Yale Admissions

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with legacy being considered a factor if all other things are equal. It is not a public institution. And no, they shouldn’t grow beyond the capacity of the residential colleges or make the classes larger because that’s a huge part of what makes Yale Yale. No one is entitled to an Ivy League degree. What pisses me off way more is how hard it is for my kid in Northern Virginia to get into UVA when they offer scholarships to out of state students. That’s way closer to “unfair” than a university giving a spot to a kid whose parents donated a building.

Anyway, round one will be over today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with legacy being considered a factor if all other things are equal. It is not a public institution. And no, they shouldn’t grow beyond the capacity of the residential colleges or make the classes larger because that’s a huge part of what makes Yale Yale. No one is entitled to an Ivy League degree. What pisses me off way more is how hard it is for my kid in Northern Virginia to get into UVA when they offer scholarships to out of state students. That’s way closer to “unfair” than a university giving a spot to a kid whose parents donated a building.

Anyway, round one will be over today.

They do take public money. Billions of it. So, yes discrimination should be illegal. And will very soon be (my forecast).

[Anonymous]

Next: Athletes? Then: Males? Then: preferences by major? Then: other extracurricular activities?

What you end up with is a vastly female, no sport school where everyone is majoring in computer science. Sounds like a blast!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

Fair points, but I would push back on the athletes thing. Legacies can also be recruited athletes or at the D3 level they may not be recruited (given a tip) but the coach may put a note in their admissions file that if they are admitted they will contribute to the team as a walk on. And many athletes are very good - top - students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

If you’re against legacy being a factor in college admissions why not campaign against it in K-12 admissions? Preference for all familial ties (including siblings) shouldn’t be a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

If you’re against legacy being a factor in college admissions why not campaign against it in K-12 admissions? Preference for all familial ties (including siblings) shouldn’t be a factor.

Yes, abolish them all. Especially if they are recipients of public money in any form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

Fair points, but I would push back on the athletes thing. Legacies can also be recruited athletes or at the D3 level they may not be recruited (given a tip) but the coach may put a note in their admissions file that if they are admitted they will contribute to the team as a walk on. And many athletes are very good - top - students.

I agree that athletes may have solid GPAs. But, surely you are not arguing that athlete admits, as good as they may be academically, raise the average incoming GPA stat? If they lower it, my earlier point stands. The statistic about legacy GPAs being higher then the rest distorts the story (in a self serving manner for beneficiaries of legacies).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next: Athletes? Then: Males? Then: preferences by major? Then: other extracurricular activities?

What you end up with is a vastly female, no sport school where everyone is majoring in computer science. Sounds like a blast!

Drinking this early doesn’t help anyone, Mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

If you’re against legacy being a factor in college admissions why not campaign against it in K-12 admissions? Preference for all familial ties (including siblings) shouldn’t be a factor.

Yes, abolish them all. Especially if they are recipients of public money in any form.

So any company that receives public money should not be allowed to practice nepotism?

[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:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

If you’re against legacy being a factor in college admissions why not campaign against it in K-12 admissions? Preference for all familial ties (including siblings) shouldn’t be a factor.

Yes, abolish them all. Especially if they are recipients of public money in any form.

So any company that receives public money should not be allowed to practice nepotism?

Following up on that, I am particularly curious if an immigrant family's small business is prohibited from preferential hiring of family members if they accept any tax breaks from the federal government, or special small business loans, etc.

I'm sure there are contortions of writing this legislation that would exclude exactly the people PP doesn't want and include the ones she does, but it would be a bit of a butchery.

[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:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

If you’re against legacy being a factor in college admissions why not campaign against it in K-12 admissions? Preference for all familial ties (including siblings) shouldn’t be a factor.

Yes, abolish them all. Especially if they are recipients of public money in any form.

So any company that receives public money should not be allowed to practice nepotism?

Following up on that, I am particularly curious if an immigrant family's small business is prohibited from preferential hiring of family members if they accept any tax breaks from the federal government, or special small business loans, etc.

I'm sure there are contortions of writing this legislation that would exclude exactly the people PP doesn't want and include the ones she does, but it would be a bit of a butchery.

My problem with calling for legacy to be dropped is that so many of the people outraged by legacy preference at the college level are happy to take it at the secondary school level in some form. Second child isn’t that smart? That’s okay - there’s a sibling preference. Older child isn’t that smart? That’s okay - mom (or dad or both) went to the school. Further, would people still want to end legacy admissions after their child was accepted to HYPS? You would then be disadvantaging your grandchildren and future generations of your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

And rarely even that, unless a big donor well-connected family. I only know one super-high-achieving legacy kid admitted in my cohort. I know of at least 60 high-achieving kids who were either rejected, or deferred then rejected.

On average legacy admits have higher GPAs than non-legacy admits. It gets you a closer read but it’s not going to get you in if you don’t compare favorably against your peers.

I have seen this "On average" statistic cited multiple times. It is flawed reasoning for multiple reasons. It is comparing legacies with the the whole pool of admits including athletes and all the other non-legacy special categories. Further, the comparison should be with non-legacies who were applied but NOT admitted. Hard to do at scale obviously. But easy to see within a given school when you have access to data for the past few years (SCOIR/Naviance whatever). The conclusion is very straightforward to reach: Non-legacies are being systematically rejected over lower stat legacies.

Fair points, but I would push back on the athletes thing. Legacies can also be recruited athletes or at the D3 level they may not be recruited (given a tip) but the coach may put a note in their admissions file that if they are admitted they will contribute to the team as a walk on. And many athletes are very good - top - students.

Athletes get a 1000+% boost in admissions consideration. FAR more than legacy. And the academic stats are usually lower.

[Anonymous]

To put you all out of your misery:

Yale took 9% of the REA applicants. 709 of 7856 applicants. They deferred 1531 and rejected the rest - 70%. They don’t have time to do another round on 6000 students in RD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To put you all out of your misery:

Yale took 9% of the REA applicants. 709 of 7856 applicants. They deferred 1531 and rejected the rest - 70%. They don’t have time to do another round on 6000 students in RD.

So, the usual. Priority applicants get in, 1531 competitive enough to be in the mix with RD, the rest not sufficiently competitive.