Your views on legacies...

Parents Forum
21

<p>Thus far, from the little work I have seen, URM legacies and female legacies have not turned out in the main to be large contributors to their alma maters. Since the "legacy status" was supposed to reflect this kind of "bonding" (read: money), providing them with the legacy boost is at cross purposes to the institutional mission. The result likely being that, increasingly, the legacy advantage is only likely to attach when there is money, or the expectation of same, involved.</p>

<p>But this is such at tiny, tiny portion of college students in the country, and only a small fraction of them, that they are hardly worth talking about.</p>

22

<p>vc08 - Your inquiry seems to have gotten lost in the debate. Sorry 'bout that. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that you need to compile a list of colleges that suit you best. If the school for which you are a legacy is on that list, great, the legacy status may even help you get admitted. After that, you're on your own kiddo.</p>

<p>PS, San Diego is a beautiful place isn't it? My D really liked the University of San Diego, but cost of attendance was a problem. Go figure.</p>

23

<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. "</p>

<p>Ah, but where do they come from? Geographic diversity is another key factor.</p>

<p>Still, there are "normal" kids at these schools, but certainly one part of their applications had wow-factor. Whether it was glowing recommendations ("This is one of the most creative, most ambitious students I have ever had the pleasure to teach . . . ") or high grades at an extremely competitive school or something else, I guarantee you that each of those students had something special about them. Your daughter may not feel that way; after all, she's one of the admitted, and most people around her seem, well, ordinary. I'm certain that your daughter had a special something about her application since she beat tremendous odds to get where she is.</p>

24

<p>Yes, some of them do have geographic diversity. And, I would not say that most of the people around her seem ordinary at all! Most do indeed have a wow-factor, but there are definitely some who do not.</p>

<p>I thought my daughter had a great application. (Then again, I am her mom.) Though she was not Val or Sal, she had terrific stats (no 800s though) so she easily qualified in that regard. Geographics were not in her favor. Honestly, we were all quite surprised when she was admitted!</p>

<p>I believe that Harvard does hold some places for BWRKs. Out of the four Ivies she applied to, she was accepted to two. Her friend, another BRWK, applied to seven Ivies and was accepted only to Harvard (as well as other top schools.) Go figure.</p>

25

<p>NewHope33: A beautiful place indeed. USD is expensive though, I have many friends who turned down that school for the same reason.</p>

<p>I can honestly say that I believe nearly everyone has made legitimate points on this topic. However, just a few more things to perhaps consider (coming from a student who has very recently been to numerous info sessions at some of the best institutions in the country, and who is pretty up to date on what is required to get into the 'good' schools):</p>

<p>First off, rejecting someone who is a legacy and would normally be qualified anyway should not be used as a 'cover', or whatever you wish to call it, for saying that legacies are now a 'lost cause.' That simply is not true. To use an analogy, my brother is currently a student at the University of California, Berkeley. In his high school graduating class, the valedictorian had a 1520 (out of 1600) SAT score, and a 4.6/4.0 cumulative GPA, both well above their then-averages of 1380 and 4.2. However, he was rejected from UCB, though was offered scholarships to nearly every other UC, including UCLA. Was he well-qualified? Absolutely. In fact, everyone else who applied that year from our school got in. So why was he denied? Because they want to keep their selectivity high. They don't want people to assume that having a 1500 will get you in. That is why many consider it one of the most prestigious universities in the country.</p>

<p>I think the same goes with legacies. Harvard, for example, cannot admit EVERY qualified legacy, because then people would be crying out that it is an act of 'discrimination.' So they deny just enough to avoid that stereotype. The article listed on the first page by newsmassdad was completed by Harvard, by the way, so they would obviously have nothing to gain by 'inflating' the stats, as some implied, because they themselves use the system.</p>

<p>Sorry, I know this response is getting long (though I guess I can use it for practice for the SAT writing section), but just one more thing. I posted this on the regular 'college admissions' link under the same thread, so I just copied it from there. Keep in mind, please, that the student response was headed in a slightly different direction, so it is somewhat irrelevant to what I said above.</p>

<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. Some may refute that statement, but it is coming directly from someone who works very closely with admissions at a top university."</p>

26

<p>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. Some may refute that statement, but it is coming directly from someone who works very closely with admissions at a top university."</p>

<p>Big donors are quite different from legacies. I can see easily how the child of a big donor would be admitted despite lackluster stats, but a legacy with a similar profile might not make it.<br>
Bear in mind, too, that different schools have different policies regarding legacy boost. UPenn states outright that legacy status gives a boost, but only when applying ED.<br>
As for the Harvard study, it was not done by "Harvard" but by researchers employed at the university (but not by the university). My beef is not with willful distortion but with flawed methodology.</p>

27

<p>vc08:</p>

<p>In response to one of your questions from a parent with two D's in public Universities where legacy has no factor - I think if a provate U wants to consider legacy and other non-academic, non-ec factors such as family contributions to the U, it's fine. They're a private U and should be permitted to do what they wish in this area. I am aware of one student attending a HYPS with relatively average stats but where a building is named after the person's grandfather. There's little doubt in my mind that legacy was a strong factor in that particular case but that's one of legacy+big $$$.</p>

<p>Regarding acceptances/rejections from some of the UCs - I think the admission stats of UCB and UCLA are nearly identical now and many students are rejected by UCLA but accepted by UCB and vice versa. This is even true to some extent with UCSD where some were rejected from UCSD but accepted by UCB. In the case of my D's, they were both accepted by UCB but chose to go to other UCs. It's hard to determine exactly why some students are accepted or rejected at the top 3 UCs just like it can be difficult to determine why one student was accepted to one of the HYPS but rejected by others.</p>

28

<p>I've never quite understood why, for a private institution, legacy status, developmental status, athletic status, and/or URM status SHOULDN'T provide a big boost. They are far more important to the institution's short- and long-term success than marginal differences among GPAs or even wider differences on a test that took three hours out of kid's life to complete. </p>

<p>You want a place that doesn't look like that? Try my high school. 3% admissions rate. No legacies, developmental admits, URM boost, or athletic recruitment. A total pressure cooker environment. The plurality of students go the City Colleges, and they do just fine. </p>

<p>It just isn't a big deal.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The trouble with this, Marite, is that some colleges (most blatantly, Penn, but there seem to be others as well) apply the legacy preference primarily to Early Decision applicants. There are no multiple admissions data for successful ED candidates.</p>

30

<p>Could such a study take into account the ED factor?</p>

<p>I agree with JHS: when one looks at students who got multiple acceptances (as opposed to those who stopped after ED or SCEA), the overlap is pretty staggering. Remember how posters dumped on poor Tri who applied to and got admitted to all 9 Ivies + a few more? First generation, low income. No legacy status, no big bucks from him or his family.</p>

31

<p>It's not hard to take into account the "ED factor" at Harvard, Yale, MIT and Stanford, because there is none. Sure, some kids accepted EA probably don't apply anywhere else, but my impression is that most do, even if they wind up going to the EA school.</p>

<p>I looked at the article newmassdad linked. The admissions data are from the 1995 admissions season. That's twelve years ago, a very, very different time. The study it relied on lumped together a bunch of fairly disparate institutions from the standpoint we are discussing, and there was (as far as I could tell) no attempt to segregate out the effects of ED, which had about the same weight as the legacy preference. Finally, they noted that the legacy preference was most pronounced among the highest scoring students. Even then, when I believe meaningful legacy preferences DID exist, they existed mainly for highly qualified students.</p>

32

<p>Know someone who was rejected at Stanford, whose family was on the Board of Trustees and multimillion dollar doners, past and currently. He is very smart.</p>

33

<p>there was a thread last year titled Legacy Rejects.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm interested in hearing from other parents who have had their child rejected (not even waitlisted) at their alma mater~~~particularly if these were not "reach" schools for the child. We find ourselves in this position this week, and to rub salt into the wound, the school called me last night on a fundraiser call! (University of Richmond). Like I'm going to even CONSIDER that!!!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>there were quite a few parents telling their story about how their kid was rejected at their alma mata.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=160468&highlight=legacy%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=160468&highlight=legacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

34

<p>Some of you have said it doesn't matter. I agree, to a certain extent. That is, until a student who by all means SHOULD get in doesn't, while a legacy does. Who's to say it will serve the student better in life, anyhow, if they normally would not have been qualified? And, feel free to step away from the IL at this point, too, guys. Obviously being a legacy at one of those schools will only help you so much.</p>

35

<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>

<p>This has not always been what I have personally witnessed over here, but I suppose it depends on who the parent is. Not all legacies are created equal.</p>

<p>We have friends who have now sent their first kid to one of these schools. The dad told me frankly that he advised him/her not to even apply to the other 2 of the big three, they had virtually no chance of getting in. Dad is heavily involved in alumni activities at the school of choice.</p>

<p>The area we moved from had one family at my Ds school where, it would seem every single member was talented enough to get into a particular same one of these schools. For several generations now, every individual in this family seems to have been so talented. Yet the talents of the two family members my daughter went to school with were evidently below the surface. By the way, their family is associated with founding of a major US Company, and has donated at least a building to that very same university, someplace along the line.</p>

<p>For others, the "regular Joes" with no outstanding involvment in the university- then I might agree, and I've seen some of those examples too.</p>

<p>But I think it depends on the school, too; some seem to value it more than others.</p>

36

<p>For lots of these schools, there are far more students who SHOULD get in than do, and there are always students where you look and scratch you head and say "huh?" Admissions people aren't perfect.</p>

<p>But they get it right more often than not, as far as I can tell. And with all those head-scratcher kids, the explanatory factor is rarely, if ever, legacy status.</p>

37

<p>Legacy status does matter. The question is how much. My answer is that it has become more of a tip than a hook-- or as Fitzsimmons puts it, a thumb on the scale. The applicant has to get on the scale first. Ty putting a thumb on a scale and see how much difference it makes. Not much.
JHS is right. 1995 is eons ago in terms of admissions (not to mention the effect of recentering on SAT scores!) When S1 was looking at colleges in 1999, either we were blissfully ignorant of the realities of college admissions or things were far more relaxed than they have become (of course, we did not have CC, either!).</p>

<p>But remember to separate donor status from legacy status. Many donors are alums, but not all alums are big donors.</p>

38

<p>Trying not to repeat what was stated above, but thought I'd share Princeton's statistics for the Class of 2010. Percent of legacy admits was 39% which is a pretty big "thumb on the scale" since their overall admit rate was 10%.
<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/06/08.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/06/08.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

39

<p>Tahoe: stats don't lie, huh?</p>

<p>true though, it does, in part, depend on the school.</p>

40

<p>Stats don't lie? Hmmm. ever heard of Disraeli?</p>

<p>How do we know that the thumb was on the scale or that it actually made it tip in the legacy's favor. To repeat my S's story (I know, an anecdote, but at least I know most of what his application looked like and could guess at the reaction of adcoms to it, whereas we know next to nothing about the legacies): my S, hooked at Harvard. Admission rate, around 10%. Got in. Totally unhooked at Stanford, admission rate around 10,6%, got in. So how does one explain the exact same outcome (actually, no. Stanford actively recruited him; Harvard just sat back)
Again, quoting JHS. look at the multiple admits of applicants to schools with the similar admission rates. They can't possible be legacies at all!</p>

<p>But an easy explanation offers itself.
Legacies are, ipso facto, children of college-educated parents.
Children of college educated parents have greater access to educational resources, including enrichment.
Children of college educated parents are more savvy about colleges than other students.
Children of alumni are more likely to have better knowledge of the alumni's almae matres.</p>

<p>All that is the equivalent of several thumbs on a scale.</p>

<p>EDIT: I've just found this article.
<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2003/11/26/higherAdmitRateForLegacies%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2003/11/26/higherAdmitRateForLegacies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It strikes me that a difference of 35 points or 40 points on the SAT is not that significant. Others may feel differently.</p>