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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

+1. Athletic recruiting has 10x the impact of legacy these days, yet legacy gets 10x the attention post-Supreme Court decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

Mis-stated. It's 30%.

“ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard” despite making up “around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/30/legacy-scrutiny-sffa-harvard/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf


43% of WHITE students are ALDC.

70% of legacy admits are white.

Those are large numbers.

Does that 30% number come from the Crimson survey that isn’t exactly scientific?

Maybe you ought to read the supreme court case PDF that was linked, too. That's where the number came from. If it's good enough for the SC, it should be good enough for you.

[Anonymous]

The problem as it relates to legacy, is that a main reason that the LMC and even UMC kids want to attend a Harvard is actually because of the legacies. Nobody cares if Bill Gates' kids or [INSERT BILLIONAIRE HERE]'S kids didn't qualify for Harvard....they still come from billions and it is the opportunity to hobknob with those kids which makes it desirable to others.

From the NY Times:

"One group, however, got a big economic boost from going to elite schools: poor students, students of color and students whose parents didn’t have a college degree. And that’s because elite colleges connected them to students born into privilege — the very kind of student that legacy preferences admit in such large numbers."

"We might assume that legacy admissions help privileged students at the expense of underprivileged ones. But I would wager that legacy students, if eliminated, are far more likely to be replaced by other kinds of privileged students than by underprivileged ones. And in ways that are far less obvious, legacy students, with their deep social and cultural connections, are part of the reason less advantaged students get so much out of elite schools."

"Start by asking yourself what students get out of elite schools. I would like to believe that the most important benefit of these colleges is the exceptional knowledge that professors can deliver in the classroom. But if elite schools delivered special intellectual growth and professional training — what social scientists call human capital — privileged students would benefit greatly from them. And there’s no good evidence that they do."

"Instead, other forms of capital play a bigger role: symbolic capital (the value of being associated with prestigious institutions), social capital (the value of your network) and cultural capital (the value of exposure to high-status practices and mores). Graduating from an elite school pays off on all three counts: It affiliates you with an illustrious organization, offers you connections to people with friends in high places and acculturates you in the conventions and etiquette of high-status settings."

[Anonymous]

High stat DC got into an Ivy this year.
- not a legacy
- not an athlete
- not an URM
- not a faculty kid
- TJ High
- national awards
- Research Publications
- Internships

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem as it relates to legacy, is that a main reason that the LMC and even UMC kids want to attend a Harvard is actually because of the legacies. Nobody cares if Bill Gates' kids or [INSERT BILLIONAIRE HERE]'S kids didn't qualify for Harvard....they still come from billions and it is the opportunity to hobknob with those kids which makes it desirable to others.

From the NY Times:

"One group, however, got a big economic boost from going to elite schools: poor students, students of color and students whose parents didn’t have a college degree. And that’s because elite colleges connected them to students born into privilege — the very kind of student that legacy preferences admit in such large numbers."

"We might assume that legacy admissions help privileged students at the expense of underprivileged ones. But I would wager that legacy students, if eliminated, are far more likely to be replaced by other kinds of privileged students than by underprivileged ones. And in ways that are far less obvious, legacy students, with their deep social and cultural connections, are part of the reason less advantaged students get so much out of elite schools."

"Start by asking yourself what students get out of elite schools. I would like to believe that the most important benefit of these colleges is the exceptional knowledge that professors can deliver in the classroom. But if elite schools delivered special intellectual growth and professional training — what social scientists call human capital — privileged students would benefit greatly from them. And there’s no good evidence that they do."

"Instead, other forms of capital play a bigger role: symbolic capital (the value of being associated with prestigious institutions), social capital (the value of your network) and cultural capital (the value of exposure to high-status practices and mores). Graduating from an elite school pays off on all three counts: It affiliates you with an illustrious organization, offers you connections to people with friends in high places and acculturates you in the conventions and etiquette of high-status settings."

So, you admit that legacy is just a form of opportunity hording for the wealthy and mostly white, while they throw crumbs and URM and LC people?

Maybe Harvard is afraid that it would lose its cache if the well connected families had to send their kids to other colleges such that the network and social capital is not concentrated in a handful of colleges in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
High stat DC got into an Ivy this year.
- not a legacy
- not an athlete
- not an URM
- not a faculty kid
- TJ High
- national awards
- Research Publications
- Internships

Yes, some magnet kids with national awards are getting in. What about high-stats kids at other schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

Mis-stated. It's 30%.

“ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard” despite making up “around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/30/legacy-scrutiny-sffa-harvard/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf


43% of WHITE students are ALDC.

70% of legacy admits are white.

Those are large numbers.

Does that 30% number come from the Crimson survey that isn’t exactly scientific?

Maybe you ought to read the supreme court case PDF that was linked, too. That's where the number came from. If it's good enough for the SC, it should be good enough for you.

Good enough like the fake person asking for the website in the Colorado case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

+1. Athletic recruiting has 10x the impact of legacy these days, yet legacy gets 10x the attention post-Supreme Court decision.

Institutions should be *forced* to reveal the academic stats of all athletic recruits. Full transparency. Where is that lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don't know Harvard's stats, but at Princeton, 10-11% of the class are considered legacies.

Mis-stated. It's 30%.

“ALDC applicants make up less than 5% of applicants to Harvard” despite making up “around 30% of the applicants admitted each year.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/30/legacy-scrutiny-sffa-harvard/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf


43% of WHITE students are ALDC.

70% of legacy admits are white.

Those are large numbers.

Does that 30% number come from the Crimson survey that isn’t exactly scientific?

Maybe you ought to read the supreme court case PDF that was linked, too. That's where the number came from. If it's good enough for the SC, it should be good enough for you.

And I read the case, it’s 30% ALDC not 30% legacy so go figure you can’t read either.

[Anonymous]

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
- TJ High
- national awards
- Research Publications
- Internships

Yes, some magnet kids with national awards are getting in. What about high-stats kids at other schools?

Yes. Plenty of them every year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

+1. Athletic recruiting has 10x the impact of legacy these days, yet legacy gets 10x the attention post-Supreme Court decision.

Princeton just had its first NCAA wrestling champion in over 70 years. In an institution that believes in educating both the body and the mind, why isn’t that level of skill and effort as worthy as being really good at French or astronomy? I’m sure that wrestler was no slouch in the classroom just to get into Princeton. Maybe there should be a minimum standard of athletic skill required of the able-bodied applicants — a lot of us as adults put as much or more effort into being fit as we do in the pursuit of knowledge.

[Anonymous]

This may say more about the company you keep.
I know of 2. Neither is a legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With all of the discussion of legacy admissions in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, I was kind of pondering how much of a difference legacy status makes.

My DS and DD are current college students, and so I've been aware of where their friends go, and where my friends' kids are going to college.

I realized that, of the 7 current students that I know at Princeton and Harvard, they are all legacies. (I just realized that I also know 2 current Cornell students, both of whom are legacies.)

Granted, I know lots of friends who attended Ivy League colleges and whose kids did NOT get in, despite the kids being top students.
Also, the students that I know at Princeton/Harvard/Cornell are definitely top students, hard workers, and good people in general. They are qualified to be at these colleges, for sure.

This is an anecdote of course, but it was kind of eye-opening to realize that extent to which legacy matters.

As an aside, I take some comfort in knowing how much progress Harvard has made in admissions just since the 1960's. I know someone (with whom I went to graduate school) whose mother and all aunts and uncles (5 in total) all went to Harvard in the 1960's. My friend kind of laughed about it later, as he realized that not all of his aunts/uncles were top students by any means - decent but not high-achievers like today's applicants need to be. They were all legacies, and it was a done deal that they would get admitted at that time. By the 1980's, it seems like that extent of obvious legacy admissions was not as widespread.

Idea from the Financial Samurai blog: For those students who attended an Ivy League college and who are NOT a legacy -- to get full credit on your resume for getting admitted without a hook, write "not a legacy" next to your college name.

My Ah Ha moment: I know 23 Ivy legacy kids that did not get into their Ivy.

The rancor over legacy preferences is a distraction from VIP and recruited athlete preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t smart, high achievers beget smart, high achievers, on average?

Yes. Legacy kids must have the stats to get in. I know many who were not strong enough students, and were not admitted. And some with outstanding stats but not admitted.

There's a good article about the real corruption being in the area of athletic recruits, for whom academic standards are substantially lowered by contrast:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html

Wow, recruited athletes get a 1000% bump, and with lowered academic standards to boot? That's not right.

+1. Athletic recruiting has 10x the impact of legacy these days, yet legacy gets 10x the attention post-Supreme Court decision.

Princeton just had its first NCAA wrestling champion in over 70 years. In an institution that believes in educating both the body and the mind, why isn’t that level of skill and effort as worthy as being really good at French or astronomy? I’m sure that wrestler was no slouch in the classroom just to get into Princeton. Maybe there should be a minimum standard of athletic skill required of the able-bodied applicants — a lot of us as adults put as much or more effort into being fit as we do in the pursuit of knowledge.

I have no problem with it provided that student's academic credentials meet the bar. What are the odds they did?