Big 3 College Placement 2018-19 Cycle
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
What you describe may have been true decades ago, but is no longer accurate in 2018. The applicant pools are way bigger now. Legacies who are admitted, but they were already qualified on the merits and the legacy status was the tiebreaker in their favor. The notion that today's legacy applicants are somehow less qualified is a myth. This isn't to say that they didn't benefit, but on paper, they were almost certainly worthy of admission. There are too many qualified applicants vying for basically the same number of spots as when we were kids, and legacy status is one of the few ways to break ties or make close calls. |
Anonymous
Being a legacy is an enormous advantage, but not necessarily in the way you posit. Yes, a number of dolts likely get admitted due solely to legacy status, but it's more often the case that two otherwise equal applicants are differentiated by legacy status. All the Harvard lawsuit provides you is an percentage - legacies get in at a rate 6-7x higher than non-legacies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would not otherwise seriously consider them. At most of these schools, a fairly substantial percentage of applicants are 'qualified' for admission, and legacy is one way to make a decision. |
Anonymous
Actually, I doubt that the "dolts" are getting admitted solely due to legacy status -- it's more likely legacy plus some significant family donation. |
Anonymous
this is just wrong. seriously, go read up on the harvard suit. i mean, we don't have to speculate or surmise. the admissions folks talk about what a big deal it is if you're a legacy. |
Anonymous
| I've read plenty on the Harvard suit. You're mischaracterizing the evidence and what's been argued. |
Anonymous
"But Harvard has not disputed the preference given to legacy students. A 2013 internal study, made public in the Friday documents, found a strong positive association between legacy status and an individual applicant’s odds of admission. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 previously defended the “tip” he says his office gives to legacy applicants—which he described in a 2011 interview as a “self-selecting group.” “If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,” Fitzsimmons said. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.” Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane referred to a statement on the Admissions Office website about whether likelihood of admission is “enhanced if a relative has attended Harvard.” “The application process is the same for all candidates,” the statement reads. “Among a group of similarly distinguished applicants, the daughters and sons of Harvard College alumni/ae may receive an additional look.” Yes - it's a big deal. Yes - it helps immensely. But, you are taking the one fact we know, which is the legacy admit rate, and then assuming everything else. The lawsuit presented ZERO information on the point you are making - which is that legacy admits are less qualified. |
Anonymous
| The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of Big 3 grads don't get into the Ivy League. Meaning that had they simply gone public they'd have done just as well and saved the family $$$$$$. Makes zero sense to me . . . |
Anonymous
| Except that you’re assuming Ivy admissions is anywhere near the top reason why folks send their kids to the Big 3. |
Anonymous
Hm, I don't think so. It's a big factor. |
Anonymous
Those who say legacy is a big admission boost please show me any data from any top college that shows that legacy admits have on average objectively LOWER stats then non-legacy admits. Should be easy to produce. |
Anonymous
I actually did see one study that measured differentials in standardized test scores of legacy vs. non-legacy and while legacies were lower the difference was nominal.....nothing like the significant differentials for athletes and URMs. |
Anonymous
We know one thing is true: Legacy is a big admission boost. This is borne out by the higher admit rates for legacies than non-legacies. We have no hard information on whether legacy admits are as equally qualified as non-legacy admits. universities say they are and that legacy is just a tip, but who really knows. It seems equally unreasonable to claim either (a) legacy is not an admission boost and at some institutions, as significant admission boost or (b) legacy admits are categorically less qualified than non-legacy admits. It's off the charts ludicrous to claim that every one who gets in has some kind of hook and that's the only reason your kid didn't get in. If it makes you sleep better at night, go for it, but you're deluding yourself. This is not borne out either by the numbers or even anecdotally. |
Anonymous
Sure. Right. I mean, just take a look at this thread . . . |
Anonymous
| Having 1550 SAT/35 ACT, unweighted 3.9+, and some great extra-curriculars gets you in the game at HYPS. But then you need something extra on top of that. Legacy counts as that something extra. Legacy kids aren’t in the game without the top stats but those who do have them get pulled out of the pool of amazingly and virtually indistinguishably qualified kids |
Anonymous
You mean this anonymous conversation between ~20 people, some of who do not have children at these schools?? What conclusion are we to draw from this thread about the motives of thousands of other people not present in this discussion? |