<p>Hey parents! I'm a rising high school senior, here to invade your site! Not really, just for one thread. I posted this on the college admissions page as well, but thought that you all would certainly be interested in responding as well.</p>
<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 your child is 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>One more thing: we all know WHY colleges use legacy status-to keep the alumni happy, and therefore the money rolling in. Just to save you the breath...or typing :P</p>
<p>Being a legacy may have helped my daughter to be admitted to her first choice school in the Early Decision round. </p>
<p>Based on the experience of other kids whom we know with comparable statistics, she would almost certainly have been accepted Regular Decision even without the legacy preference. But knowing her fate four months in advance was nice, and perhaps the legacy preference helped.</p>
<p>Students and schools aren't as comparable as you are suggesting. 50 points on the SAT is meaningless, and .1 of GPA may be meaningless as well, even at the same high school. If you make the high schools different, or the course selections different, even the easy things to compare won't be directly comparable. And then, add in all the stuff that kids do outside of school, and your neat example simply doesn't exist in the world. Except for a few high-volume state universities, that's simply not how applications are evaluated.</p>
<p>The question about legacies isn't a dumb one, but your attempt to isolate it as a question like that is. Obviously, having a legacy preference means that, in some circumstances, if you have two otherwise identical kids, the legacy will be admitted (unless the school has filled up on legacies already). Kids with the kind of GPA/SAT difference you are talking about could easily be "identical" for these purposes, or not.</p>
<p>There are great institutional reasons for doing this, mainly having to do with alumni support, and making a few huge multi-generational scores. For lots of schools, it's actually a marketing device: they get better (and higher-paying) students that way. The only colleges who could probably afford to ignore legacy status altogether are those at the HYPS level, and their legacy preferences are quite weak.</p>
<p>Take two kids with the exact same profile, one with legacy status and one without and compare chances of admission at one college. As JHS says, it's actually very hard to find two kids who have exactly the same profile.</p>
<p>What can be done is to look for kids who received multiple admissions at colleges with similar rates of admission. including one (or even more) where they have legacy status. If the students were admitted only to the colleges where they had legacy status, the role of that status would not be proven categorically but the admission result would be suggestive.</p>
<p>As JHS suggests also, at HYPS level, legacy preferences are weak. What this means is that applicants must already possess a very strong profile in order for the preference to be wielded. It has become more of a tip than a hook.</p>
[/quote]
The results for three special groups of applicants—underrepresented minority students, legacies, and recruited athletes—stand in sharp contrast. Members of each of these groups have a decidedly better chance of being admitted, at any specified SAT level, than do their fellow applicants, including those from low-SES categories. The average boost in the odds of admission is about 30 percentage points for a recruited athlete, 28 points for a member of an underrepresented minority group, and 20 points for a legacy. For example, an applicant with an admissions probability of 40 percent based on SAT scores and other variables would have an admissions probability of 70 percent if he or she were a recruited athlete, 68 percent if an underrepresented minority, and 60 percent if a legacy. Applicants who participate in early decision programs also enjoy a definite admissions advantage—about 20 percentage points at the 13 institutions for which we have data.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is there an advantage? Yes, a huge one. To put it in another perspective, a few years ago (around 2000) when Harvard's overall admissions rate was around 10%, its legacy admit rate was over 40%. When you consider that the overall admit rate is a blended rate, a blend of those with preferences and those without, you can see that the admit rate was over 4x, probably closer to 5x, greater for legacies. Harvard argues that the legacy pool is better qualified. Perhaps. But how much better qualified?</p>
<p>The problem with looking at one variable or even two in isolation is that applicants are not single or even double variables The study unfortunately looked at only a couple of variables-SAT and legacy.
Since no two applicants are exactly alike, I prefer to look at the results of single applicants at different colleges.
I look at my kids. S1: not at single hook or even tip at any of the colleges he applied to, and got into several top 10s. S2, hooks coming out of his ears at one and none at another with similar admission rates. Got into both.
As others have pointed out on a different thread, high SAT scores count for only so much at top colleges. Both my kids had something other than high SAT scores to account for their admission results, and only in one case were hooks involved.</p>
<p>EDIT: JHS's experience mirrors mine. S's friend, an excellent student, has multiple legacy status. He will be going to a nearby college.</p>
<p>A friend was upset that his absolutely qualified double- (quadruple-, actually) legacy daughter had not been accepted at Harvard, notwithstanding cumulative parental contributions in the mid-six figures and constant involvement with alumni activities, too. After some string-pulling, he got an audience with a high-ranking admissions person who told him: (1) the legacy pool is incredibly strong, (2) in practice, absent the potential to donate a building or two, the legacy "preference" is actually a disability, since they feel under pressure to hold the legacy percentage down, so legacies are held to a slightly higher standard, and, most revealingly (3) the admission rate at Harvard for children of Yale or Princeton graduates is essentially the same as for children of Harvard graduates.</p>
<p>This pretty much corresponds to my anecdotal experience. I know eight kids who were admitted to Harvard over the past four years. Only one was a Harvard legacy. Two were multiple legacies at Princeton who had been rejected at Princeton, and one was a Yale legacy who was rejected at Yale but accepted everywhere else.</p>
<p>Posts like yours always amuse me. What else do you expect the admissions folks would tell this long time donor? (higher standard my foot...you are kidding?)</p>
<p>The fact is that the admissions committees at top schools have been mis-stating the facts for years. And this is well documented in credible, scholarly books. I can post titles if you want, but I suspect you're not interested in the data? </p>
<p>BTW, the problem with anecdotes is that, unless you're an admissions professional (such as a HS advisor or college adcom member), you never see the total sample. Rather, you see the exceptions and outliers. Be serious, JHS. Did you really question 8 kids regarding their admissions results and legacy status? Or was this what you overheard? How many admits did you not hear about that "happened" to be legacies? How many rejects that were not?</p>
<p>There are reasons we must rely on academic studies to tease out the truth: we remember the exceptions; people don't always report their academic records or test results accurately (The kid that claims straight A just happens to have forgotten about that poor first quarter frosh year..); people sometimes don't even talk about their successes or failures. And so forth.</p>
<p>Hmm... the plural of anecdotes is indeed data. And data is evidence. Evidence, however, is not proof.
I do not suspect scholars of "lying with statistics;" but I suspect some of these studies to be flawed because they take into account fewer variables than the ones that go into admission decisions.</p>
[quote]
Members of each of these groups have a decidedly better chance of being admitted, at any specified SAT level, than do their fellow applicants, including those from low-SES categories.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT is a poor predictor of college success, especially when compared to HS grades. The CB's own data shows this. I think it safe to assume adcoms know this too!
<p>Where did you get the idea that the study I referenced only looked at SAT scores? They looked at much more than that, as have a number of other studies. The summaries often report on SAT scores because the public (i.e. US!) can see the significance of these most readily. </p>
<p>And what is the relevance of your second quote to this discussion?</p>
<p>I'm sorry you don't like the actual data. And you are welcome to use your anecdotal observations. Data they are, but not the data from which sound conclusions are drawn, as any social scientist will tell you.</p>
<p>One of my friends was waitlisted by Columbia this year (seemingly as a courtesy). Both of his parents went, his father for both undergrad and grad, they donate tons of money and his father has been a visiting lecturer there twice. His sister will be a senior this year.</p>
<p>Now my friend was, at best, marginally qualified. And they rejected students who had better scores, GPAs, test scores, and probably better recommendations. </p>
<p>Last year Columbia college took 6 kids off the wait list, this year they took about four. I can tell you right now, that my friend was never even in consideration for their shortlist.'</p>
<p>In the Ivies, unless you really can donate a building, legacy is no longer a guarantee. Especially if you're not already a very competitive applicant.</p>
<p>If the application asks a legacy related question, we should assume that it will be a factor in the admissions process. And given the overwhelming number of top notch students who are rejected from universities like Harvard, the statistics in post #6 indicate that legacy status may count for much more than just a tipping factor amongst like candidates.</p>
<p>No comment on the data debate. We're just one anecdote here.</p>
<p>Double legacy at a top LAC; all 3 kids had the stats to get in without the legacy status. </p>
<p>S and D both applied. S didn't really like the place much due to location, but it was his safety. He was accepted there RD, but went elsewhere. </p>
<p>D resisted applying because she wanted to break new ground, but despite herself on the last visit sheduled (Oct. of senior year) she fell in love with the place, reoriented to make it an ED app, and got accepted. </p>
<p>Youngest S didn't bother to apply. He had no interest in that LAC because he was pursuing a very specialized program it didn't offer.</p>
<p>That LAC puts it into writing that they want people who understand the school. Elsewhere they state they want to improve yield. So I put those two ideas together in my mind. Re: yield: they get hit negatively for their location. I think legacy fits into the issue of "fully understanding the college" and what it has to offer, so when they accept the student, they're more likely to hear "Yes, thank you" as the reply.</p>
<p>The Ivy legacy is dead. Unless a student is incredibly strong (the same criteria hold as for others: top grades and scores, fascinating ECs, and national recognition), legacy status never comes into play. Think of it this way: the child of someone who went to Harvard has a much better chance of being a phenomenal applicant because of both genetic predisposition and a home environment that values education. If Harvard accepts 25% of legacy candidates, that seems like a lot given the regular admission rate; however, that still means that 75% of all legacies were rejected.</p>
<p>My D was rejected from two Ivies, one where she was a double legacy and one where her father was a high profile alumni volunteer. Her scores and grades fell in the middle of what they accept (for example, all SATs over 700, but only one approaching perfect); her ECs and interests were strong, but did not have the wow-factor that many applicants have. Five to eight years ago, she would have gotten in to at least one of those Ivies, if not both. Not now.</p>
<p>I've talked to several parents who were shocked that their legacy children were not admitted. Again, good grades, good scores, good ECs -- but no wow-factor.</p>
<p>If legacy status were as powerful as some on CC seem to believe, then these students would have been accepted since they are hardly shabby students. All of them are at either top LACs or top research unis where they were admitted without legacy status. All are making the Dean's List at their schools.</p>
<p>When I say "knew," I mean "knew". Children of relatives to whom I am close, or children of close friends, or close friends of children. I didn't count, for example a Hebrew-school classmate of my son's who was will be going to Harvard (like both of his older siblings and his father), because I don't know anything about his qualifications except that he's a smart kid. I probably should have counted him, though, since he's the only legacy admit I know there whose grades/scores/other admissions/peer reputation I DON'T know, so it's at least theoretically possible that he was a comparatively weak candidate.</p>
<p>I don't pretend to have all the data -- and neither do you. 2000 is a long time ago in college admissions. And I've never seen any data that splits out the normal legacies from the give-a-library legacies, or that compares give-a-library legacies to give-a-library nonlegacies.</p>
<p>I do know a ton of people who went to Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford whose kids have been applying to college recently. I also know lots of legacies who have been accepted at their legacy college -- and to a person they were absolutely superlative candidates. And I know lots and lots of legacies who were NOT accepted at their legacy college. I can certainly say with confidence that, had my son been accepted at Yale, he would not have brought down the 75-25% statistics any as to GPA or SAT scores.</p>
<p>So, I'm not kidding with the higher standard. The kids I know who have been admitted at their legacy college could all have met a higher standard. Many of the kids I know who were not admitted at their legacy college could also have met a higher standard (and in many cases this was demonstrated by their admissions and scholarship offers elsewhere). I don't know any true development legacy admits, however. I'm fully prepared to believe that there's a lower standard there. (But -- again, anecdotally -- I know of a situation where an alumnus who had already funded an endowed chair at a HYPS school -- minimum: about $3 million in one shot -- was told that his child would not be a serious candidate for admission with his B average and 1900 SATs.)</p>
<p>As for the Harvard admissions guy, my friend didn't think he had a lot of agenda. He certainly wasn't making my friend feel better about his daughter or the University. He was basically saying "You were taken for a chump." The striking thing was the datum about cross-legacies. It points up what we really all already know: the entire selective college admissions process is a massive set of redundant preferences for children of well-educated, affluent parents. "Legacy" preferences are only a small piece of that, and the other pieces are so strong that they probably swamp the legacy effect.</p>
<p>The impact of legacy at the so-called "top" schools has declined as more minorities and women graduates have their kids ready to go to school. Fancy that.</p>
<p>My non-legacy daughter at Harvard knows many legacy students there who are not nationally recognized and did not necessarily have fascinating ECs in high school. (Of course, fascinating is a subjective word.) I'd assume they had the stats to get in; no one ever talks about stats there so it's hard to say. Some are on financial aid, so I doubt their parents have donated buildings.</p>
<p>There are indeed many BWRKs at Harvard, both legacy and non-legacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It points up what we really all already know: the entire selective college admissions process is a massive set of redundant preferences for children of well-educated, affluent parents. "Legacy" preferences are only a small piece of that, and the other pieces are so strong that they probably swamp the legacy effect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is my impression as well. If someone can identify applicants who are exactly clones of one another, I'd appreciate. Otherwise, what gets an applicant into one college and not another is up for grabs. Legacy status may play a role but how much of a role? My suspicion is that it is a tip factor. If the applicants have to be so close in profile that only legacy status can be identified as the factor that got one in and the other not, then it is a tip-- or in Fitzsimmons' words, "a thumb on the scale" bur not a hook. A hook would have to overcome very significant disparity in profile. The thumb is very light.</p>
<p>Re: Mini's post 18. Yes, and we are beginning to see children of URMs and Asians and Asian-Americans acquiring legacy status. I know three URM legacies (Yale and Harvard), all incredibily well qualified by any standard. I also happen met a very wealthy Asian alum who mentioned that his S had applied to Harvard and had been waitlisted. I don't think the S got in.</p>