<p>One important role legacy plays is in contributing to the strength of the alumni network. Students value the alumni network's ability to provide interesting internships, mentoring and then good jobs to graduates. Some schools really shine in this regard. Legacy perks make for happy, generous alums in more than financial ways. Mr/Ms Alum is going to be much more willing to provide resources to current students if DD or DS was accepted to DAlmamater!</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>It is interesting that when I referred to the 60% of the student body that is super bright you immediately assumed I was talking about the SAT. I think that must have been a Freudian slip. Take any measure of it you want the prestige of these institutions comes from bright faculty and students not from the privileged hangers on.</p>
<p>1ofeach: So that's what the "Harvard connection" is all about, then?</p>
<p>Ok, thanks so much everyone for all of the responses. Feel free to continue responding (I know you will :) ), but for right now, I'm going to take a break from this one. Between the students and you all, this topic has gotten over 100 very opinionated responses! It has been interested hearing from everyone, but right now I need to focus on my own college admissions (e.g. essays), so I'm signing off. I might drop in every so often to see what advancements have been made, or just to invade your site one more time. In closing though, I wanted to share with you a little bit of my personal background, so you could see why I felt so strongly about this topic:</p>
<p>I have lived in a very small suburb of San Diego my entire life. My school has around 1200 students, which is small by most standards. Both of my parents are college graduates (SDSU, CSULB), and make a middle class salary. However, growing up, I was constantly aware of the wealth in certain parts of CA, from La Jolla to Rancho Santa Fe, to Carmel and Palo Alto. The Stanford grads never failed to remind people that they went to Stanford, proving it with the "Alumni, Stanford" plate frames on their red Porshes. Not to single out Stanford, that was just one example. At college info sessions, you could always tell who the alumni's kids were, as they always seemed to ask, "so exactly how much will being a legacy help you?", even though they knew full well that it was to their advantage. </p>
<p>Now, I just haven't been raised in an environment where people stressed separation between college graduates and non-college graduates. I didn't have the opportunity to go to Exeter, or any private or college prep school, as the nearest one was 45 minutes away. School was never about which Ivy League institution one was going to, it was only about whether they were going to a 2 or 4 year college. In fact, in our school's entire history, only 2 students have made it into the IL; both of them were on track scholarships.</p>
<p>The fact that graduates from my high school have gone on to Berkeley, UCLA, Notre Dame, Michigan, and several elite liberal arts colleges but not more to the IL fascinates me. Until I realize that maybe they just don't want us. Why should they, when the next applicant "has their name on a building?" So, some of you have said it does not matter. It is a minute difference anyway. But, isn't college admissions all about those differences? I feel bad for the kid who was denied from his dream school because his parents did not have the chance to go there. What a shame. It is only a difference of a few hundred kids, some argue. Well, I just hope I'm not one of those 200 who got denied because of it. All that hard work to narrowly lose out to someone not even in your own generation.</p>
<p>Sorry, I know this is long (and, if anyone is actually still reading this, thanks :) but I guess in short, I am not used to the elitism that legacies bring. How many times has one seen movies or read books where a kid going to Harvard, for example has mention that he is a double or even triple legacy? I personally can think of numerous ones. I didn't get any special treatment at my high school. No SAT prep classes, and poor guidance counseling (my counselor thought Michigan and Boston College were Ivy League schools) are just a few examples. I just didn't think it would be too much to ask to be treated with some equality in the admissions process, since every private school kid already has the advantage of a better high school education going in. </p>
<p>So that's my story. Feel free to debate it, praise it, or rip it apart. Please, no one take offense to it though. Realize that in many instances I was generalizing, and do not judge individuals until I know them. Good luck to all of your children in their future academic endeavors.</p>
<p><a href="JHS%20quoting%20friend%20quoting%20Harvard%20admissions:">quote</a>
(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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(2) and (3) suggest that HYP can operate as a triumvirate for legacy admission by preferring children of HYP parents if not specifically the offspring of their own alumni. Somewhat analogous to PhD admissions, much of which involves faculty at peer schools sending each other their former undergrads.</p>
<p>I don't think that they prefer HYP children. I think it's that many children of HYP graduates have had numerous advantages (SAT tutoring, private schools, parents who have contacts, private college counselors, intelligent parents etc.) and they are often strong candidates who are attractive to many schools.</p>
<p>vc08 be proud of who you are, and understand that there's a new interest (led by presidents of Harvard and Amherst) to increase the number of middle-class kids on campus (old CC threads, use search words "middle-class").</p>
<p>midatlmom, how do you square your opinion with the facts published in the Harvard Chrimson article.</p>
<p>This has been studied: <a href="http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050547.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050547.html</a></p>
<p>" 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." </p>
<p>If Adcoms were really so indifferent to legacy status why on earth do they continue to include the question on the application?</p>
<p>vc08, from another thread, I just learned an easier way to find the previous CC discussions on middle-class kids. Some were "featured discussions." So instead of a broad search, just go to the opening page of "Discussions," see the (current) Featured Discussion thread titles; then click below them at "see more discussions..." and you'll see the list that includes some on middle-class admissions.</p>
<p>"vc08 be proud of who you are, and understand that there's a new interest (led by presidents of Harvard and Amherst) to increase the number of middle-class kids on campus (old CC threads, use search words "middle-class")."</p>
<p>Evidence? It doesn't show up in the data. There has been interest at Amherst in increasing the number of low-income students, and the percentage of Pell Grant students is now up to 17%. But the percentage of middle and upper middle quintile ($45k - $92k) students is likely in the high single digits, and of those, it is likely a majority are URMs and recruited athletes.</p>
<p>Amherst will do away with loans entirely in financial aids next year. Presumably that will help to increase middle class representation since loans are more likely to deter middle class (I don't have hard evidence for this supposition). </p>
<p>The sad truth is that middle class applicants have much less hooks, and they will always be underrepresented at highly selective colleges.</p>
<p>Doing away with loans has the most positive effect on top quintile but not top 3% familes ($100k-$160k), not those with lower incomes. It's a good thing, but not a big thing - it helps Amherst remain competitive for top quntile students, but likely has very little effect on the rest. At any rate, they have had no shortage of middle income applicants, loans or no loans; they just don't accept many of them. (And I'd be willing to bet that a strong plurality if not majority of those they do accept are URMs or athletes.)</p>
<p>Over the past 5 years, the entire increase (roughly 5%) in the percentage of students receiving need-based aid at Amherst has been in the bottom two quintiles. It is likely that there are in fact fewer middle class students there than there were five years ago.</p>
<p>Eliminating loans helps only when you would have helped those families anyway. It depends on how Amherst determines need. The FAFSA, despite being a federal standard, is a relatively simple and often incomplete measure of what a family can contribute. For example, for a family living in Silicon Valley, where the cost of living is astronomical, a $100,000 salary is nothing. For another family living in Wisconsin, that same salary can go a long way. The FAFSA measures both families equally. Will Amherst?</p>
<p>Mini, where do your Amherst numbers come from?</p>
<p>While cutting out the loan is sure nice, the schools doing so capped loans at a reasonable number before. This is not going to make it possible for more middle class to enroll, their parents will still be stuck with the big plus and private loans.</p>
<p>Originalong--I think you misinterpreted my post (sorry if it was unclear). Obviously, I believe that children of alumni get a large boost at the schools at which they are legacies. However, I don't think that Princeton legacy children get any particular boost at Harvard and Yale for example. I think that they might get in at higher numbers at Harvard and Yale because they have had, in general, many advantages and they are strong and often well-marketed candidates.</p>
<p>I am a legacy at Wheaton College (MA). On their website it says that they feel alumni relation is important to them. I am looking to transfer into Wheaton as a sophomore. my alumni relation (Mother) actually transferred in too. Being a legacy would it give me a particular boost over other students? I have good numbers in college thus far and I have good EC's. What would my odds be considering I am indeed a legacy?</p>