How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

[Anonymous]

My kid got injured his recruiting year/ also Ivy contacts prior.

He had to apply on his own unhooked. Thankfully had uw 4.0 and great test scores.

Got into a different Ivy RD unhooked (not the one he originally wanted), and several other great schools like Pomona, etc

[Anonymous]

^ if he was legacy he definitely would have gotten into the other. He was RD WL at that one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, legacy helps at Ivies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/
A 2023 civil rights complaint against Harvard reported that between 2014 and 2019, donor-related applicants were a whopping seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants, while legacy applicants were almost six times more likely to be admitted. Though “recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff” make up less than 5% of the applicant pool, they constitute approximately 30% of those accepted each year. At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year. The school has one of the highest rates of legacy admission nationally. In other words, at top schools, legacy status still matters—and it matters a lot.

But were these applicants less qualified? Or do smart people have smart kids who work really hard to get into mom and/or dad's alma mater because they want the same experience.

My spouse went to an Ivy. I went to an Ivy equivalent. Our HS freshman wants to go to one of our schools really badly. We don't donate a lot. We have made it clear that he has to work really hard to get in. He is already a highly motivated, smart kid, but this pushes him even more.

There are definitely some kids who get an edge because of donations and/or legacies. But the reported numbers are really exaggerated.

What's your evidence that the reported numbers are really exaggerated? My spouse and I both went to Ivies, and recognize that if our kids do want to go to any of our alma maters, it will be a big boost that they have relative to non-legacy kids.

I am saying that all of these people getting really worked up about legacies being accepted at a much higher rate are assuming that the vast majority of these kids are several standard deviations below the average non-legacy admit. And that is not true. I would bet that a large percentage would have gotten in anyway, a decent percentage are borderline, most of the rest are relatively close, with a few notable outliers.

No, that's not the case. Try reading some studies with data rather than assuming that legacy kids are highly deserving replicas of their parents. This one finds that roughly 3/4 of white ALDC (athletes, legacies, big donors, children of faculty or staff) wouldn't have gotten in without their special status.
https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-arcidiacono.pdf

Well, we know why Ivies started the :dumb jock" stereotype: "At most, 28% of white athlete admits receive a 2 or higher on the academic rating. In contrast, 89% of white typical admits receive a 2 or higher on the academic rating."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a student had great grades, great SAT scores, leadership, and time consuming extracurricular but won't necessarily win any national awards...does this type of student have a shot at an Ivy if they have legacy? How much of a hook is legacy these days?

Some activities have community impact but not to a large scale. The child was trying to be recruited for a sport but fell short so this took up most of the time, but has maximum rigor (9 AP classes after junior year), will take 6 more AP senior year, and will have unweighted GPA of 4.0 in a top FCPS public. Sat scores are 1520 currently and plans on taking one more time.

Apply early as a legacy and it will help.

It's not a huge bump but when the applicant pool is 50,000+, there will be hundreds of applicants that look almost identical to your kid and if they are on the bubble, this can make the difference.

[Anonymous]

OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

There are empirical studies that control for measurable qualifications that show a statistically significant preference to legacy candidates, all else fixed. But even if you choose to disregard those studies, you can note that the Ivies can fill their classes 10x over with similarly qualified candidates with high GPAs and class rankings, strong extracurriculars, near perfect test scores etc--all of those students have the capacity to succeed as admits-so factors that have nothing to do with merit like being a legacy, a donor etc can easily tip the admissions decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

There are empirical studies that control for measurable qualifications that show a statistically significant preference to legacy candidates, all else fixed. But even if you choose to disregard those studies, you can note that the Ivies can fill their classes 10x over with similarly qualified candidates with high GPAs and class rankings, strong extracurriculars, near perfect test scores etc--all of those students have the capacity to succeed as admits-so factors that have nothing to do with merit like being a legacy, a donor etc can easily tip the admissions decision.

So NOT less qualified. Seems like legacy alone is at most a feather, not a thumb, on the scale. Similar to other institutional priorities like geographic diversity, major selection, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

There are empirical studies that control for measurable qualifications that show a statistically significant preference to legacy candidates, all else fixed. But even if you choose to disregard those studies, you can note that the Ivies can fill their classes 10x over with similarly qualified candidates with high GPAs and class rankings, strong extracurriculars, near perfect test scores etc--all of those students have the capacity to succeed as admits-so factors that have nothing to do with merit like being a legacy, a donor etc can easily tip the admissions decision.

So NOT less qualified. Seems like legacy alone is at most a feather, not a thumb, on the scale. Similar to other institutional priorities like geographic diversity, major selection, etc.

If there are 3,000 candidates that meet the "bar" of acceptable qualifications and only 1000 slots and a legacy has a 7x greater chance of being accepted, you better believe that being a legacy helps. Doesn't necessarily mean that the legacy is unqualified, just means that absent the privilege of their birth, they'd be in the same crap shoot as any unqualified unhooked candidate. Legacy preference at many schools is HUGE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

All the legacy kids that I know who have gotten into Ivies have been highly qualified and have multiple hooks. Parents who want this for their kids start working on a plan early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

There are empirical studies that control for measurable qualifications that show a statistically significant preference to legacy candidates, all else fixed. But even if you choose to disregard those studies, you can note that the Ivies can fill their classes 10x over with similarly qualified candidates with high GPAs and class rankings, strong extracurriculars, near perfect test scores etc--all of those students have the capacity to succeed as admits-so factors that have nothing to do with merit like being a legacy, a donor etc can easily tip the admissions decision.

So NOT less qualified. Seems like legacy alone is at most a feather, not a thumb, on the scale. Similar to other institutional priorities like geographic diversity, major selection, etc.

If there are 3,000 candidates that meet the "bar" of acceptable qualifications and only 1000 slots and a legacy has a 7x greater chance of being accepted, you better believe that being a legacy helps. Doesn't necessarily mean that the legacy is unqualified, just means that absent the privilege of their birth, they'd be in the same crap shoot as any unqualified unhooked candidate. Legacy preference at many schools is HUGE.

Not an Ivy, but at Stanford, legacy is rumored to be a 2x bump currently (openly stated as 3x back in my day, and may be eliminated completely beginning next year). Regardless, nowhere near 7x. Which colleges are 7x?? Just Harvard or others as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too. One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing! -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut. There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.

Oh, and just to add to this anecdata point, all 3 legacy kids were Asian. Legacy preference does not solely benefit white applicants in this day and age, contrary to popular belief.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if long-term effects of legacy admission on students have been studied. It seemed obvious to me even at a young age when I declined applying to my parent’s well supported school that it could sour the sense of accomplishment and self-reliance a student should have. I’m happy our kids colleges stopped using legacy considerations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if long-term effects of legacy admission on students have been studied. It seemed obvious to me even at a young age when I declined applying to my parent’s well supported school that it could sour the sense of accomplishment and self-reliance a student should have. I’m happy our kids colleges stopped using legacy considerations.

I’d love for my alma mater to stop legacy preferences as well. Thankfully legacy DC doesn’t have imposter syndrome because they were also admitted to peer schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if long-term effects of legacy admission on students have been studied. It seemed obvious to me even at a young age when I declined applying to my parent’s well supported school that it could sour the sense of accomplishment and self-reliance a student should have. I’m happy our kids colleges stopped using legacy considerations.

I’d love for my alma mater to stop legacy preferences as well. Thankfully legacy DC doesn’t have imposter syndrome because they were also admitted to peer schools.

Interestingly, our school’s college counselor said the legacy boost really only comes into play when doing binding ED. For those students there’s no way to know where else they would get in, so imposter syndrome is more likely.