<p>I've been visiting a lot of schools lately, and for some reason a common question always emerges. "So how much better are your chances if you are a legacy?" I just thought it would be interesting to open up a discussion on whether legacies and alumni relation should or should not be used as a factor in determining college admissions.</p>
<p>For example, if student A has an SAT of 2100 and a 3.8 GPA, should she/he be admitted because of legacy status over a student with a 2150 and a 3.9 GPA? Let's assume both have equal ECs.</p>
<p>It would be helpful if you stated whether or not you yourself are a legacy at a certain college (where they actually use it in admissions), in your original post, just so we can see where the viewpoint is originating from.</p>
<p>-non-legacy (parents: B.A. CSU-Long Beach, SDSU. Brother: student, University of California, Berkeley)</p>
<p>-Personally, I find it annoying that someone with lesser stats can be admitted to a prestigious university on a large part because of work their parents have done. Not everyone is blessed with genius parents, and even many parents who are intelligent chose to go to more economically advantageous schools, where LS may not be considered. YOUR admission should be based on YOUR work. Not your parents'.</p>
<p>non-legacy. I too, find the legacy tip factor a little bit unfair/annoying. However, I do understand why colleges use it. They want to be on good terms with their alums because the whole community/donation/helpfulness is very important to them. Thus, you really can't help it that colleges use it. It's to their advantage.</p>
<p>not true. financial aid comes from tuition. and with schools such as the IL and many others charging $45,000 a year, i doubt they would have to worry too much. sure, alumni help, but it isn't as if life would cease to exist if they stopped donating.</p>
<p>while tuition alone could probably deliver financial aid, without alumni donations, the school would have to cut some other venue of research/interest/study-abroad program that had already been in place. In that case, i believe the majority of universities will choose to split the difference and draw some money off of the financial aid budget to keep other programs afloat, thus financial aid would ultimately take a hit. :)</p>
<p>I'm a legacy at Princeton, and some of the assumptions made about legacies I find to be very unfair, mainly because many people assume all legacy students are wealthy because why else would they be legacies. My parents aren't rich, and they didn't come from rich families. My dad's family emigrated from Israel, and he lived in a small tenement in Brighton Beach for much of his school years. My mother grew up in the Gov. Alfred E. Smith Houses in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. I don't think that qualifies as "old money" in any sense of the word. My parents have great jobs, but they certainly don't make me a development case. My parents haven't donated any money to Princeton since their graduation (30+ years) because they don't see it as a worthy cause for 'charity' with tuition as high as it is. </p>
<p>The point is I don't think my legacy status really had much of an effect on my preference for admission, but maybe thats just because of my renegade disloyal alumni parents.</p>
<p>If the university is private, then they may do whatever they please. That includes factoring in legacies, affirmative action, or anything else that seems "academically and morally questionable".</p>
<p>My Legacy is from SUNY Albany which I'd go mentally insane if I had to go there o_o</p>
<p>Legacies are completely unfair, basically if your billionaire daddy went to harvard u have a 99% chance of acceptance there, and if he is just a nobody who went to harvard u still got a 50% chance of acceptance for legacies.....college itself is a corrupt system, more corrupt than any african goverment (except for mabye the technicals and street fights)</p>
<p>I hope legacies help when I apply to college, because Carnegie Mellon is one of my top choices, although my parents haven't donated a significant amount of money.</p>
<p>Alumni contributions/donations are the primary source of most colleges money.</p>
<p>'m a legacy at Princeton, and some of the assumptions made about legacies I find to be very unfair, mainly because many people assume all legacy students are wealthy because why else would they be legacies. My parents aren't rich, and they didn't come from rich families.<<</p>
<p>Amen. My son is a "legacy" at one of the top LACs, and my husband landed in the U.S. as a scholarship student to a community college. This LAC took him second semester of his freshman year, fully funded him for four years, and created a very deep sense of loyalty. We've been able to afford $50-100 a year in donations--that's all. My son earned his own grades, own high SAT, and his own high-B average his freshman year. Sometimes a legacy is a chance given, just like an athlete or another student.</p>
<p>Legacies are completely unfair, basically if your billionaire daddy went to harvard u have a 99% chance of acceptance there, and if he is just a nobody who went to harvard u still got a 50% chance of acceptance for legacies...<<</p>
<p>Honestly, even being a rich legacy doesn't guarantee you a place. I know a family of four kids, whose father/uncle/grandfather had all gone to Harvard as undergrads (and two as Harvard Law), and not a one got in. These kids had three languages, decent SATs, lived all over the world, APs up the whazzo and a sport they all participated in and were world-ranked, but Harvard said no. Something was missing.</p>
<p>"Alumni contributions/donations are the primary source of most colleges money."</p>
<p>That's why leagacies have a little bit more of an edge, if they go there too, the college may believe they'll get more money from that particular family. My parents haven't donated a significant amount either, so I don't think it'll play a role in my admissions status at WashU.</p>
<p>Well the admission standards get lower though the more powerful/rich the family is. George W. Bush should have had problems even getting to community college but since his family was rich and powerful they didnt care he could barely pass a single class. Kids of the ultrarich and powerful are treated with the same standards recruited athletes are - 'can they pass?'</p>