How to respond when kid gets into school and is Legacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jealousy is rampant this time of year for seniors, and their parents. I was told by a friend that my kid was "lucky" to get in ED to T10, but luck was not the only factor at play, the kid worked hard. I am so surprised by some parents. I could have taken it the wrong way, but it just doesn't sit well.

It is much easier to get in ED. ED isn’t a good choice for most doughnut hole families, including many on DCUM. It works well for rich and poor families. Many kids worked hard and excelled but those who got in ED had a much easier admit than the others. Just like legacy kids. It’s disingenuous to pretend that everyone is treated similarly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the world of insanely competitive admissions, it is only rational to choose to apply where one's parents attended if a kid wants to go to a really selective school and is otherwise qualified and loves the school. Our kid was just accepted ED at my alma mater (Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore) and is not an athlete but otherwise had the grades, scores, great EC's, etc. - but yes, these schools are near impossible admits. Why wouldn't they have chosen to apply to the one I attended for the legacy boost? We are ignoring the few smarmy legacy comments because who cares.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea and agree it’s rational. But people shouldn’t pretend that it doesn’t grant a huge advantage, either.

Sure - if you dig deep, it's about twice the advantage. So from 8 to 16% at a Williams or Swat for example, and more if you apply ED.

So innumerate.

Twice a very small number is still a very small number.

Willfully blind.

No, just better at math.

84% still don’t get in.

It can be up to a 5x greater chance for admission per the linked NYT article on research. You can be an ostrich but let’s be real: the kids and legacy parents have discussed the bump in admissions so why is it so hush hush outside the family?

5x a small number is still a small number.

5% -> 25%, the vast majority of legacy applicants are rejected. Many of them very well qualified.

The kid was rude. Most legacy kids don’t even get in.

In past few cycles, yes.

[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:the legacy status did help. sorry. if your kid doesn't like encountering this attitude, he should apply to some places regular decision where he doesn't have any family or donor ties.

Meh it’s about respect. If friend delivered the qualifier in a non bitter way, then sure following with “yeah that’s probably it” is a good way to respond. If friend made bitter snipe, then they can get an appropriate response that bitter snipe deserves. There a lot of nuance in how this conversation goes. No one has to suffer bitter comments from bitter people.

It’s not a “bitter snipe” to say something like “Yeah, your parents went there.” That is simply pointing out reality.

Frankly, I think admissions boosts are something that should be openly discussed and acknowledged. It is harmful across the board to pretend that admissions is a level playing field. That myth and the fierce perpetuation of that myth is deeply undemocratic and destructive.

Well we don’t know how it was delivered. That’s why it’s important to give extra context about an appropriate response. Only the people in that conversation can know, but I can definitely see how it could have been a dig… or not.

OMG “yeah, your parents went there” cannot be a dig in any rational world.

You people and your demands that your children never learn the truth about the advantages of legacy admissions are genuinely crazy.

Parents cannot admit it is why their kid was admitted. Surely he was a competitive applicant and would have gotten in anyhow. How dare you suggest otherwise!

Yes, the ego conflation the legacy parents in this thread have with their kids is quite something to see.

Meh, sounds more like sour grapes from the non-legacy parents to me.

It's a game and some people know how to play it. Why wouldn't you encourage your kid to apply to your Alma mater if legacy preference helps them get in?!?!

College admission is not a meritocracy, and no college claims that it is. "Holistic admission" is code for "we get to admit whomever we want for whatever reason.

Kids and parents should be spending time finding their own "hooks" (and there are plenty to choose from!) instead of kicking this dead horse.

Nobody objects to legacy parents using their significant advantages for their kids, for schools where those advantages exist. What people object to are the demands from legacy parents that everyone else must pretend that legacy kids don’t have a significant advantage, and that their kids never, ever hear that they got admitted because of legacy preference.

It’s the demands from the legacy parents to hide reality and to pretend the playing field is level that are objectionable. You know your kid got in because of legacy. We know your kid got in because of legacy. Other kids know your kid got in because of legacy. Everyone who knows you went to the school except for your own kid knows your kid got in because of legacy. But you want everyone to be as silent as the grave about that reality we all know exists, so your own kid never has to confront the reality everybody else knows exists.

It’s entitled and ridiculous behavior.

If everyone knows then why are we even talking about it? Why do they have to be ‘confronted?’ People who need to ‘confront’ others over their admissions may need to take some time to focus on their own admissions.

Your kids don’t know, because you desperately hide the truth from them. You tell them they would have gotten in without legacy, and you lash out at children who point out even mildly that their parents went to the same school. Even framing a basic fact as “confronting” just shows how weirdly desperate you are to suppress the truth.

Why are you so desperate to control what everyone says about this? Why can’t you tell your children the truth, which is that they had significantly better odds than other kids by virtue of who their parents are?

This is one area where athlete parents and kids are so much more honest, and I respect it even if my kid doesn’t benefit. I rarely run into athlete parents who demand that everyone pretend their kid had no admissions advantages. But legacy parents will go out of their way to demand their kid had no or little advantage from legacy status, even in the face of extensive hard data showing otherwise. Faculty parents are the same, desperate to pretend their kids would have been admitted absent faculty status when that’s clearly not true based on the now-public data.

It is weird and entitled behavior, and this thread and the behavior of the legacy parents in it is just a microcosm of what happens more broadly.

No one is lashing out. The PP used ‘confront’ which is an odd and slightly aggressive word to describe a simple comment. Either the comment was said in passing or said as a dig. OP makes it sound like it was a dig. The appropriate response would be to acknowledge the passing comment or treat the dig appropriately. You seem bothered by someone pushing back at the comment presented as a dig like they should just be gracious when insulted. Nope.

Good luck with admissions.

OP is clearly lashing out. She’s on here, asking what her nearly-adult child should do, because some other kid correctly observed to her kid that his parents went to the school and possibly implied (also correctly) that the legacy status helped with admissions.

Maybe crashing out rather than lashing out is the better description, but you should not pretend this is healthy or normal behavior from OP, even if the legacy parents on this thread think it is.

It is not good behavior to demand that your child never hear so much as a whisper about how his legacy status was a significant boost in his admissions. In fact, that is quite objectively terrible behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These assumptions are hurtful and uncalled for, whether one’s a URM, legacy, etc. I hope parents aren’t openly speculating about their kids’ classmates’ qualifications at home, but that’s probably wishful thinking. Sometimes it’s the parents who are planting this attitude in their kids.

Denying that a double legacy gives one a boost is being obtuse.

Non donor legacy at a top school is a tie breaker at best. OP’s kid was at least as strong as the other kid.

So it did work to get him in. A non-legacy has to be better than the legacy because there is no thumb on their side if the scale.

This is how it works right now. If you benefit from it, you can hardly complain that other people know that you did.

Anon legacy that is low income, rural, athletic recruit, donor, or first generation likely to have lower stats than a legacy and there is data to support this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jealousy is rampant this time of year for seniors, and their parents. I was told by a friend that my kid was "lucky" to get in ED to T10, but luck was not the only factor at play, the kid worked hard. I am so surprised by some parents. I could have taken it the wrong way, but it just doesn't sit well.

It is much easier to get in ED. ED isn’t a good choice for most doughnut hole families, including many on DCUM. It works well for rich and poor families. Many kids worked hard and excelled but those who got in ED had a much easier admit than the others. Just like legacy kids. It’s disingenuous to pretend that everyone is treated similarly.

+1

This demand that we all publicly uphold the myth of the level playing field is so awful and generally harmful to this country as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These assumptions are hurtful and uncalled for, whether one’s a URM, legacy, etc. I hope parents aren’t openly speculating about their kids’ classmates’ qualifications at home, but that’s probably wishful thinking. Sometimes it’s the parents who are planting this attitude in their kids.

Denying that a double legacy gives one a boost is being obtuse.

Non donor legacy at a top school is a tie breaker at best. OP’s kid was at least as strong as the other kid.

So it did work to get him in. A non-legacy has to be better than the legacy because there is no thumb on their side if the scale.

This is how it works right now. If you benefit from it, you can hardly complain that other people know that you did.

Anon legacy that is low income, rural, athletic recruit, donor, or first generation likely to have lower stats than a legacy and there is data to support this.

Sure but those other groups are less likely to demand that we all pretend they didn’t get admissions preferences. It’s only legacy parents that demand we all pretend admissions preferences don’t exist and have a significant impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These assumptions are hurtful and uncalled for, whether one’s a URM, legacy, etc. I hope parents aren’t openly speculating about their kids’ classmates’ qualifications at home, but that’s probably wishful thinking. Sometimes it’s the parents who are planting this attitude in their kids.

Denying that a double legacy gives one a boost is being obtuse.

Non donor legacy at a top school is a tie breaker at best. OP’s kid was at least as strong as the other kid.

So it did work to get him in. A non-legacy has to be better than the legacy because there is no thumb on their side if the scale.

This is how it works right now. If you benefit from it, you can hardly complain that other people know that you did.

Anon legacy that is low income, rural, athletic recruit, donor, or first generation likely to have lower stats than a legacy and there is data to support this.

Sure but those other groups are less likely to demand that we all pretend they didn’t get admissions preferences. It’s only legacy parents that demand we all pretend admissions preferences don’t exist and have a significant impact.

“Significant” impact in 1995, today, not really. But if it makes you feel better to think that, feel free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.

[Anonymous]

Will teach him to keep the legacy status quiet once he arrives. Surely he will encounter other legacies that are cut bellow, just as his parents must have during their time.

It's a double edged sword, a healthy bump in admission chances as demonstrated, but with slightly diminished bragging rights. (Unless you're the type of legacies that can get his classmates jobs, too.)

[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:the legacy status did help. sorry. if your kid doesn't like encountering this attitude, he should apply to some places regular decision where he doesn't have any family or donor ties.

Meh it’s about respect. If friend delivered the qualifier in a non bitter way, then sure following with “yeah that’s probably it” is a good way to respond. If friend made bitter snipe, then they can get an appropriate response that bitter snipe deserves. There a lot of nuance in how this conversation goes. No one has to suffer bitter comments from bitter people.

It’s not a “bitter snipe” to say something like “Yeah, your parents went there.” That is simply pointing out reality.

Frankly, I think admissions boosts are something that should be openly discussed and acknowledged. It is harmful across the board to pretend that admissions is a level playing field. That myth and the fierce perpetuation of that myth is deeply undemocratic and destructive.

Well we don’t know how it was delivered. That’s why it’s important to give extra context about an appropriate response. Only the people in that conversation can know, but I can definitely see how it could have been a dig… or not.

OMG “yeah, your parents went there” cannot be a dig in any rational world.

You people and your demands that your children never learn the truth about the advantages of legacy admissions are genuinely crazy.

Parents cannot admit it is why their kid was admitted. Surely he was a competitive applicant and would have gotten in anyhow. How dare you suggest otherwise!

Yes, the ego conflation the legacy parents in this thread have with their kids is quite something to see.

Meh, sounds more like sour grapes from the non-legacy parents to me.

It's a game and some people know how to play it. Why wouldn't you encourage your kid to apply to your Alma mater if legacy preference helps them get in?!?!

College admission is not a meritocracy, and no college claims that it is. "Holistic admission" is code for "we get to admit whomever we want for whatever reason.

Kids and parents should be spending time finding their own "hooks" (and there are plenty to choose from!) instead of kicking this dead horse.

Nobody objects to legacy parents using their significant advantages for their kids, for schools where those advantages exist. What people object to are the demands from legacy parents that everyone else must pretend that legacy kids don’t have a significant advantage, and that their kids never, ever hear that they got admitted because of legacy preference.

It’s the demands from the legacy parents to hide reality and to pretend the playing field is level that are objectionable. You know your kid got in because of legacy. We know your kid got in because of legacy. Other kids know your kid got in because of legacy. Everyone who knows you went to the school except for your own kid knows your kid got in because of legacy. But you want everyone to be as silent as the grave about that reality we all know exists, so your own kid never has to confront the reality everybody else knows exists.

It’s entitled and ridiculous behavior.

If everyone knows then why are we even talking about it? Why do they have to be ‘confronted?’ People who need to ‘confront’ others over their admissions may need to take some time to focus on their own admissions.

Your kids don’t know, because you desperately hide the truth from them. You tell them they would have gotten in without legacy, and you lash out at children who point out even mildly that their parents went to the same school. Even framing a basic fact as “confronting” just shows how weirdly desperate you are to suppress the truth.

Why are you so desperate to control what everyone says about this? Why can’t you tell your children the truth, which is that they had significantly better odds than other kids by virtue of who their parents are?

This is one area where athlete parents and kids are so much more honest, and I respect it even if my kid doesn’t benefit. I rarely run into athlete parents who demand that everyone pretend their kid had no admissions advantages. But legacy parents will go out of their way to demand their kid had no or little advantage from legacy status, even in the face of extensive hard data showing otherwise. Faculty parents are the same, desperate to pretend their kids would have been admitted absent faculty status when that’s clearly not true based on the now-public data.

It is weird and entitled behavior, and this thread and the behavior of the legacy parents in it is just a microcosm of what happens more broadly.

No one is lashing out. The PP used ‘confront’ which is an odd and slightly aggressive word to describe a simple comment. Either the comment was said in passing or said as a dig. OP makes it sound like it was a dig. The appropriate response would be to acknowledge the passing comment or treat the dig appropriately. You seem bothered by someone pushing back at the comment presented as a dig like they should just be gracious when insulted. Nope.

Good luck with admissions.

OP is clearly lashing out. She’s on here, asking what her nearly-adult child should do, because some other kid correctly observed to her kid that his parents went to the school and possibly implied (also correctly) that the legacy status helped with admissions.

Maybe crashing out rather than lashing out is the better description, but you should not pretend this is healthy or normal behavior from OP, even if the legacy parents on this thread think it is.

It is not good behavior to demand that your child never hear so much as a whisper about how his legacy status was a significant boost in his admissions. In fact, that is quite objectively terrible behavior.

+1 And frankly there was an option for OP's student to apply and not use their legacy status in their application, if there was a significant worry about being unfairly characterized as having had an admissions advantage that was the path to take. Everyone, including OP and her kid, understands why they didn't do that . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These assumptions are hurtful and uncalled for, whether one’s a URM, legacy, etc. I hope parents aren’t openly speculating about their kids’ classmates’ qualifications at home, but that’s probably wishful thinking. Sometimes it’s the parents who are planting this attitude in their kids.

Denying that a double legacy gives one a boost is being obtuse.

Non donor legacy at a top school is a tie breaker at best. OP’s kid was at least as strong as the other kid.

So it did work to get him in. A non-legacy has to be better than the legacy because there is no thumb on their side if the scale.

This is how it works right now. If you benefit from it, you can hardly complain that other people know that you did.

Anon legacy that is low income, rural, athletic recruit, donor, or first generation likely to have lower stats than a legacy and there is data to support this.

Sure but those other groups are less likely to demand that we all pretend they didn’t get admissions preferences. It’s only legacy parents that demand we all pretend admissions preferences don’t exist and have a significant impact.

“Significant” impact in 1995, today, not really. But if it makes you feel better to think that, feel free.

Denialism of publicly available data does you no good. Please join reality.

[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:the legacy status did help. sorry. if your kid doesn't like encountering this attitude, he should apply to some places regular decision where he doesn't have any family or donor ties.

Meh it’s about respect. If friend delivered the qualifier in a non bitter way, then sure following with “yeah that’s probably it” is a good way to respond. If friend made bitter snipe, then they can get an appropriate response that bitter snipe deserves. There a lot of nuance in how this conversation goes. No one has to suffer bitter comments from bitter people.

It’s not a “bitter snipe” to say something like “Yeah, your parents went there.” That is simply pointing out reality.

Frankly, I think admissions boosts are something that should be openly discussed and acknowledged. It is harmful across the board to pretend that admissions is a level playing field. That myth and the fierce perpetuation of that myth is deeply undemocratic and destructive.

Well we don’t know how it was delivered. That’s why it’s important to give extra context about an appropriate response. Only the people in that conversation can know, but I can definitely see how it could have been a dig… or not.

OMG “yeah, your parents went there” cannot be a dig in any rational world.

You people and your demands that your children never learn the truth about the advantages of legacy admissions are genuinely crazy.

Parents cannot admit it is why their kid was admitted. Surely he was a competitive applicant and would have gotten in anyhow. How dare you suggest otherwise!

Yes, the ego conflation the legacy parents in this thread have with their kids is quite something to see.

Meh, sounds more like sour grapes from the non-legacy parents to me.

It's a game and some people know how to play it. Why wouldn't you encourage your kid to apply to your Alma mater if legacy preference helps them get in?!?!

College admission is not a meritocracy, and no college claims that it is. "Holistic admission" is code for "we get to admit whomever we want for whatever reason.

Kids and parents should be spending time finding their own "hooks" (and there are plenty to choose from!) instead of kicking this dead horse.

Nobody objects to legacy parents using their significant advantages for their kids, for schools where those advantages exist. What people object to are the demands from legacy parents that everyone else must pretend that legacy kids don’t have a significant advantage, and that their kids never, ever hear that they got admitted because of legacy preference.

It’s the demands from the legacy parents to hide reality and to pretend the playing field is level that are objectionable. You know your kid got in because of legacy. We know your kid got in because of legacy. Other kids know your kid got in because of legacy. Everyone who knows you went to the school except for your own kid knows your kid got in because of legacy. But you want everyone to be as silent as the grave about that reality we all know exists, so your own kid never has to confront the reality everybody else knows exists.

It’s entitled and ridiculous behavior.

If everyone knows then why are we even talking about it? Why do they have to be ‘confronted?’ People who need to ‘confront’ others over their admissions may need to take some time to focus on their own admissions.

Your kids don’t know, because you desperately hide the truth from them. You tell them they would have gotten in without legacy, and you lash out at children who point out even mildly that their parents went to the same school. Even framing a basic fact as “confronting” just shows how weirdly desperate you are to suppress the truth.

Why are you so desperate to control what everyone says about this? Why can’t you tell your children the truth, which is that they had significantly better odds than other kids by virtue of who their parents are?

This is one area where athlete parents and kids are so much more honest, and I respect it even if my kid doesn’t benefit. I rarely run into athlete parents who demand that everyone pretend their kid had no admissions advantages. But legacy parents will go out of their way to demand their kid had no or little advantage from legacy status, even in the face of extensive hard data showing otherwise. Faculty parents are the same, desperate to pretend their kids would have been admitted absent faculty status when that’s clearly not true based on the now-public data.

It is weird and entitled behavior, and this thread and the behavior of the legacy parents in it is just a microcosm of what happens more broadly.

No one is lashing out. The PP used ‘confront’ which is an odd and slightly aggressive word to describe a simple comment. Either the comment was said in passing or said as a dig. OP makes it sound like it was a dig. The appropriate response would be to acknowledge the passing comment or treat the dig appropriately. You seem bothered by someone pushing back at the comment presented as a dig like they should just be gracious when insulted. Nope.

Good luck with admissions.

OP is clearly lashing out. She’s on here, asking what her nearly-adult child should do, because some other kid correctly observed to her kid that his parents went to the school and possibly implied (also correctly) that the legacy status helped with admissions.

Maybe crashing out rather than lashing out is the better description, but you should not pretend this is healthy or normal behavior from OP, even if the legacy parents on this thread think it is.

It is not good behavior to demand that your child never hear so much as a whisper about how his legacy status was a significant boost in his admissions. In fact, that is quite objectively terrible behavior.

+1 And frankly there was an option for OP's student to apply and not use their legacy status in their application, if there was a significant worry about being unfairly characterized as having had an admissions advantage that was the path to take. Everyone, including OP and her kid, understands why they didn't do that . . . .

+1

Spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.

+1

One thing that has been eye-opening in this thread is the rank numerical illiteracy on display from the legacy parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whose the crazy person who thinks legacy is a huge boost?

Um, anyone who has read any of the widely available statistical analyses done on data that is now public? Are you numerically illiterate?

We aren’t talking about the historical data over the past few decades, recent data shows that legacy nothing more than a tiebreaker, if that.

Even if what you are saying was true (which it is not for a double legacy), you seem to have some logic problems. When we know a double legacy kid got in, that is why. The fact that many legacies don’t get in is immaterial. If anything, it points to the difficulty of admission generally; this only underscores the point that the double legacy who did get in would have been rejected “but for” legacy status.

You make up your own facts to rationalize the situation. Happy to consider any objective data from last three admission cycles that supports you.