Where are the top unhooked kids at your Big3 going this year (not legacy, URM or sports recruit).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was admitted to HYPS on so-called "academic merit" and you know what? Many of the recruited athletes in my classes were getting just as good if not better grades than me. They have elite work ethic and time management skills so don't sound surprised that it often spills over to studying too. Stop it with the stereotypes.

Thank You !

Employers also like former college athletes. The skill set speaks to determination, goal oriented, competitive, team player skills and good physical well being

This has been my experience (an employer on Wall Street). Athletes and one veteran have the best work ethic and resilience on our team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people talk in threads like these about a kid being "hooked" because a parent went to a certain school, is simply being a legacy that much of a leg up in admissions? My wife and I went to 2 different Ivy League schools. Does that mean our kids are going to have a much easier time getting into those schools than their peers solely because we went there 20 years ago? We barely donate and are otherwise inactive alums. When I was an undergrad, I was a first generation college student and anecdotally heard that my school gave the same amount of extra points to kids who were first generation as those who are legacies. I thought that in the time since we graduated, legacy status meant less and less as time went on and schools turned to other characteristics to give kids a boost. But these threads seem to make it appear that schools are a slam dunk for legacy kids so long as they are competitive otherwise. Anyone have any context for how much legacy status actually matters at Ivies these days? Is it a lock? Merely a tie-breaker? Something akin to athletic recruit status or 1st generation or URM bonus points?

My experience at a top DC independent school is that in a class of 100 kids, there are easily 10-20 kids with legacy status (between both parents) at each Ivy. There are a LOT of Ivy grads walking around DC.
Then maybe 1/10 of these kids will get into the Ivy. So while a legacy kid may get into Yale from Sidwell, there are 9 other Yale legacies from Sidwell who applied and didn't get in.
There is no way that Yale is taking 10 kids from Sidwell. Plus there are the athletic recruits, URMs, non-legacy kids who are superstars in their own right, etc who are also taking spots.
Make sense?

The legacy bump is stronger at other high schools or other parts of the country where kids aren't competing against 10 other legacies in their class.

considering there are 8 schools in question, you're essentially saying that easily over 50% of the class is some Ivy legacy? That's so far off the mark.

My kids attend a top private school in another major city that is similar in reputation to Sidwell, and yes, around 40-50% of their classes are Ivy + Stanford legacies, in many cases double legacies (both parents went to the same Ivy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard legacies get in at rate 6-7x that of the regular pool

Assuming your 6-7x figure remains accurate, x is still a very tiny number so the vast majority of legacies aren't getting admitted anyway. The ones that do still need to have the goods.

7x5 = 35% admit rate. That means that on average, one out of every 3 legacy applicants gets admitted. Legacy to me is the same as royalty: completely antiquated and the opposite of merit and equality.

[Anonymous]

Your numbers are outdated. It's more like one out of every 4 or 5 legacy applicants getting admitted. For the overwhelming majority of them, it wasn't enough of a factor to change the final outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your numbers are outdated. It's more like one out of every 4 or 5 legacy applicants getting admitted. For the overwhelming majority of them, it wasn't enough of a factor to change the final outcome.

When the admit rate overall is down to 3-5% I think a lot of applicants would love to have a 20-25% admit rate instead. And that 3-5% isn’t the true rate for a completely unhooked applicant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was admitted to HYPS on so-called "academic merit" and you know what? Many of the recruited athletes in my classes were getting just as good if not better grades than me. They have elite work ethic and time management skills so don't sound surprised that it often spills over to studying too. Stop it with the stereotypes.

Thank You !

Employers also like former college athletes. The skill set speaks to determination, goal oriented, competitive, team player skills and good physical well being

This has been my experience (an employer on Wall Street). Athletes and one veteran have the best work ethic and resilience on our team.

Lots of kids are involved in athletics and develop those skills, but they aren't "recruited athletes." So, you can find that in many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people talk in threads like these about a kid being "hooked" because a parent went to a certain school, is simply being a legacy that much of a leg up in admissions? My wife and I went to 2 different Ivy League schools. Does that mean our kids are going to have a much easier time getting into those schools than their peers solely because we went there 20 years ago? We barely donate and are otherwise inactive alums. When I was an undergrad, I was a first generation college student and anecdotally heard that my school gave the same amount of extra points to kids who were first generation as those who are legacies. I thought that in the time since we graduated, legacy status meant less and less as time went on and schools turned to other characteristics to give kids a boost. But these threads seem to make it appear that schools are a slam dunk for legacy kids so long as they are competitive otherwise. Anyone have any context for how much legacy status actually matters at Ivies these days? Is it a lock? Merely a tie-breaker? Something akin to athletic recruit status or 1st generation or URM bonus points?

My experience at a top DC independent school is that in a class of 100 kids, there are easily 10-20 kids with legacy status (between both parents) at each Ivy. There are a LOT of Ivy grads walking around DC.
Then maybe 1/10 of these kids will get into the Ivy. So while a legacy kid may get into Yale from Sidwell, there are 9 other Yale legacies from Sidwell who applied and didn't get in.
There is no way that Yale is taking 10 kids from Sidwell. Plus there are the athletic recruits, URMs, non-legacy kids who are superstars in their own right, etc who are also taking spots.
Make sense?

The legacy bump is stronger at other high schools or other parts of the country where kids aren't competing against 10 other legacies in their class.

considering there are 8 schools in question, you're essentially saying that easily over 50% of the class is some Ivy legacy? That's so far off the mark.

My kids attend a top private school in another major city that is similar in reputation to Sidwell, and yes, around 40-50% of their classes are Ivy + Stanford legacies, in many cases double legacies (both parents went to the same Ivy).

Yes, esp if including grad schools, which are relatively easier to get than at college level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was admitted to HYPS on so-called "academic merit" and you know what? Many of the recruited athletes in my classes were getting just as good if not better grades than me. They have elite work ethic and time management skills so don't sound surprised that it often spills over to studying too. Stop it with the stereotypes.

Thank You !

Employers also like former college athletes. The skill set speaks to determination, goal oriented, competitive, team player skills and good physical well being

This has been my experience (an employer on Wall Street). Athletes and one veteran have the best work ethic and resilience on our team.

Lots of kids are involved in athletics and develop those skills, but they aren't "recruited athletes." So, you can find that in many kids.

utmost respect for the self discipline, work ethic and athletic abilities to be a scholar athlete at the highest level possible.

Also respect those academics who are active and physically healthy in other sports levels.

But being excellent at something isn’t easy. At some point you take your strong natural abilities and grow them, progress, test yourself over and over.

That grit matters. More than all the rec experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was admitted to HYPS on so-called "academic merit" and you know what? Many of the recruited athletes in my classes were getting just as good if not better grades than me. They have elite work ethic and time management skills so don't sound surprised that it often spills over to studying too. Stop it with the stereotypes.

Thank You !

Employers also like former college athletes. The skill set speaks to determination, goal oriented, competitive, team player skills and good physical well being

This has been my experience (an employer on Wall Street). Athletes and one veteran have the best work ethic and resilience on our team.

Lots of kids are involved in athletics and develop those skills, but they aren't "recruited athletes." So, you can find that in many kids.

utmost respect for the self discipline, work ethic and athletic abilities to be a scholar athlete at the highest level possible.

Also respect those academics who are active and physically healthy in other sports levels.

But being excellent at something isn’t easy. At some point you take your strong natural abilities and grow them, progress, test yourself over and over.

That grit matters. More than all the rec experience.

If anyone on Wall Street actually believed this, they would hire Alabama linebackers ahead of anyone from Harvard. Harvard isn’t even a BCS team! Next to the SEC, the whole Ivy League is a rec league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was admitted to HYPS on so-called "academic merit" and you know what? Many of the recruited athletes in my classes were getting just as good if not better grades than me. They have elite work ethic and time management skills so don't sound surprised that it often spills over to studying too. Stop it with the stereotypes.

Thank You !

Employers also like former college athletes. The skill set speaks to determination, goal oriented, competitive, team player skills and good physical well being

This has been my experience (an employer on Wall Street). Athletes and one veteran have the best work ethic and resilience on our team.

Lots of kids are involved in athletics and develop those skills, but they aren't "recruited athletes." So, you can find that in many kids.

utmost respect for the self discipline, work ethic and athletic abilities to be a scholar athlete at the highest level possible.

Also respect those academics who are active and physically healthy in other sports levels.

But being excellent at something isn’t easy. At some point you take your strong natural abilities and grow them, progress, test yourself over and over.

That grit matters. More than all the rec experience.

If anyone on Wall Street actually believed this, they would hire Alabama linebackers ahead of anyone from Harvard. Harvard isn’t even a BCS team! Next to the SEC, the whole Ivy League is a rec league.

No, but the time management skills for top athletes from top schools are off the charts. And most of those non future NFL types are still way way better athletes than the rest of the people on the street in Boston. In fact, I would guess, the difference between their athletic skills and the average person is much greater than the difference between the skills of the NFL player and theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people talk in threads like these about a kid being "hooked" because a parent went to a certain school, is simply being a legacy that much of a leg up in admissions? My wife and I went to 2 different Ivy League schools. Does that mean our kids are going to have a much easier time getting into those schools than their peers solely because we went there 20 years ago? We barely donate and are otherwise inactive alums. When I was an undergrad, I was a first generation college student and anecdotally heard that my school gave the same amount of extra points to kids who were first generation as those who are legacies. I thought that in the time since we graduated, legacy status meant less and less as time went on and schools turned to other characteristics to give kids a boost. But these threads seem to make it appear that schools are a slam dunk for legacy kids so long as they are competitive otherwise. Anyone have any context for how much legacy status actually matters at Ivies these days? Is it a lock? Merely a tie-breaker? Something akin to athletic recruit status or 1st generation or URM bonus points?

My experience at a top DC independent school is that in a class of 100 kids, there are easily 10-20 kids with legacy status (between both parents) at each Ivy. There are a LOT of Ivy grads walking around DC.
Then maybe 1/10 of these kids will get into the Ivy. So while a legacy kid may get into Yale from Sidwell, there are 9 other Yale legacies from Sidwell who applied and didn't get in.
There is no way that Yale is taking 10 kids from Sidwell. Plus there are the athletic recruits, URMs, non-legacy kids who are superstars in their own right, etc who are also taking spots.
Make sense?

The legacy bump is stronger at other high schools or other parts of the country where kids aren't competing against 10 other legacies in their class.

considering there are 8 schools in question, you're essentially saying that easily over 50% of the class is some Ivy legacy? That's so far off the mark.

My kids attend a top private school in another major city that is similar in reputation to Sidwell, and yes, around 40-50% of their classes are Ivy + Stanford legacies, in many cases double legacies (both parents went to the same Ivy).

If you consider the fact that double Ivy parents might produce some seriously smart kids, the hook doesn’t come from where mom and dad went to school previously but the brain power they passed along. This is all the more true if mom and dad were unhooked themselves. Valedictorian from high school 1 meets valedictorian from high school 2 and they have kids? Likely not going to be dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people talk in threads like these about a kid being "hooked" because a parent went to a certain school, is simply being a legacy that much of a leg up in admissions? My wife and I went to 2 different Ivy League schools. Does that mean our kids are going to have a much easier time getting into those schools than their peers solely because we went there 20 years ago? We barely donate and are otherwise inactive alums. When I was an undergrad, I was a first generation college student and anecdotally heard that my school gave the same amount of extra points to kids who were first generation as those who are legacies. I thought that in the time since we graduated, legacy status meant less and less as time went on and schools turned to other characteristics to give kids a boost. But these threads seem to make it appear that schools are a slam dunk for legacy kids so long as they are competitive otherwise. Anyone have any context for how much legacy status actually matters at Ivies these days? Is it a lock? Merely a tie-breaker? Something akin to athletic recruit status or 1st generation or URM bonus points?

My experience at a top DC independent school is that in a class of 100 kids, there are easily 10-20 kids with legacy status (between both parents) at each Ivy. There are a LOT of Ivy grads walking around DC.
Then maybe 1/10 of these kids will get into the Ivy. So while a legacy kid may get into Yale from Sidwell, there are 9 other Yale legacies from Sidwell who applied and didn't get in.
There is no way that Yale is taking 10 kids from Sidwell. Plus there are the athletic recruits, URMs, non-legacy kids who are superstars in their own right, etc who are also taking spots.
Make sense?

The legacy bump is stronger at other high schools or other parts of the country where kids aren't competing against 10 other legacies in their class.

considering there are 8 schools in question, you're essentially saying that easily over 50% of the class is some Ivy legacy? That's so far off the mark.

My kids attend a top private school in another major city that is similar in reputation to Sidwell, and yes, around 40-50% of their classes are Ivy + Stanford legacies, in many cases double legacies (both parents went to the same Ivy).

If you consider the fact that double Ivy parents might produce some seriously smart kids, the hook doesn’t come from where mom and dad went to school previously but the brain power they passed along. This is all the more true if mom and dad were unhooked themselves. Valedictorian from high school 1 meets valedictorian from high school 2 and they have kids? Likely not going to be dumb.

This is a massive oversimplification - to the point of unhelpful
- of genetics, child rearing and the admissions process itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was admitted to HYPS on so-called "academic merit" and you know what? Many of the recruited athletes in my classes were getting just as good if not better grades than me. They have elite work ethic and time management skills so don't sound surprised that it often spills over to studying too. Stop it with the stereotypes.

Thank You !

Employers also like former college athletes. The skill set speaks to determination, goal oriented, competitive, team player skills and good physical well being

This has been my experience (an employer on Wall Street). Athletes and one veteran have the best work ethic and resilience on our team.

Lots of kids are involved in athletics and develop those skills, but they aren't "recruited athletes." So, you can find that in many kids.

utmost respect for the self discipline, work ethic and athletic abilities to be a scholar athlete at the highest level possible.

Also respect those academics who are active and physically healthy in other sports levels.

But being excellent at something isn’t easy. At some point you take your strong natural abilities and grow them, progress, test yourself over and over.

That grit matters. More than all the rec experience.

If anyone on Wall Street actually believed this, they would hire Alabama linebackers ahead of anyone from Harvard. Harvard isn’t even a BCS team! Next to the SEC, the whole Ivy League is a rec league.

If the Alabama linebacker wished to be on Wall Street, believe me, they would hire him. Alabama linebackers are generally too smart and too principled to want to work for GS.

[Anonymous]

But WR’s are murderers so it balances out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people talk in threads like these about a kid being "hooked" because a parent went to a certain school, is simply being a legacy that much of a leg up in admissions? My wife and I went to 2 different Ivy League schools. Does that mean our kids are going to have a much easier time getting into those schools than their peers solely because we went there 20 years ago? We barely donate and are otherwise inactive alums. When I was an undergrad, I was a first generation college student and anecdotally heard that my school gave the same amount of extra points to kids who were first generation as those who are legacies. I thought that in the time since we graduated, legacy status meant less and less as time went on and schools turned to other characteristics to give kids a boost. But these threads seem to make it appear that schools are a slam dunk for legacy kids so long as they are competitive otherwise. Anyone have any context for how much legacy status actually matters at Ivies these days? Is it a lock? Merely a tie-breaker? Something akin to athletic recruit status or 1st generation or URM bonus points?

My experience at a top DC independent school is that in a class of 100 kids, there are easily 10-20 kids with legacy status (between both parents) at each Ivy. There are a LOT of Ivy grads walking around DC.
Then maybe 1/10 of these kids will get into the Ivy. So while a legacy kid may get into Yale from Sidwell, there are 9 other Yale legacies from Sidwell who applied and didn't get in.
There is no way that Yale is taking 10 kids from Sidwell. Plus there are the athletic recruits, URMs, non-legacy kids who are superstars in their own right, etc who are also taking spots.
Make sense?

The legacy bump is stronger at other high schools or other parts of the country where kids aren't competing against 10 other legacies in their class.

considering there are 8 schools in question, you're essentially saying that easily over 50% of the class is some Ivy legacy? That's so far off the mark.

My kids attend a top private school in another major city that is similar in reputation to Sidwell, and yes, around 40-50% of their classes are Ivy + Stanford legacies, in many cases double legacies (both parents went to the same Ivy).

If you consider the fact that double Ivy parents might produce some seriously smart kids, the hook doesn’t come from where mom and dad went to school previously but the brain power they passed along. This is all the more true if mom and dad were unhooked themselves. Valedictorian from high school 1 meets valedictorian from high school 2 and they have kids? Likely not going to be dumb.

Fabulous. Let them gain admission with their outrageously large brains alone, not their parents’ connections.