Aha moment - I know 7 current Ivy League students, and all of them happen to be legacies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High stat DC got into an Ivy this year.
-not a legacy
-not an athlete
-not an URM
-not a faculty kid
-public school (not TJ)
-no crazy national/international awards
Just got super super lucky.

Stats and major?

1580, 4.6 weighted, Engineering

Very impressive, congrats to your DC on getting in for one of the toughest majors. Essays must have been excellent!

The sad thing is the assumption that a kid with these stats wouldn't normally get in without a hook. Back in the day they would have sailed in!

Test prep culture has considerably cheapened the value of a 1580.

No, 1580 is very hard to achieve prep or not.
Everybody should study and prepare hard for major test such as SAT, MCAT, BAR exam, Professional Engineer exam, etc.

Not a great comparison because the SAT is designed to determine kid’s ability to learn. The bar exam and professional engineering exams are to test what they have already learned.

I
-1 it's a great comparison because everyone is free to prepare.

It's like the Olympics where athletes train for 4 or more years. They are supposed to train - even if training gives them advantage. I don't know any elite athlete who simply shows up and expect to win the gold. Showong up and expect to take home the gold on the strength of the color of skin happens only at Harvard.

This illustrates the changed attitude toward the SAT since “back in the day.” I think it’s a terrible waste. The SAT used to measure aptitude. Now there’s no way to tell whether a 1540 was achieved cold or after months of intense study. That means it’s not a reliable measure of either effort or aptitude.

Sure it is. Just because someone studied for the SAT doesn't make them dumb. In fact it shows discipline and a willingness to learn, which are very good predictors for college success. Colleges all know this. There's a reason MIT went back to test mandatory. Test Optional was a fail. The kids accepted at MIT that went test optional could not perform at the same level as prior years. So MIT now requires SAT/ACT scores. Data is data. The schools that remain test optional are doing so simply to fatten up their applicant numbers or to hit their DEI targets. White and Asian kids from the burbs applying to competitive schools still need to take the SAT/ACT.

You die on the MIT hill if you want.

1800+ colleges are test optional, including HYPS, and most of the T50.

It's not going away.

What MIT going back to test requires tells me is that the MIT admissions staff are bad at their jobs. They really couldn’t figure it out?

You need data, more the data is better to more accurately figure out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

Aren’t you then “assuming” your legacy kid would have gotten in as a non-legacy?

+1 my magnet kid took the SAT once, and one practice SAT. 1580. 4.95 wGPA, 4.0 uwGPA, is the type of kid who can finish a 45min math test in 15min without studying for it.

Rejected at T20s that he applied to.

Don't assume your kid could've got in without legacy.

Not assuming they would have been admitted at all, and there's really no way to interrogate that situation. The only assumption I'm asking you to NOT make is that my kid is somehow less qualified than the entire pool of candidates just because they are a legacy. Objectively, this is not the case as they had perfect scores, and enough ECs to support. I'm essentially just pointing out that there is potential for a logical fallacy here, given that no one has all the information, and the conventional wisdom seems to be that legacies are somehow "less than".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High stat DC got into an Ivy this year.
-not a legacy
-not an athlete
-not an URM
-not a faculty kid
-public school (not TJ)
-no crazy national/international awards
Just got super super lucky.

Stats and major?

1580, 4.6 weighted, Engineering

Very impressive, congrats to your DC on getting in for one of the toughest majors. Essays must have been excellent!

The sad thing is the assumption that a kid with these stats wouldn't normally get in without a hook. Back in the day they would have sailed in!

Test prep culture has considerably cheapened the value of a 1580.

No, 1580 is very hard to achieve prep or not.
Everybody should study and prepare hard for major test such as SAT, MCAT, BAR exam, Professional Engineer exam, etc.

Not a great comparison because the SAT is designed to determine kid’s ability to learn. The bar exam and professional engineering exams are to test what they have already learned.

I
-1 it's a great comparison because everyone is free to prepare.

It's like the Olympics where athletes train for 4 or more years. They are supposed to train - even if training gives them advantage. I don't know any elite athlete who simply shows up and expect to win the gold. Showong up and expect to take home the gold on the strength of the color of skin happens only at Harvard.

This illustrates the changed attitude toward the SAT since “back in the day.” I think it’s a terrible waste. The SAT used to measure aptitude. Now there’s no way to tell whether a 1540 was achieved cold or after months of intense study. That means it’s not a reliable measure of either effort or aptitude.

Kind of like the Olympics gold medal. We don't know if this is from the genetic gift of God or 4 years of blood and sweat training/prep that gave these athletes "unfair" advantage.

You are comparing Olympics with the SAT? And actually now that I think about it it a good example because most Olympic athletes are spoiled little fuxs who have their entire lives taken care of and sponsored, either by the state or by organizations much like the spoiled fuxs to get into the ivies. And then there's a small percentage that come from actual poverty and or no sponsorship and they make their way through grit and genetics. They don't have training facilities and meal prep and likely have a job or occupation besides training. Any of those two things are seen as the same and you see them as a group of people who have things in common but in fact they don't. And that's not to reduce the genetics and training that going to be an Olympic athlete in a state sponsored or commercially sponsored arena BUT you being saying to think that the very people who are sponsored from like 10 to 13 and have their entire lives around one thing are as good as the people who do 10 other things and still manage to compete against them.

Then we need to do away with gold, silver, bronze. Or for athletes from the 3rd world countries, they get extra 10, 5, or 3 points added to their cumulative performance. A gold medal performer is awarded 100 points, silver 90, and bronze, 80. Add up the scores, the way we do with federal jobs with veterans getting the extra 10 points. Readjust for the medals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol no

My kids all got in no legacy not athletic no extraordinary extra curricula

Yale Princeton Stanford

Let's try: rural, or parent's blue collar jobs

URM? First generation? Low income? Rural? Underrepresented state?

I know a family like this in DC and the father was a well known journalist. All the kids to Harvard/Stanford/etc, and the Mom thinks that if your kid didn’t get into an Ivy it was because they just weren’t very smart.

It's pretty incredible how parents of legacy/VIP admits think their kids were accepted because they "earned it". This is not to say their kids didn't do great in school to have top stats - they may clearly clear the hurdle for success at the college. It IS to say that these families somehow think that the legacy/VIP didn't tip the scale for their kid to be chosen over a HUGE number of applicants who had the same stats/EC (and often higher stats/ECs). I'd love for them to see a reality where their kid didn't have legacy/VIP attached and see the outcome. (Note - this wouldn't have applied to URM families up to 2023 because the URM would also factor in. We know many legacy/VIP/URM admits....Penn seems to play prominently in this space in my circles).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High stat DC got into an Ivy this year.
-not a legacy
-not an athlete
-not an URM
-not a faculty kid
-public school (not TJ)
-no crazy national/international awards
Just got super super lucky.

Stats and major?

1580, 4.6 weighted, Engineering

Very impressive, congrats to your DC on getting in for one of the toughest majors. Essays must have been excellent!

The sad thing is the assumption that a kid with these stats wouldn't normally get in without a hook. Back in the day they would have sailed in!

Test prep culture has considerably cheapened the value of a 1580.

No, 1580 is very hard to achieve prep or not.
Everybody should study and prepare hard for major test such as SAT, MCAT, BAR exam, Professional Engineer exam, etc.

Not a great comparison because the SAT is designed to determine kid’s ability to learn. The bar exam and professional engineering exams are to test what they have already learned.

I
-1 it's a great comparison because everyone is free to prepare.

It's like the Olympics where athletes train for 4 or more years. They are supposed to train - even if training gives them advantage. I don't know any elite athlete who simply shows up and expect to win the gold. Showong up and expect to take home the gold on the strength of the color of skin happens only at Harvard.

This illustrates the changed attitude toward the SAT since “back in the day.” I think it’s a terrible waste. The SAT used to measure aptitude. Now there’s no way to tell whether a 1540 was achieved cold or after months of intense study. That means it’s not a reliable measure of either effort or aptitude.

Sure it is. Just because someone studied for the SAT doesn't make them dumb. In fact it shows discipline and a willingness to learn, which are very good predictors for college success. Colleges all know this. There's a reason MIT went back to test mandatory. Test Optional was a fail. The kids accepted at MIT that went test optional could not perform at the same level as prior years. So MIT now requires SAT/ACT scores. Data is data. The schools that remain test optional are doing so simply to fatten up their applicant numbers or to hit their DEI targets. White and Asian kids from the burbs applying to competitive schools still need to take the SAT/ACT.

You die on the MIT hill if you want.

1800+ colleges are test optional, including HYPS, and most of the T50.

It's not going away.

What MIT going back to test requires tells me is that the MIT admissions staff are bad at their jobs. They really couldn’t figure it out?

You need data, more the data is better to more accurately figure out.

DP. My assumption is that MIT is pandering to the test fanatics. Given how frequently their decision is trotted out around here, I’d say that was a shrewd approach. We know from the other schools, eg Caltech, that SAT scores add minimal information to the student profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High stat DC got into an Ivy this year.
-not a legacy
-not an athlete
-not an URM
-not a faculty kid
-public school (not TJ)
-no crazy national/international awards
Just got super super lucky.

Stats and major?

1580, 4.6 weighted, Engineering

Very impressive, congrats to your DC on getting in for one of the toughest majors. Essays must have been excellent!

The sad thing is the assumption that a kid with these stats wouldn't normally get in without a hook. Back in the day they would have sailed in!

Test prep culture has considerably cheapened the value of a 1580.

No, 1580 is very hard to achieve prep or not.
Everybody should study and prepare hard for major test such as SAT, MCAT, BAR exam, Professional Engineer exam, etc.

Not a great comparison because the SAT is designed to determine kid’s ability to learn. The bar exam and professional engineering exams are to test what they have already learned.

I
-1 it's a great comparison because everyone is free to prepare.

It's like the Olympics where athletes train for 4 or more years. They are supposed to train - even if training gives them advantage. I don't know any elite athlete who simply shows up and expect to win the gold. Showong up and expect to take home the gold on the strength of the color of skin happens only at Harvard.

This illustrates the changed attitude toward the SAT since “back in the day.” I think it’s a terrible waste. The SAT used to measure aptitude. Now there’s no way to tell whether a 1540 was achieved cold or after months of intense study. That means it’s not a reliable measure of either effort or aptitude.

Sure it is. Just because someone studied for the SAT doesn't make them dumb. In fact it shows discipline and a willingness to learn, which are very good predictors for college success. Colleges all know this. There's a reason MIT went back to test mandatory. Test Optional was a fail. The kids accepted at MIT that went test optional could not perform at the same level as prior years. So MIT now requires SAT/ACT scores. Data is data. The schools that remain test optional are doing so simply to fatten up their applicant numbers or to hit their DEI targets. White and Asian kids from the burbs applying to competitive schools still need to take the SAT/ACT.

You die on the MIT hill if you want.

1800+ colleges are test optional, including HYPS, and most of the T50.

It's not going away.

What MIT going back to test requires tells me is that the MIT admissions staff are bad at their jobs. They really couldn’t figure it out?

You need data, more the data is better to more accurately figure out.

DP. My assumption is that MIT is pandering to the test fanatics. Given how frequently their decision is trotted out around here, I’d say that was a shrewd approach. We know from the other schools, eg Caltech, that SAT scores add minimal information to the student profile.

I think it's much simpler. The volume of applications to top schools has become untenable, and admissions offices need a way to weed out a large chunk. Given the extremely high number of UW 4.0GPAs, test scores can help with the weed-out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

On what basis? What will a legacy admit bring to the school that a non-legacy with identical stats will not?

[Anonymous]

My DC has legacy at one of the HYP. We live in the suburbs in a state that is not underrepresented, are not high income, and I don’t donate. Applied SCEA and was deferred then rejected. Out of the 7 ivies applied to (didn’t apply to Cornell), my alma mater was the only one that rejected them. Even received 2 likely letters from other ivies. Ended up at their preferred HYP and couldn’t be happier.

[Anonymous]

Dear OP, as far as I can tell, most unhooked admits are magnet students (especially from the DMV area). Ivies are therefore relying on the magnet selection process, however imperfect, to inform their own admission algorithm.

In addition, it is not enough for unhooked magnet kids to do well in school. They also need to demonstrate national level achievement in the EC of their choice. It does not seem to be important which EC it is

Just my 2 cents, yours may differ.

Mom of an unhooked DMV area magnet HYP admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

Aren’t you then “assuming” your legacy kid would have gotten in as a non-legacy?

+1 my magnet kid took the SAT once, and one practice SAT. 1580. 4.95 wGPA, 4.0 uwGPA, is the type of kid who can finish a 45min math test in 15min without studying for it.

Rejected at T20s that he applied to.

Don't assume your kid could've got in without legacy.

Not assuming they would have been admitted at all, and there's really no way to interrogate that situation. The only assumption I'm asking you to NOT make is that my kid is somehow less qualified than the entire pool of candidates just because they are a legacy. Objectively, this is not the case as they had perfect scores, and enough ECs to support. I'm essentially just pointing out that there is potential for a logical fallacy here, given that no one has all the information, and the conventional wisdom seems to be that legacies are somehow "less than".

The mere point that you feel the point out that they are not "less than" shows that you are out of touch with reality of so many other perfect stats kids. How about be just own it and be humble and grateful for the leg up your child had at your alma mater. Legacy/VIP parents brining up how great their kids' stats are and how they are succeeding just rubs salt in the wound. And yes - some legacy have lower stats ..... so you just need to live with whatever people think. If you care so much about whether people will assume "to lesser" - then feel free to try have your children take a shot in the regular pool and attend a non-legacy school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

Aren’t you then “assuming” your legacy kid would have gotten in as a non-legacy?

+1 my magnet kid took the SAT once, and one practice SAT. 1580. 4.95 wGPA, 4.0 uwGPA, is the type of kid who can finish a 45min math test in 15min without studying for it.

Rejected at T20s that he applied to.

Don't assume your kid could've got in without legacy.

Not assuming they would have been admitted at all, and there's really no way to interrogate that situation. The only assumption I'm asking you to NOT make is that my kid is somehow less qualified than the entire pool of candidates just because they are a legacy. Objectively, this is not the case as they had perfect scores, and enough ECs to support. I'm essentially just pointing out that there is potential for a logical fallacy here, given that no one has all the information, and the conventional wisdom seems to be that legacies are somehow "less than".

Unfortunately, this is the other side of the affirmative action coin. Some URM are assumed to have gotten in simply due to the color of their skin, and not because they had the stats.

Some legacy admits will also be assumed to have gotten in simply due to who their parents were, and because they had the stats.

This is what happens when college play favorites based on not a student's own merit, but something the student had no hand in - race and their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Not that PP - but my "why not" is that the applicant should be judged on how their application highlights the student's life - not the fact that their parent is an alum or is famous or donated a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a legacy kid at Princeton. Should probably not assume anything about their qualifications, as this kid had single-sitting 36/4.0 in high school and has one A- at Princeton in a rigorous major. This kid can compete with anyone and don't see why given equivalent stats, a university should be criticized for admitting them. This is anecdotal of course, but my point is don't assume.

But why should your kid with these stats get a boost over another with the same stats? They shouldn't.....

I guess my question back to you is why not? What are your proposed more objective criteria to adjudicate this situation given perfect scores? One could argue for a lottery of course or a matching algorithm, but I don't think that is a possibility. Thus, I think legacy status is a reasonable differentiating factor to be considered.

Because when a college states that it wants diversity, they aren't achieving that when they admit 43% legacy. It's just the same ol' same ol' from the same families. This doesn't breed diversity. It breeds an insular environment. Seems counter to all their talk about diversity.

This is on Havard's website:

"We continue to believe deeply that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence. "

How are they achieving that when almost half their student body comes from the same families from previous generations, mostly wealthy and white.