Legacy? Some are worried it would also mean the end Children of Faculty Admissions Boost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Not to mention, everyone is arguing as if this is a big deal---it is not.”

Ok so it won’t be a big deal to give it up then.

There is no "bump in admissions" for being a faculty kid at most elite schools. The faculty members kids just happen to get in because they are smart kids (duh---at least one of their parents is a University professor). There is no advantage. Those kids have grown up doing well academically, possibly being involved on a college campus and even doing reserach/working with professors in HS. They might even have a college recommendation from one of the professors at the school due to this. So yes, they might have a "hook" but the hook is likely due to being involved in College academia while still in HS oh and being really smart and academically focused through their life. So yes, due to parental connections they have had different opportunities in life growing up----I had 2 friends whose parents were faculty members when I attended a T10 university. They were smarter than most of the kids I knew and had worked their asses off because it was expected of them. They got in on their own merits and both wanted to attend somewhere else, but the tuition discount really made it impossible to choose anywhere else.

Oh come on. This is just untrue. I don’t think this benefit should go away, but there is no need to tell lies to protect it. It is a bump. Be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My father was a Hopkins professor so we benefitted from the 50% of undergraduate tuition Hopkins paid for faculty kids at any college they went to, although this was tuition only, not room and board. But my parents gladly took the benefit and used it for their kids' education. None of us went to Hopkins, although doubtlessly we could have if we wanted to as we ended up at Ivies or elite LACs.

My undergrad had a fair number of kids whose parents were professors at HYP. There was a notable number of those kids. If you added up all the children of college professors, would it be fair to say half of them were offsprings of HYP professors and the other half were offsprings of professors at the remaining 4,000 higher education institutions across the US? Quite possibly. I have also met, over the years, people whose parents were faculty at schools in college consortiums and went to other colleges in that consortium, and at a generous discount, possibly even free (at least for tuition, not sure about room and board). Kenyon and Denison and a few other midwestern schools had this nice benefit for their professors.

I don't begrudge colleges giving their faculty some kind of perk with preferred admissions. At most schools this makes no real difference. But my observation about HYP faculty kids does underscore that the obsession with affirmative action, legacy, donor and other preferred admissions is only really a factor at a tiny handful of schools in the country, possibly even only 4-6 schools. No one is upset nor cares that Kenyon gives free tuition and preferred admissions to faculty. But people are upset if Harvard does it.

+1000

And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

[Anonymous]

DP. I suppose it is very, very academic to call someone that has a reasoned position that is in conflict with yours a “troll.” I’ve read this whole thread, and while I don’t think the benefit should go away, I also haven’t seen anyone who comes close to approximating a troll. The only petulance I see is the entitled PP who calls everyone who disagrees with her a troll.

[Anonymous]

I do think that it’s pretty disingenuous to claim on one hand that faculty children are fully competitive for admission on their own and on the other hand fight tooth and nail to retain the admissions boost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

NP. Of course they do when so many high stats kids are vying for the same limited spots. It's just one small means to differentiate.

What we (general population) really need to do is redefine "top tier college" and stop all applying for the same few options! Then, stop thinking that because our kid has certain stats that we value, that should somehow merit their place at Institution X. It is not a cut and dry list of tic boxes. Some folks seem to be sold on this idea that if they enrich their kid to the level where kid can check boxes for certain merits, that is the recipe for admission, and anything else is not merit. There is not merit ladder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. I suppose it is very, very academic to call someone that has a reasoned position that is in conflict with yours a “troll.” I’ve read this whole thread, and while I don’t think the benefit should go away, I also haven’t seen anyone who comes close to approximating a troll. The only petulance I see is the entitled PP who calls everyone who disagrees with her a troll.

I’m not that poster but if you think there’s no evidence of trolling here, you didn’t read the whole thread or you’re new to the forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

That is what we are trying to tell you - but you want to think that you are somehow neglected. For crying out loud, take it up with your parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Not to mention, everyone is arguing as if this is a big deal---it is not.”

Ok so it won’t be a big deal to give it up then.

There is no "bump in admissions" for being a faculty kid at most elite schools. The faculty members kids just happen to get in because they are smart kids (duh---at least one of their parents is a University professor). There is no advantage. Those kids have grown up doing well academically, possibly being involved on a college campus and even doing reserach/working with professors in HS. They might even have a college recommendation from one of the professors at the school due to this. So yes, they might have a "hook" but the hook is likely due to being involved in College academia while still in HS oh and being really smart and academically focused through their life. So yes, due to parental connections they have had different opportunities in life growing up----I had 2 friends whose parents were faculty members when I attended a T10 university. They were smarter than most of the kids I knew and had worked their asses off because it was expected of them. They got in on their own merits and both wanted to attend somewhere else, but the tuition discount really made it impossible to choose anywhere else.

Oh come on. This is just untrue. I don’t think this benefit should go away, but there is no need to tell lies to protect it. It is a bump. Be honest.

I have friends who are faculty/staff at two different T20 schools. Both say there is no bump---kids must be admitted on their own merit. For one, their first kid did NOT get admitted (and would have been in the 25% for stats--precovid so when stats still really matter) but their 2nd kid did. That kid was about 75% for scores of admitted students, so yes their kid was qualified.

For the other, only 1 of their 3 kids was admitted, yet the 2 denied had applications that would make them qualified contenders.
So yes I'm basing my statements on real data points for two different schools.

Now for the first one whose kid was denied at the 25% stats/test scores, if there was preference, they most definately would have gotten in! The parent works for a professor on campus that is the most well known professor on campus---along the lines of "there are 2 or more buildings on campus with this professors name on them because they donated tens of millions of their wealth to the university"----so not just your typical everyday Faculty/staff member....yet my friends kid did NOT get admission. Why---because there is no preference---your kid has to get in on their own merit, then they get the tuition break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

And they are not getting it at most universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

NP. Of course they do when so many high stats kids are vying for the same limited spots. It's just one small means to differentiate.

What we (general population) really need to do is redefine "top tier college" and stop all applying for the same few options! Then, stop thinking that because our kid has certain stats that we value, that should somehow merit their place at Institution X. It is not a cut and dry list of tic boxes. Some folks seem to be sold on this idea that if they enrich their kid to the level where kid can check boxes for certain merits, that is the recipe for admission, and anything else is not merit. There is not merit ladder.

This part I agree with - and all admissions should be based on innate intelligence (and DNA) - NOT how much prep a kid received. Prep should rule the kid out from certain schools automatically - but most DCUM trolls don't agree with that, because come hell or high water, they want their prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

And they are not getting it at most universities.

+1

I think that certain troll PPs do not want their narrative challenged, because they want to give attention to one group at a time (for this post, it is "Children of Faculty"), until at last, they are turning on themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

NP. Of course they do when so many high stats kids are vying for the same limited spots. It's just one small means to differentiate.

What we (general population) really need to do is redefine "top tier college" and stop all applying for the same few options! Then, stop thinking that because our kid has certain stats that we value, that should somehow merit their place at Institution X. It is not a cut and dry list of tic boxes. Some folks seem to be sold on this idea that if they enrich their kid to the level where kid can check boxes for certain merits, that is the recipe for admission, and anything else is not merit. There is not merit ladder.

This part I agree with - and all admissions should be based on innate intelligence (and DNA) - NOT how much prep a kid received. Prep should rule the kid out from certain schools automatically - but most DCUM trolls don't agree with that, because come hell or high water, they want their prep.

*and NEED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Not to mention, everyone is arguing as if this is a big deal---it is not.”

Ok so it won’t be a big deal to give it up then.

There is no "bump in admissions" for being a faculty kid at most elite schools. The faculty members kids just happen to get in because they are smart kids (duh---at least one of their parents is a University professor). There is no advantage. Those kids have grown up doing well academically, possibly being involved on a college campus and even doing reserach/working with professors in HS. They might even have a college recommendation from one of the professors at the school due to this. So yes, they might have a "hook" but the hook is likely due to being involved in College academia while still in HS oh and being really smart and academically focused through their life. So yes, due to parental connections they have had different opportunities in life growing up----I had 2 friends whose parents were faculty members when I attended a T10 university. They were smarter than most of the kids I knew and had worked their asses off because it was expected of them. They got in on their own merits and both wanted to attend somewhere else, but the tuition discount really made it impossible to choose anywhere else.

Oh come on. This is just untrue. I don’t think this benefit should go away, but there is no need to tell lies to protect it. It is a bump. Be honest.

I have friends who are faculty/staff at two different T20 schools. Both say there is no bump---kids must be admitted on their own merit. For one, their first kid did NOT get admitted (and would have been in the 25% for stats--precovid so when stats still really matter) but their 2nd kid did. That kid was about 75% for scores of admitted students, so yes their kid was qualified.

For the other, only 1 of their 3 kids was admitted, yet the 2 denied had applications that would make them qualified contenders.
So yes I'm basing my statements on real data points for two different schools.

Now for the first one whose kid was denied at the 25% stats/test scores, if there was preference, they most definately would have gotten in! The parent works for a professor on campus that is the most well known professor on campus---along the lines of "there are 2 or more buildings on campus with this professors name on them because they donated tens of millions of their wealth to the university"----so not just your typical everyday Faculty/staff member....yet my friends kid did NOT get admission. Why---because there is no preference---your kid has to get in on their own merit, then they get the tuition break.

I know many professors, and most of their children are top students, and did not get admitted to the universities at which the parents work. OP is being given bad information, and should be scrutinizing their sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And what people seem to forget (or the petulant child/troll who keeps posting does) is that kids of Professors are extremely likely to do well academically and be exceptionally prepared for college---it's how they have grown up. So duh, of course they will have the resume to compete for the top schools.

In which case they don't need any extra admissions bump. Duh.

NP. Of course they do when so many high stats kids are vying for the same limited spots. It's just one small means to differentiate.

What we (general population) really need to do is redefine "top tier college" and stop all applying for the same few options! Then, stop thinking that because our kid has certain stats that we value, that should somehow merit their place at Institution X. It is not a cut and dry list of tic boxes. Some folks seem to be sold on this idea that if they enrich their kid to the level where kid can check boxes for certain merits, that is the recipe for admission, and anything else is not merit. There is not merit ladder.

+1

Majority of MC/UMC+ kids do not receive much benefits from attending an elite university. Those kids have the drive and ability to excel wherever they go and 99% of them will even if they end up at their state U in the honors program. Even more, the smart ones will find excellent schools in the 25-60 range that will give them merit making costs same or less than their state U.
The obsession with "someone is taking my snowflakes spot at a T20 U" is ridiculous. Statistics---they are all highly rejective and yes most will be rejected.
However, having gone thru this 1 year ago and 3 years ago and I can tell you outside of the T25, if your kid has the stats and good Recs/good EC and most importantly good essays and demonstrated interest, they can and should get into 90% of their targets and safeties.
My own kid got Ultimately rejected from ED1/T10 school, WL at a T30 and into 6 schools ranked 30-65 most with good merit. Exactly what you would expect to happen.