How to respond when kid gets into school and is Legacy

[Anonymous]

Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

If OP had these kinds of cross-admits, that would have come out on page one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

If OP had these kinds of cross-admits, that would have come out on page one.

PP again. Another friend - daughter was devastated when she didn't get into Stanford REA. Both parents attended Stanford undergrad. She ended up at Harvard. I know multiple families like this. This family is VIP too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

Remind me what years the Chetry data was from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

The Chetty research used data from more than 400 colleges and universities whereas this board is debating legacy for the Top 20 or so schools.

Here is an excerpt: Using data from more than 400 colleges and universities and about three and a half million undergraduate students per year, the two economists found that legacy and other elite school admissions practices significantly favor students from wealthy families and serve a gate-keeping function to positions of power and prestige in society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

That’s an interesting conclusion. Are they comparing all legacy applicants who applied at the legacy institution or just those who were accepted and then applied elsewhere? If the former how did they control for the fact that many of the legacies who were accepted early did not apply elsewhere so the pool of legacies applying to other schools didn’t have a four fold advantage - the reality would be much lower

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

The Chetty research used data from more than 400 colleges and universities whereas this board is debating legacy for the Top 20 or so schools.

Here is an excerpt: Using data from more than 400 colleges and universities and about three and a half million undergraduate students per year, the two economists found that legacy and other elite school admissions practices significantly favor students from wealthy families and serve a gate-keeping function to positions of power and prestige in society.

Their findings on legacy are specific to the Ivy-Plus schools though (Ivies plus Duke, MIT, Stanford, and Chicago). But the paper looks at much more than just the legacy question. Section 3.3: Determinants of Admissions Rates at Ivy-Plus Colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

That’s an interesting conclusion. Are they comparing all legacy applicants who applied at the legacy institution or just those who were accepted and then applied elsewhere? If the former how did they control for the fact that many of the legacies who were accepted early did not apply elsewhere so the pool of legacies applying to other schools didn’t have a four fold advantage - the reality would be much lower

It’s the latter—they exclude those who applied early as the decision to apply elsewhere after that is endogenous to the first admissions decision. This is supported by a model-based result that uses regressions to assess all of the observable characteristics in the application file. Both approaches spit out a similar result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.

That’s an interesting conclusion. Are they comparing all legacy applicants who applied at the legacy institution or just those who were accepted and then applied elsewhere? If the former how did they control for the fact that many of the legacies who were accepted early did not apply elsewhere so the pool of legacies applying to other schools didn’t have a four fold advantage - the reality would be much lower

It’s the latter—they exclude those who applied early as the decision to apply elsewhere after that is endogenous to the first admissions decision. This is supported by a model-based result that uses regressions to assess all of the observable characteristics in the application file. Both approaches spit out a similar result.

So they only considered legacies who applied to their legacy institution regular decision? And the 4X advantage presented itself in the regular cycle? I assumed that legacies got the hook only in early rounds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

Sure legacies have an advantage in admissions - so in your mind that justifies other kids being rude about it? That’s an odd conclusion to reach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."

Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?

The smaller pile, of course. I guess my point is that even in that smaller pile, it's competitive and not an easy admit. Lots of qualified legacies who are rejected and later end up at other HYPS.

Yes, enjoy arguing with yourself as no one is saying it’s easy to get into an elite university. They’re just saying it’s easier to get into an elite university as a legacy, which is not the same thing as it being easy

+1 Why is this confusing? I do not doubt that legacies who get in are generally worthy admits. I also don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of an opportunity available to them.

Just acknowledge it.