<p>Ok, so let's play along with the assumption that much financial aid IS through alumni donations (though that isn't necessarily true; I know several public schools who give extraordinary aid given their low tuition rate and alumni giving percentage). Students who are not legacies shouldn't be at a disadvantage just because their parent isn't an alumni. Take, for example, Notre Dame. They reserve 20-25% of each incoming class for legacies, a huge amount. So, going in, if you are not a legacy, you are basically competing for 3/4 of the available spots. Also, I have an aunt who is an alumnus/admissions interviewer for Princeton, and she herself has told me that she is aware of some students who were "below" standard but were admitted because their parents were big donors. Doesn't sound 'fair' to me.</p>
<p>When speaking of "big" donor (in the multi million dollar range), we then creep over to "development" admits (regardless of legacy or not). Want your granddaughter to go to X college? Fund their new med school wing or research facility or new residential quad.</p>
<p>Regarding this thread: Legacy status is a "hook" like others: recruited athlete, URM, studying nursing, rural HS, etc.</p>
<p>Whatever you want, there's always a counterargument:
public/private, less internationals/more internationals, more men/less men, more women athletes/fewer women atheletes, more science/more music, more journalists/more politicos, more North East/less North East, blah blah blah</p>
<p>Regardless of how "fair" one might consider ANY of these "hooks" or characteristics, the very fact that the top schools can court and mold their incoming classes to a great extent is a fact of life AND is the very thing that allow them to maintain their "elite" status. The fact is that society has awarded them their prestige for the very thing that others might decry as "unfair" -- their exteremely diverse and interesting student body.</p>
<p>You want complete meritocracy? Only based on scores/transcripts? Go to Canada or Europe or many, many other US schools that will admit/reject you based on that. But few of these are in the so-called "Top 50" list. But if YOU want to chase after these ultra selective schools and top LACs, you can't bemoan the fact that they want to admit based on holistic criteria -- including legacy status. You can't have your cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>And before you decry every legacy in your freshman class, know that on the whole, kids of alumni of top schools tend to have better application folders, stats-wise, than the average applicant. This correlates highly to their higher admit rates too.</p>
<p>Rootbearcaesar: lay off on the caffeine OK? Life's too short.</p>
<p>B A T T L E R O Y A L E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>I thought 'holistic' meant reviewing everyone on an equal basis.</p>
<p>Idk where you got the "non-notable legacies have a 50% chance" thing...I know at Yale legacies are admitted at around a 25-30% rate, which, while better than the average rate, is still far lower than 50% lol. You also have to take into account that legacies tend to have slightly higher scores/stats in general partly b/c their parents are tuned in from early on into what they'll "need" to get into a good school. I heard from the yale dean of admissions himself that legacy is only a tip factor when two students have otherwise equal qualifications.</p>
<p>Well the legacy rate I cited was for Harvard, I remember I read it on a NY Times Article but I forgot which one so throw the fact away if you want =. Of course legacies are usually better qualified, just im saying in those cases where applicants are equal the tendency to choose legacies > nonlegacies seems unfair, as it is a predetermined fact that you cannot change/affect no matter what.</p>
<p>Legacies are a fact of life. The donations they bring in DO fund the VAST majority of the university. Take this example: BEFORE alumni weekend this past year Duke had a campaign among its alumni and raised SEVENTY FIVE MILLION dollars. And that's DUKE who hardly has the long tradition of alumni that some older universities have. The fact is, if your parents have their name on a building, it is in the university's interest to let you in. Son a handful of kids a year get in that maybe wouldn't have otherwise. The non-legacy will still get into a great school and the university can continue to fund all the research programs etc.</p>
<p>(and no, I was not a legacy anywhere).</p>
<p>ok, enough with the "name on a building" thing. realistically, that's like one kid every ten years.</p>
<p>Legacy status is just another advantage the upper class have. Wealthy kids have many more advantages that start a lot earlier. They go to the best schools. They have as many tutors as they need. They travel the world and see things the rest of us just read about. They have private coaching for their sports which is why there are many wealthy recruited athletes. </p>
<p>Their birth legacy is a lot bigger than their Harvard or Yale legacy. They also live longer than the poor because they ride in safer cars, have better medical care and can afford healthy diets.</p>
<p>Almost 40% of seats of ivy schools go to kids who were educated at private schools who are a tiny fraction of public school graduates. At the top private schools in the Country, over 35% of every class goes to an ivy school.</p>
<p>Why worry about legacy status, your chance of competing with rich kids was already an uphill climb.</p>
<p>The name on the building thing is HUGE. There is more wealth in America and the wealthy are lined up to pay to get their kids in top colleges. You cleasly don't live in NYC or Silicon Valley vc08, the rich are everywhere though.</p>
<p>Legacies aren't going away, so focus on something you might get changed, the fact that the average middle class kid can't go to ivies because of cost. There isn't enough being done about this. A kid with parents who make $100K and own a home is mostly seen as not having need yet most of their families can't fork out $50K year. </p>
<p>More than half of an ivy class comes from homes making more than $200K a year and probably much higher if we could see the numbers.</p>
<p>Just like if your a noncalifornian wanting to apply to a UC - forget it. UC doesnt want noncalifornians, so deal with it. I still cant believe sometimes how wide of a range Berkley's 25-75th percentile range is.....a idiot could get into Berkley while a genius can get rejected....their 25th percentile is like medium 500's =</p>
<p>Legacy Status at two ivies</p>
<p>-Personal Viewpoint: I don't think it's fair for one person who has lower stats but legacy to be admitted over a non-legacy. Though, it can be the deciding point between two very similar candidates...colleges are a business, after all, and want alumni to be happy and donate. What I'm getting at is that legacies are usually not lower-stats, bringing down average SAT's etc...if you have smart or hard-working parents, you are probably smart or motivated to work hard as well...</p>
<p>-One admissions committee member who met my brother told him that his stats alone would have got him into (parent's ivy) or any other ivy league...</p>
<p>"You cleasly don't live in NYC or Silicon Valley vc08, the rich are everywhere though."</p>
<p>ok, well I live in San Diego, which has one of the highest costs of living in the country. Be careful about assumptions.</p>
<p>There are only so many buildings on a campus, man. Each year, hundreds of legacies apply to Harvard. Last time I checked, there weren't 700 buildings on that campus. And I was there last week.</p>
<p>RootBeerCaesar: Give me the stats of the "idiot" who got in.</p>
<p>Your comment about a building giver coming along every 10 years is just so far off. The rich dominate ivies.</p>
<p>Most people who would be considered rich by the average person still aren't wealthy enough to donate a building.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people who would be considered rich by the average person still aren't wealthy enough to donate a building.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean a wing of a building..</p>
<p>"Your comment about a building giver coming along every 10 years is just so far off. The rich dominate ivies." <<<umm, hello, wake up</p>
<p>haha, yeah. one of you call an ivy and ask them the last time a legacy building was donated. we're talking 20-30 million here, at least, if it is state of the art. i know a lot of rich people, but no one THAT rich. in fact, i'd bet you all would be hard pressed to name one as well. and even if you could, have they donated a building?</p>
<p>I don't think it's really fair, but I have a question: If one of your parents did Masters at said University, is that a legacy?</p>
<p>yep</p>
<p>I was exaggerating with the 'idiot' part as thats clearly out of hand, but I mean low scores compared to general CC population. for Berkley just go to Collegeboard.com and look at their 25th Percentile - 580, 620, 590. All the lower scores under that are recruited athletes prob, but the 25th percentile are the lowest of any elite school.</p>