Your views on legacies...

Parents Forum
41

<p>You know what they say categorize the whole thing.. lies, damn lies and statistics.</p>

<p>The overall alumni pool is 3% of the entire applicant pool. </p>

<p>The percent of legacy admits of those who applied are 39%. To me this seems like you have a 39% chance of being admitted and a 61% chance of being denied/waitlisted. the odds of getting denid are still largely in your favor which one can safely say that being a legacy definitely does not make one a shoo-in @ Princeton. </p>

<p>When you look at the numbers, 200 students were legacies, 1590 were not, so the ratio of non-legacies to legacies are about 8:1. I know but the non-legacy pool is much larger than the legacy pool (now, hold that thought, and apply it to the legacy pool)</p>

42

<p>To the OP, </p>

<p>You raise the question: "whether legacies and alumni relation should or should not be used as a factor in determining college admissions."?</p>

<p>Without weighing in on the magnitude of the legacy preference I have to say that I find it to be the most ethically indefensible of the various admissions preferences by a wide margin. It perpetuates past discrimination of several kinds, it acts as a barrier to social mobility, and it has no defense other than the desire for money. If some of the posters are right it is also a terrible con perpetrated against alums who wrongly believe their contributions will help their kids.</p>

43

<p>"Children of alumni are more likely to have better knowledge of the alumni's almae matres"</p>

<p>Yes, because their parents are the ones who stand in Harvard yard videotaping the student tourguide's every move.</p>

<p>marite: so your son was a genious who got in everywhere he applied. I think I'm missing the main point to that 'anecdote'...obviously if Stanford recruited him he would get accepted there.</p>

<p>sybbie719: 39% is enormous when considered that everyone else had a 10% chance. That's almost 4 times as much.</p>

<p>curious14, I agree. There is absolutely nothing non-legacies can do about it, it is simply an unfair process.</p>

<p>Also, many people on here are insinuating that kids who are not legacies are not as well qualified or "up to speed" as those who are. I'm not a legacy anywhere that it matters, but I'm also ranked near the top of my class. Many people ranked below me are legacies, some of prestigious universities. So be careful what you assume, unless you have statistical evidence.</p>

44

<p>I don't think that any one is insinuating that non-legacies are not as well qualified (I don't have a dog in this fight my cause my kid flat out refused to entertain the thought of attending my undergrad or grad school, 1 ivy and 1 "hot" college). </p>

<p>I think some people are giving legacies more power than it actually holds because I beleive that very very few people get admitted on legacy status alone.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
Also, many people on here are insinuating that kids who are not legacies are not as well qualified or "up to speed" as those who are. I'm not a legacy anywhere that it matters, but I'm also ranked near the top of my class. Many people ranked below me are legacies, some of prestigious universities. So be careful what you assume, unless you have statistical evidence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>vc08, you are missing the point. Do you really want to deny that the average child of Harvard grads is more academically successful than the average student? Someone with well-educated, probably well-to-do parents, who almost certainly value education is very likely to have high grades and test scores, and be motivated to pursue ECs that admissions officers will find interesting. Now, of course it is true that the Harvard applicant pool is not composed of average students. But, at the same time, it isn't that much of a stretch to believe that the average legacy applicant would be more qualified than the average non-legacy. First, alums are very likely to be aware of how difficult it is to get into their school, and thus legacies below the standards of their legacy school almost certainly won't apply. I would bet you would find a far higher percentage of non-legacies than legacies are unqualified or marginally qualified. Secondly, many very qualified legacies are rejected from their parents' alma mater (look at the legacy reject thread above if you don't believe me). If exceptionally strong legacies are being rejected, the preference they receive cannot be that great.
There certainly is some sort of "tip" for legacies, but the 39% stat proves nothing. Since there are reasons to believe that the legacy pool is more qualified than the broader applicant pool, unless you can provide data showing that this is not the case, you cannot assume that of two otherwise identical applicants if one is legacy and the other not, that the legacy has a 4x higher chance of admission. There was a stat above that the average legacy admit at Harvard has an SAT score 35-40 points lower than the average admit. That is a small enough difference that legacy status should probably be assumed to be only a tip factor, or a "thumb on the scale," not the massive advantage you believe it to be. FWIW, I remember seeing a stat at a highly selective college (though I no longer remember which one) that showed legacies admits having a higher average SAT score than non-legacies.</p>

46

<p>The hooks S had at Harvard played absolutely no role at Stanford (the recruiting bit took place after he was offered admission. Stanford wanted him to attend, apparently) What played a role was his academic profile--identical for both colleges, obviously.</p>

<p>My point all along is that, since we do not know much about the profile of each applicant, it is only a guess that children of alumni get in because of their legacy status (and alumni are alumni, whether they contribute $$$ or zip--the legacy status, not the size of donations, is factored in when stats are compiled to show that 39% of Princeton admits are legacies).
I know some students who are currently attending colleges where they have legacy status. I know they also got admitted to colleges where that status does not operate; and I also know that their parents can contribute at most a few hundred dollars a year to their colleges--hardly big donor leagues.</p>

47

<p>"But, at the same time, it isn't that much of a stretch to believe that the average legacy applicant would be more qualified than the average non-legacy."</p>

<p>"There was a stat above that the average legacy admit at Harvard has an SAT score 35-40 points lower than the average admit."</p>

<p>For some reason, these two statements seem to contradict each other. Also, I did not mean to imply that legacy status alone would get you in. In fact, I think I specifically said it would not. I was simply stating that in a 'holistic' process, it doesn't seem right that some students already have an advantage heading in.</p>

<p>marite: true about the donation size. I meant to simply refer to any legacy status, regardless of donation size, but brought it up when someone else mentioned it.</p>

48

<p>They don't have an advantage going in. But if two applicants are very very close, the thumb on the scale will tip it in their favor. In other words, they've got to have the other components lined up first.
I just talked to a former schoolmate of my S who, throughout high school, seemed to think he had hooks at Harvard. I just found out he is headed to another (excellent) college.</p>

<p>This is what I wrote in a post above:
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>Parental educational background is the most important factor in explaining board scores. The 61% of students admitted to Princeton without legacy status are probably 99% children of college-educated parents.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
"But, at the same time, it isn't that much of a stretch to believe that the average legacy applicant would be more qualified than the average non-legacy."</p>

<p>"There was a stat above that the average legacy admit at Harvard has an SAT score 35-40 points lower than the average admit."</p>

<p>For some reason, these two statements seem to contradict each other. Also, I did not mean to imply that legacy status alone would get you in. In fact, I think I specifically said it would not. I was simply stating that in a 'holistic' process, it doesn't seem right that some students already have an advantage heading in.

[/quote]

Those two statements do not contradict each other. Note that the first one says "applicant" and the second says "admit." Two different categories, you might say.</p>

<p>I agree that it is unfair that legacies are given an edge. It may be in the best interest of the college, but that's little consolation to a rejected non-legacy. On the other hand, one should not magnify the scale of the edge. Repeating the 39% vs 10% admit rate implies that it is 4 times easier to be admitted as a legacy. In my mind, that claim is ludicrous, and that statistic does not support it.</p>

<p>edit: incidentally, I'm another one of those nasty legacies. Both my parents went to Stanford, and I was admitted there. Yet, I was also admitted everywhere else I applied, including other schools of equal or (possibly) greater selectivity.</p>

50

<p>"I agree that it is unfair that legacies are given an edge."</p>

<p>I still don't understand why. Build up male legacies at prestige u's over time, and sooner or later, wealth will accrue. From that wealth will occur status, and more prestige (and maybe, sometimes, better academic quality, though that is unproven). Maybe even some additional scholarship dough for the poor unfortunates so that the legacies get some experience of how the other half think. I just say pluses, not problems. Why shouldn't a legacy be "worth more" to prestige u. than what happens on a three-hour test?</p>

<p>The thesis, however, is unproven for women and URMs. Interesting that the legacy "hook" becomes a "tip" at just such a time that women and URMs can begin to make use of it.</p>

51

<p>mini, if you read the next sentence in that statement you will see that I don't deny that colleges have a rational reason for admitting legacies. The unfairness is from the perspective of the student. Moreover, one might argue that the increased wealth that comes with legacy status is advantage enough.

[quote]
The thesis, however, is unproven for women and URMs. Interesting that the legacy "hook" becomes a "tip" at just such a time that women and URMs can begin to make use of it.

[/quote]

Women have been able to use the legacy advantage for as long as they've been able to attend (though admittedly that has only been 25-30 years at some of the top schools). A woman's father can provide her with legacy status just as readily as her mother. As for URMs, the ulterior motives you seem to be implying for reducing the importance of legacy status don't make much sense. If colleges had some vast conspiracy to keep URMs out, to the extent that they would eliminate legacy as a significant advantage once URMs could use it, then why practice AA?</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, one might argue that the increased wealth that comes with legacy status is advantage enough.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, since all college-educated individuals have the same chance of increased wealth but only alumni of a specific college can pass on a legacy status to their children at that college. Furthermore, legacy status is independent of wealth. There are plenty of non-affluent legacies!</p>

53

<p>No vast conspiracy. Simply numbers. The school don't exist "from the perspective of the student" - they exist from the perspective of their prime customers, full-freight students and their families who will extend the institutional mission well on into the future. </p>

<p>As for URMs, if you can acquire ones that are wealthy enough you are in fat city. And there's nothing wrong with that - many of the full-freight customers have never experienced being around wealthy, accomplished URMs (and neither have many of the less wealthy URMs.) Princeton today has a lower percentage of African-American students than it had in 1972. In 1972, most of them were on close to full scholarships. Today, a hefty percentage are full-freighters, and I say more power to them. At H., you would have been hard-pressed to find an African-American of Carribean (or any non-U.S.) heritage in 1972. It's different now. </p>

<p>What happens at prestige u's is of virtually no importance to American education as a whole, though it's terrific for the students who attend. It's not where the excitement is except that the would-be wannabe old money folks know that they can never really be old money, so they want to acquire some of the trappings. But eliminate lots of the legacies and the old money and political ties and the ties to foreign dignitaries, and prestige takes a hit - for everyone. It's much fairer from the perspective of the students to keep the legacies et al. if it means that if/when they get in, they have access to it, if but secondhand. After all, that is the product they are trying to purchase.</p>

54

<p>The prestige of these schools comes from the super bright kids who make up 60% of the student body. The legacies and development candidates want to go there so others will assume that they are that bright.</p>

55

<p>My post #32 referred to a legacy and significant donor. My point was, don't count on either status to get you into school. I know of other donor/legacies who were not admitted at Princeton and NYU. However, this one at Stanford, which involved multimillions, is the most glaring example.</p>

56

<p>Quick observation: In 2005-2006, Princeton accepted 200 legacies, out of about 1,600 admits. Over 170 of them enrolled, but they still constituted only 14% of the enrolled class. It's not clear how many of those were admitted ED, where the yield would be about 100% and the background admit rate is closer to 25% than 10%, which would reduce the legacy-nonlegacy admission percentage difference considerably.</p>

<p>There are also indications that 2005-2006 was something of an anomaly. In that academic year, there were only 619 alumni children enrolled at Princeton -- about 150/class -- and the number had dropped precipitously from 04-05 to 05-06, indicating that comparatively few alumni children were accepted in 2005. So there may have been some pressure to bring the numbers back up. (Nevertheless, the Princeton alumni child I knew in that class was deferred ED, then rejected, but accepted at Harvard. So she probably wasn't completely unqualified for Princeton, and it didn't get her in.)</p>

<p>The real trick would be to find out what the admission percentage at Princeton was for children of Harvard alumni. I'll bet they know. I'll bet it's not as low as 10%, not close.</p>

<p>The Stanford article quoted some Harvard person as saying there was a 35-point SAT difference between legacy admits and others. (1) That's not a very interesting difference. (2) If there were 10 or 15 kids accepted on a development basis with much lower stats, that would account for a lot of the difference. I wonder what the median difference was.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
I think some people are giving legacies more power than it actually holds because I beleive that very very few people get admitted on legacy status alone.

[/quote]

[quote]
They don't have an advantage going in. But if two applicants are very very close, the thumb on the scale will tip it in their favor. In other words, they've got to have the other components lined up first.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Given that these same schools themselves argue how similarly qualified the rejected students are to the accepted students, and given how some have said they could admit several times the number accepted and not change their stats etc. etc, this "thumb" can make a pretty big difference. ...Especially when the applicants are "very very close" as most of them are, at least according to the very same adcoms who tell us legacy does not help much.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have NEVER seen an academic study that showed that the legacy pool was better qualified than the general pool, even though some posters here claim that. If I'm missing something, please help me out of my ignorance. Marite, perhaps you are aware of something I'm not, given your confident claims and arguments? If so, PLEASE share the study with us.</p>

<p>I do agree with others, though. If a college wants to give a legacy tip, let them do so. I don't much care - never did. I DO care, though, about honesty in advertising (and statements at admissions sessions and writings in U magazines and all such stuff), which IMHO is sadly lacking in the admissions world. But why should we be surprised? After all, the purpose of admissions communications is not to honestly inform prospective buyers about the product (ahem, excuse me, the "education") but rather to tempt more potential buyers (so the school has a bigger pool from which to select, which leads to many advantages, including higher selectivity and maybe even the finding of a diamond in the rough).</p>

<p>I feel sorry for those parents who don't see through the PR, the mailings, the hype, and then spend serious time, money (visits, tests, app fees) and emotional energy for what they would see as a lost cause if colleges were a bit more honest about what is going on, including the true odds of BWRKs for admissions.</p>

58

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>Surely you jest when you say one of your kids is not "hooked"? I can think of two right off the bat that would apply to either.</p>

<p>What am I missing? that one is "better hooked" than the other?</p>

59

<p>S1 was not hooked at the schools he applied to. S2 was not hooked at one of the schools to which he was admitted. In total, they were admitted to 6 colleges. At only one of them were hooks applicable.</p>

<p>No, I do not claim that legacies are more academically qualified than non-legacies. I claim that children of college-educated parents are, in general, more qualified than children without such parents, and that, ipso factor, legacies are children of college-educated parents. As JHS has suggested, children of Princeton graduates are likely to have the same chances of admission at Harvard and Yale as Harvard and Yale legacies. I'd add that this holds true as well for children of alumni of any good institution of higher education, private or public. We can see that by the number of multiple admissions.</p>

<p>If you think that when two applicants are very very close a thumb on the scale is a huge boost, then I have no quarrel. I see that thumb as operating differently. </p>

<p>At a Stanford admission session, the rep described a tip as something that will push an applicant on the admit side of the fence. We can always disagree how big a push is necessary. The Harvard study suggested 35 point on the SAT, Stanford said its legacies received a 40 point advantage. I think that gap is not all that significant; you may disagree.
I do not think that colleges make claim that 80% of their applicant pool has the same profile; Harvard claims that 80% of its applicants are qualified. That is vastly different than saying they are interchangeable.</p>

60

<p>"The prestige of these schools comes from the super bright kids who make up 60% of the student body."</p>

<p>Surely you jest.</p>

<p>By definition, legacies (and the other 45-50% of admissions tied to URM, athletic, developmental, etc. status, and the half of the student body that must be prepared to shell out $190k without aid) are better qualified. No school is going to ever tell you that they accept less qualified candidates, only the most qualified. The most qualified are those most likely to fulfill and extend the institutional mission. From that perspective, what they did in those three hours out of their lives when they might have had a bellyache can be close to irrelevant.</p>