Early Decision Results at DS or DD school

[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."

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.

Ah, I feel much better now.

Yours,

Parent of spurned candidate

[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.[b] 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.

Please, I am one of those "innocents", and there is a big difference between asking (and having someone familiar with the students volunteer or post the information) about the admitted students, and engaging in "profiling". As the posts above demonstrate, young women and men are admitted for many different qualifying attributes. You are just as likely to have a URM who is a gifted musician with a 2350 SAT, as you are to have the first-generation to college with a 2250 from a small farming town who is an talented writer; and you are as likely to encounter a legacy with a 4.0/2400, as to encounter a legacy with a 2230 sat but incredible athletic ability. In other words, you cannot make assumptions about a student's scores or grades or academic achievements, based on their backgrounds.

What you can draw conclusions about, based on admitted students, is that colleges value individuals with many different attributes including, but not limited to, a developed talent, an internal honesty, a demonstrated passion, an athletic ability, a different perspective, a good heart, an underrepresented background, a commitment to others, an involved family, or a unique connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.[b] 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.

Please, I am one of those "innocents", and there is a big difference between asking (and having someone familiar with the students volunteer or post the information) about the admitted students, and engaging in "profiling". As the posts above demonstrate, young women and men are admitted for many different qualifying attributes. You are just as likely to have a URM who is a gifted musician with a 2350 SAT, as you are to have the first-generation to college with a 2250 from a small farming town who is an talented writer; and you are as likely to encounter a legacy with a 4.0/2400, as to encounter a legacy with a 2230 sat but incredible athletic ability. In other words, you cannot make assumptions about a student's scores or grades or academic achievements, based on their backgrounds.

What you can draw conclusions about, based on admitted students, is that colleges value individuals with many different attributes including, but not limited to, a developed talent, an internal honesty, a demonstrated passion, an athletic ability, a different perspective, a good heart, an underrepresented background, a commitment to others, an involved family, or a unique connection.

That is a lovely sentiment but just doesn't represent the conversation, where many posters are looking for a shorthand or a reduction of someone's candidacy to one or two variables (URM, legacy, connected parents...). This thread has not been a full conversation about the longer list of worthy characteristics that you articulate (largely because the facts are not known to the general population). I fully believe that the intentions of many of the posters are pure. For others, that is not the case and the takeaways will simply be that so and so got in because [you fill in the blank].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Take your snarky attitude and stick it in your pie hole. No one's saying Yale (and every other college) doesn't give some preference to legacies. What I found interesting about this study is that it tries to quantify the significance of that preference. The author revealed two things which are consistent with common sense: (1) children of parents who went to top colleges tend to be pretty smart on average, and (2) legacy kids can only get a legacy preference at a limited number of colleges. As a result, the oft-told narrative that legacy kids are dumb brats who unfairly steal college spots from more-deserving students is largely fiction.

To anticipate your false assumptions about me: (1) I'm no Yale legacy. I'm pretty sure they'd have laughed my application out the door if I'd applied there. I suppose if I'd wanted to attend the big state school where my parents went, best known for its history of NCAA violations, I could have gotten some legacy benefit there. (2) My kids are many years away from college, so I've got no horse in this race. I just saw some interesting analysis in the article, and wanted to highlight it.

I sense you're fighting some larger battle with other posters, about topics that don't interest me, so perhaps you should get back to that fight now, and quit assuming everyone who posts is part of your war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please, I am one of those "innocents", and there is a big difference between asking (and having someone familiar with the students volunteer or post the information) about the admitted students, and engaging in "profiling". As the posts above demonstrate, young women and men are admitted for many different qualifying attributes. You are just as likely to have a URM who is a gifted musician with a 2350 SAT, as you are to have the first-generation to college with a 2250 from a small farming town who is an talented writer; and you are as likely to encounter a legacy with a 4.0/2400, as to encounter a legacy with a 2230 sat but incredible athletic ability. In other words, you cannot make assumptions about a student's scores or grades or academic achievements, based on their backgrounds.

What you can draw conclusions about, based on admitted students, is that colleges value individuals with many different attributes including, but not limited to, a developed talent, an internal honesty, a demonstrated passion, an athletic ability, a different perspective, a good heart, an underrepresented background, a commitment to others, an involved family, or a unique connection.

That is a lovely sentiment but just doesn't represent the conversation, where many[b] posters are looking for a shorthand or a reduction of someone's candidacy to one or two variables (URM, legacy, connected parents..[i].). This thread has not been a full conversation about the longer list of worthy characteristics that you articulate (largely because the facts are not known to the general population). I fully believe that the intentions of many of the posters are pure. For others, that is not the case and the takeaways will simply be that so and so got in because [you fill in the blank].

I want to re-articulate this as the parent of an Ivy League student (see you at the game, ), I do not think that people are reducing someone's candidacy to URM, or legacy, or connected parents. I think that intelligent, informed people realize that a candidate is more than any one thing; rather, they are "the complete package", so to speak. But I also think that it is disingenuous to say that every little thing does not help a candidacy, each in its own way. People are curious, because - let's face it - people want to know about every little factor that helps.

My own child is/was that academically perfect student described above - all of their teachers and classmates knew that - but they were also a legacy at the college they attend, as well as a URM. There is no shame in being any one of those things, and I never took offense when someone would ask if they were a legacy, because "yes" they are - and we are proud of that fact. Was DC admitted for their perfect grades and scores - likely yes. Did it also help that they were a legacy? And a URM - likely yes. Was there more to their application than just those factors - yes again, much, much more. To know those other things, beyond the more easily-discernable attributes just mentioned, you would have to get to know DC.

On a public forum like this there is simply no way to discuss the more important "human" or "personal" attributes that really define who these students are, but I can still understand the desire of some posters to want to unearth those other admissions factors which are more easily quantifiable - for purposes of better understanding the admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please, I am one of those "innocents", and there is a big difference between asking (and having someone familiar with the students volunteer or post the information) about the admitted students, and engaging in "profiling". As the posts above demonstrate, young women and men are admitted for many different qualifying attributes. You are just as likely to have a URM who is a gifted musician with a 2350 SAT, as you are to have the first-generation to college with a 2250 from a small farming town who is an talented writer; and you are as likely to encounter a legacy with a 4.0/2400, as to encounter a legacy with a 2230 sat but incredible athletic ability. In other words, you cannot make assumptions about a student's scores or grades or academic achievements, based on their backgrounds.

What you can draw conclusions about, based on admitted students, is that colleges value individuals with many different attributes including, but not limited to, a developed talent, an internal honesty, a demonstrated passion, an athletic ability, a different perspective, a good heart, an underrepresented background, a commitment to others, an involved family, or a unique connection.

That is a lovely sentiment but just doesn't represent the conversation, where many[b] posters are looking for a shorthand or a reduction of someone's candidacy to one or two variables (URM, legacy, connected parents..[i].). This thread has not been a full conversation about the longer list of worthy characteristics that you articulate (largely because the facts are not known to the general population). I fully believe that the intentions of many of the posters are pure. For others, that is not the case and the takeaways will simply be that so and so got in because [you fill in the blank].

I want to re-articulate this as the parent of an Ivy League student (see you at the game, ), I do not think that people are reducing someone's candidacy to URM, or legacy, or connected parents. I think that intelligent, informed people realize that a candidate is more than any one thing; rather, they are "the complete package", so to speak. But I also think that it is disingenuous to say that every little thing does not help a candidacy, each in its own way. People are curious, because - let's face it - people want to know about every little factor that helps.

My own child is/was that academically perfect student described above - all of their teachers and classmates knew that - but they were also a legacy at the college they attend, as well as a URM. There is no shame in being any one of those things, and I never took offense when someone would ask if they were a legacy, because "yes" they are - and we are proud of that fact. Was DC admitted for their perfect grades and scores - likely yes. Did it also help that they were a legacy? And a URM - likely yes. Was there more to their application than just those factors - yes again, much, much more. To know those other things, beyond the more easily-discernable attributes just mentioned, you would have to get to know DC.

On a public forum like this there is simply no way to discuss the more important "human" or "personal" attributes that really define who these students are, but I can still understand the desire of some posters to want to unearth those other admissions factors which are more easily quantifiable - for purposes of better understanding the admissions process.

Again, lovely thoughts. But, I am not letting you off the hook that easily. How frequently does someone come up to you at a cocktail party and ask, "Did you also go to XX school as well?" versus, "Was your son/daughter the captain of the soccer team, president of debate, or editor of the paper?" If folks are genuine in their interest to better understand the many factors that matter, they would lead with the second question, rather than rely on legacy status or the obvious factor that can be gleaned simply by looking at you (i.e. color of your skin). At the end of the day, I am glad that there are people like you with kind and trusting hearts.

[Anonymous]

And why bother going to the game when you already know the outcome...http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum//images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif

[Anonymous]

To answer your question.

When people ask me where my child attends college - it occasionally comes up in a conversation - I reply X. It often generates an initial kind response, along the lines of, "oh, that is great, you must be so proud."

More times than I care to count, the person will follow up with a question in our conversation of, "Did you or Y (my spouse) attend X also?"

I have never, ever been asked - in person or otherwise - as a follow-up question, "Was your DC Editor of the School Paper, or Captain of the Cross-Country Team, or an Awarded Vocalist, or a National Debaters?" Ever. People just do not seem to care about those things, amd I have no answer for why.

So in that sense the questions in this thread about "legacy" are totally consistent with what I am asked at a party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer your question.

When people ask me where my child attends college - it occasionally comes up in a conversation - I reply X. It often generates an initial kind response, along the lines of, "oh, that is great, you must be so proud."

More times than I care to count, the person will follow up with a question in our conversation of, "Did you or Y (my spouse) attend X also?"

I have never, ever been asked - in person or otherwise - as a follow-up question, "Was your DC Editor of the School Paper, or Captain of the Cross-Country Team, or an Awarded Vocalist, or a Debater?" Ever. People just do not seem to care about those things, and I have no answer as to why.

So in that sense the questions in this thread about "legacy" are totally consistent with what I am asked at a party.

Editing myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And why bother going to the game when you already know the outcome...http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum//images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif

I do not understand your meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer your question.

When people ask me where my child attends college - it occasionally comes up in a conversation - I reply X. It often generates an initial kind response, along the lines of, "oh, that is great, you must be so proud."

More times than I care to count, the person will follow up with a question in our conversation of, "Did you or Y (my spouse) attend X also?"

I have never, ever been asked - in person or otherwise - as a follow-up question, "Was your DC Editor of the School Paper, or Captain of the Cross-Country Team, or an Awarded Vocalist, or a Debater?" Ever. People just do not seem to care about those things, and I have no answer as to why.

So in that sense the questions in this thread about "legacy" are totally consistent with what I am asked at a party.

Editing myself.

So in a sense, you agree with me. People want a simple formula that they can understand. And in some cases the formula is used as shorthand for "less deserving".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Take your snarky attitude and stick it in your pie hole. No one's saying Yale (and every other college) doesn't give some preference to legacies. What I found interesting about this study is that it tries to quantify the significance of that preference. The author revealed two things which are consistent with common sense: (1) children of parents who went to top colleges tend to be pretty smart on average, and (2) legacy kids can only get a legacy preference at a limited number of colleges. As a result, the oft-told narrative that legacy kids are dumb brats who unfairly steal college spots from more-deserving students is largely fiction.

To anticipate your false assumptions about me: (1) I'm no Yale legacy. I'm pretty sure they'd have laughed my application out the door if I'd applied there. I suppose if I'd wanted to attend the big state school where my parents went, best known for its history of NCAA violations, I could have gotten some legacy benefit there. (2) My kids are many years away from college, so I've got no horse in this race. I just saw some interesting analysis in the article, and wanted to highlight it.

I sense you're fighting some larger battle with other posters, about topics that don't interest me, so perhaps you should get back to that fight now, and quit assuming everyone who posts is part of your war.

That "sense" you have? The technical term for it is delusion.

[Anonymous]

Lame come-back. Doesn't even make sense. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Thank you 16:29, I agree completely. I tried to make similar points earlier in the thread in different way, but your approach is more persuasive.

Like 16:29, in my experience as a white parent of a kid who attends a H/Y/P/S-type school, when people I don't know well ask where my DC is in school the follow-up question I often get is also, "Where did you go to school" or "Did you or your spouse go to X too?" I admit, I sometimes quietly enjoy seeing people's reactions when I tell them we did not, but I hope that if my child were a legacy, an athlete, a URM or all of the foregoing, that I would be as graceful and dignified in my reaction to these questions as 16:29. And if 16:29's children are as poised and articulate under the fire of DCUM as 16:29 is her/himself, then it is no wonder that top ivy league schools would want his/her offspring.

Let me add this. My DC's perspective on college admissions changed substantially once arriving at an ivy. DC has always felt humble and fortunate to have been admitted from many equally well qualified students. But since arriving at college, DC now sees that a difference of 100-200 points on a 2400 point SAT really says relatively little about the strength of a student at DC's school. Yes, the higher the better all other things equal, of course, but DC often talks about the extraordinary achievements of so many of DC's classmates outside of the classroom -- founding companies, winning national competitions in poetry or science, writing articles in major newspapers or magazines, performing ones artistic talent before huge audiences. Maybe some of these students scored slightly below DC on standardized tests, maybe some were a few 10ths of a point lower in their GPAs, or did not get 5s on as many AP tests (and some certainly got more too), but they all deserve to be there as much as DC and -- truth be told -- DC still scratches his head sometimes with amazement that there was room for a kid like him who had not accomplished these sorts of things (but certainly as a bias parent I believe is wonderful and amazing in many other ways). That does not mean that students who are not accepted at these schools are necessarily less remarkable than others who are there - there just aren't enough slots for them all -- and it is certainly true that many others can do the same level of academic work.

That does not make it any less painful if one believes his/her true dream is to go to a particular highly selective school but is not accepted. That pain is real. But it really is true that there are more than enough great schools in and outside of the ivy league at the college level that each truly great candidate will find a place where he/she should have a wonderful college experience.

[Anonymous]

I don't get all this talk about legacy. It really doesn't factor in at the most competitive schools. They could probably fill the class with qualified legacies.