Early Decision Results at DS or DD school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the desire to discount students' successes. Do you think their college admissions success somehow doesn't count if you can classify them as legacies, athletes, minorities, or children of important parents? There are plenty of kids in each of those categories throughout DC who were not admitted to top colleges. I think it's kind of low to diminish these kids' accomplishment by suggesting they did not earn it.

No one is suggesting that these ten exceptional students did not earn their admissions. They obviously did earn their admissions, but an important part of admissions is an evaluation of what a particular student can contribute to a university's community.

Obviously, not everyone admitted to a top university brings an unweighted 3.96-4.0, 2350-2400 SAT/36 ACT, and eight or more AP exams with a score of 5, and four SAT subject tests in the 740-800 range. There are certainly enough of those "perfect" academic students that all of the top universities could fill their classes with just that sort of paper-perfect student, but that is not the only thing that these colleges want. Moreover, I would venture to guess that that is not the only thing that all of the ten admitted students provide.

All must be very strong students, yes, but "perfect" students - some yes, and some no. What admitted students may bring, which also contributes greatly to the make-up of the class, is a talent in the creative or performing arts; an athletic talent that contributes to the university's teams; a recognized commitment to something outside themselves; regional or national accomplishments in their area of interest; some strong and meaningful family history with the particular college; a family or personal story and perspective which is unique; a background which is otherwise underrepresented in the higher educational environment; or an interesting connection that - if part of the university's family - will undoubtedly make that community a richer place.

So I would like to think that previous posters are not trying to denigrate this accomplishment, after all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Rather, the posters are likely attempting to derive and ascertain helpful information from these cases about what other types of intangibles and attributes go into college admissions - besides perfect grades and scores - so that they can help their own children evaluate their chances, and perhaps attain such success. I write this as a parent whose own child - a "perfect" student as described above - attends my college, and who often got asked if my child was legacy when they were first admitted - "yes" they are. I always assumed the best, that people were asking me the question to gather more information to help them with their own child's admissions. I also was asked at various times about their gpa and sat score.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe 3 of the Yale admits were legacy, 4 were legacy, leaving 3 with neither connection

This is something that I always wonder about in admissions. Did any of the students have parents of some exceptional or notable professional stature, that could be seen to benefit a university's community? Perhaps a very accomplished government official, or a respected academic, or a well-known media figure?

Yup

Thank you for the response. This is just one more datapoint that helps fill out the bigger picture, but does not diminish anyone's accomplishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe 3 of the Yale admits were legacy, 4 were legacy, leaving 3 with neither connection

This is something that I always wonder about in admissions. Did any of the students have parents of some exceptional or notable professional stature, that could be seen to benefit a university's community? Perhaps a very accomplished government official, or a respected academic, or a well-known media figure?

Yup

Thank you for the response. This is just one more datapoint that helps fill out the bigger picture, but does not diminish anyone's accomplishment.

Another part of the picture: colleges use the ED round to find full-pay kids who can subsidize their FA students. Private schools where tuition is something over half of a college's tuition are prime hunting grounds for this, for obvious reasons. Therefore, if you are at a private school on FA, you may not benefit from this ED bump to the same extent as the full pay kids. If you have a great story then everything changes, but you can't assume that being legacy on FA is going to help much in the ED round.

[Anonymous]

^^^Should add, yes, Yale is SCEA not ED. The same logic applies, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe 3 of the Yale admits were legacy, 4 were legacy, leaving 3 with neither connection

This is something that I always wonder about in admissions. Did any of the students have parents of some exceptional or notable professional stature, that could be seen to benefit a university's community? Perhaps a very accomplished government official, or a respected academic, or a well-known media figure?

Yup

Thank you for the response. This is just one more datapoint that helps fill out the bigger picture, but does not diminish anyone's accomplishment.

Another part of the picture: colleges use the ED round to find full-pay kids who can subsidize their FA students. Private schools where tuition is something over half of a college's tuition are prime hunting grounds for this, for obvious reasons. Therefore, if you are at a private school on FA, you may not benefit from this ED bump to the same extent as the full pay kids. If you have a great story then everything changes, but you can't assume that being legacy on FA is going to help much in the ED round.

True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

"The
bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230
SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points
for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage
is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

"The
bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230
SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points
for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage
is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."

Somehow I knew you were going to wind up here (lots of us have read that study). Tell us, what does that study, which deals with regular admits, have to do with SCEA or ED?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

"The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."

You probably realize this, but just so no one else gets confused, I'll point out that the hypothetical 160-point increase is a different calculation than the one which shows legacy admittees tend to score higher on the SAT than non-legacy admittees.

Also interesting is this point: Legacy advantage diminishes quickly when students apply to more than one college (as all of them do).

A second qualification relates to the possibility that the legacy advantage is overstated when viewed in the context of a single institution. Even though nonlegacy candidates face an admission disadvantage compared to legacy applicants at a given school, they are likely to be accepted by another very good institution because the talent level in the overall applicant pool is so high. ... When students apply to two institutions, the likelihood of being accepted by at least one of them grows, and the gap shrinks between applicants who are a legacy at neither school and other legacy applicants. ... In addition, the likelihood that a student who has applied to all three institutions and is not a legacy at any of them will be accepted by at least one (64.4 percent) exceeds the probability of admission for legacy applicants to a sole institution (50.2 percent). These additional results suggest that an analysis that relies on the disposition of applications to a specific university overstates the importance attached to being a legacy and that the ability to claim legacy status at a particular institution is ultimately less consequential for being admitted to some prestigious university when students are applying to many schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

"The
bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230
SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points
for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage
is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."

Somehow I knew you were going to wind up here (lots of us have read that study). Tell us, what does that study, which deals with regular admits, have to do with SCEA or ED?

You knew this because all of these discussions end up in the same place. The innocents on this forum who thought that racial profiling of the SFS admits to Yale would end up in a different place are completely naïve. It is always about race or some other hidden advantage and never about the relative merits of the candidates. If you want a strategy that will help your kids get into places like Yale then you should encourage them to get exceptional grades, become leaders in their activities, prepare well for standardized tests, be good people, and represent themselves fairly and authentically in the application process. This formula is no guarantee of success at any one college, of course. But it is certainly true of ALL of the admits being discussed here. Not speculation, I know each of them well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

"The
bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230
SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points
for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage
is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."

Somehow I knew you were going to wind up here (lots of us have read that study). Tell us, what does that study, which deals with regular admits, have to do with SCEA or ED?

You knew this because all of these discussions end up in the same place. The innocents on this forum who thought that racial profiling of the SFS admits to Yale would end up in a different place are completely naïve. It is always about race or some other hidden advantage and never about the relative merits of the candidates. If you want a strategy that will help your kids get into places like Yale then you should encourage them to get exceptional grades, become leaders in their activities, prepare well for standardized tests, be good people, and represent themselves fairly and authentically in the application process. This formula is no guarantee of success at any one college, of course. But it is certainly true of ALL of the admits being discussed here. Not speculation, I know each of them well.

Gee, I never thought about it that way, but it is in fact racial profiling. We know nothing about them and yet we are more than willing to generalize and project certain attributes onto the individual.

[Anonymous]

One URM student who I know was admitted to college early, achieved a 2350 on their SAT; but I suppose that some people will always look at this student, and assume that they earned admission with lower scores and credentials than their peers.

Oh well, in the end, it matters not how you get there (or what other people think about how you got there), but that you are "there" - wherever that may be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The innocents on this forum who thought that racial profiling of the SFS admits to Yale would end up in a different place are completely naïve. It is always about race or some other hidden advantage and never about the relative merits of the candidates. If you want a strategy that will help your kids get into places like Yale then you should encourage them to get exceptional grades, become leaders in their activities, prepare well for standardized tests, be good people, and represent themselves fairly and authentically in the application process. This formula is no guarantee of success at any one college, of course.

This is a very good post. It also captures some of what I feel about choosing a secondary school based on its college admissions list. If a kid is like the kid described above - top grades, top test scores, leadership in extracurriculars - then he or she will be a viable admissions candidate regardless of where they went to high school. And if they don't meet those criteria, then they're not getting into HYPSM, again regardless of their high school.

People need to focus on fit in picking secondary school - and if they're determined their kid is going to go to Yale, then they need to pick the school where it's most likely their kid will achieve top grades and leadership positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True for many schools, but Yale has need blind admissions. Regardless of whether you are on FA, legacy is a huge boost.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

Interesting to see in that study that legacy applicants average higher SAT scores than non-legacy applicants -- legacies score 18 points higher on average.

page 1430 wrote: ... athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332)

PP again, to correct myself. Those averages are not for the applicants, but rather for the admitted students from the study. So legacies who were admitted averaged 18 points higher on the SAT than those non-legacies who were admitted.

"The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points."

You probably realize this, but just so no one else gets confused, I'll point out that the hypothetical 160-point increase is a different calculation than the one which shows legacy admittees tend to score higher on the SAT than non-legacy admittees.

Also interesting is this point: Legacy advantage diminishes quickly when students apply to more than one college (as all of them do).

A second qualification relates to the possibility that the legacy advantage is overstated when viewed in the context of a single institution. Even though nonlegacy candidates face an admission disadvantage compared to legacy applicants at a given school, they are likely to be accepted by another very good institution because the talent level in the overall applicant pool is so high. ... When students apply to two institutions, the likelihood of being accepted by at least one of them grows, and the gap shrinks between applicants who are a legacy at neither school and other legacy applicants. ... In addition, the likelihood that a student who has applied to all three institutions and is not a legacy at any of them will be accepted by at least one (64.4 percent) exceeds the probability of admission for legacy applicants to a sole institution (50.2 percent). These additional results suggest that an analysis that relies on the disposition of applications to a specific university overstates the importance attached to being a legacy and that the ability to claim legacy status at a particular institution is ultimately less consequential for being admitted to some prestigious university when students are applying to many schools

Dear Legacy Mom,

Who do you think you are kidding? Yale is open about the fact that is favors legacies and anybody who cares can find quotations from Yale admissions officers confirming that legacy is given positive weight in the admissions process and can be "very much in your favor." Be glad your kid got in and acknowledge that they had an advantage over other, equally qualified applicants.