of EC's, the travel, the savviness about how to win at ANY game, of which college admissions is just one. I would not call this a "legacy" preference. I would call it a fact of life.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, there is a strong preference for LEGACIES at most schools - which means an admissions edge over other similarly-qualified candidates who happened to go to school elsewhere.</p>
<p>Again, I'm not denying the tip factor for legacies, but I think it is way overplayed. </p>
<p>So what if legacies are admitted at a higher rate than other preferred groups? If their applications are better, this is as it should be, not part of a nefarious plot.</p>
<p>As a longtime interviewer for Yale, I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to get in. I have been through many admissions cycles, so I think I'm pretty savvy about the level and nature of accomplishments elite colleges are looking for. I have seen numerous highly competitive legacy applicants be denied admission. If legacy status were such a huge factor, it is inconceivable that these people didn't get in, especially the person whose family has a named building who I mentioned upthread. </p>
<p>I don't thinking I'm blindly buying into Yale propaganda. My viewpoint is based on actual admission decisions of actual candidates whose resumes I have seen.</p>
<p>It is not "overplayed" at all --- it is substantially UNDERPLAYED and disguised - at Yale and everywhere else.</p>
<p>The discussion of this "peculiar institution" in "The Chosen" is instructive.</p>
<p>it would be interesting to know of the people that have posted here who are legacies and who aren't....</p>
<p>The legacy advantage is not "overplayed" at all --- it is substantially UNDERPLAYED and disguised - at Yale and everywhere else.</p>
<p>The discussion of this "peculiar institution" in "The Chosen" is instructive. "The Early Admissions Game" marshals incontrovertable data.</p>
<p>With all due respect, I think you err in relying on a tiny slice of anecdotal evidence from your personal experience to overturn massive statistical evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Do legacies get rejected? Well ...SURE!!! Most of them, in fact.</p>
<p>But they are ACCEPTED at a rate 3 or 4 times higher than SIMILARLY QUALIFIED non-legacies. Remember .... SIMILARLY QUALIFIED!!</p>
<p>Look, if there was anything at all to this party-line horse manure about how "strong" the legacy folks are as a group - or the similar dubious claim about how "strong" the early applicants are as a group - in order to justify the eyepopping admissions edge these folks receive, then it would be very simple for the schools to PROVE it by releasing SAT, GPA etc data for the subsets.</p>
<p>They refuse to do it. Why? Because their claim (or insinuation) is NOT TRUE! Big admissions advantages are given to (1) legacies, (2) early applicants, (3) URMs, (4) recruited athletes and (5) other favored groups. This is a reality. Inconvenient and embarrassing to admit, perhaps, but A REALITY!</p>
<p>Full disclosure: I have probably been doing interviewing a lot longer than you have, hard as that may be to believe, and I'm not trying to pull rank; moreover, (a) I love my school, and (b) I have nothing per se against the legacy edge.</p>
<p>But JUST DON'T PRETEND THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST, and that it isn't VERY SUBSTANTIAL!!! </p>
<p>(sorry for the capitalization for emphasis, but I feel pretty strongly that a lot of people are having the wool pulled over their eyes on this topic!)</p>
<p>Wool pulled over their eyes or not, I just don't see why this is so shocking. If you consider that a certain percentage of applicants are simply unqualified- where it is obvious they couldn't handle Yale's academics- they will clearly be rejected regardless of legacy status. Beyond this, admissions clearly isn't a "fair" process. Legacies don't work hard to have their parents go to Yale, but a kid from Small Town North Dakota didn't work hard to have geographic diversity and a kid at a top prep school didn't work hard to come from money and a kid who could afford SAT prep or piano lessons from age 2 or whatever else didn't work hard for that either. If so many people are simply qualified, the exact GPA's and SAT's don't matter, as that isn't the only criteria. And among this large group of qualified people, why shouldn't Yale take legacies? If a spot can be given to a qualified non-legacy or to an also qualified legacy, it only makes sense they'd take the legacy, regardless of a small difference in SAT scores or if the non-legacy did better on an AP test.
And I agree Yale's official position in this is propaganda, but so is the book you keep mentioning. If it wasn't dramatized, it wouldn't sell.</p>
<p>Levin: "The grades and test scores of the legacies we admit are higher than the average of the rest of the admitted class"</p>
<p>Can anyone square this with Byerly's "But they are ACCEPTED at a rate 3 or 4 times higher than SIMILARLY QUALIFIED non-legacies. Remember .... SIMILARLY QUALIFIED!!"</p>