How to respond when kid gets into school and is Legacy

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

These kids were rude but in the scheme of things that kids that age can be rude about, my goodness. Are egos that fragile? Please recall that these kids are dealing with their own disappointment. Teach your children to be gracious about their victories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

These kids were rude but in the scheme of things that kids that age can be rude about, my goodness. Are egos that fragile? Please recall that these kids are dealing with their own disappointment. Teach your children to be gracious about their victories.

So if your kid is disappointed you’re teaching them it’s ok to be rude? Seems like you’re condoning a pretty fragile reaction to a college decision that was more than likely going to be a rejection. I’ll teach my kids to be gracious about their victory and the victories of their friends. Maybe you should too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why does anyone need to acknowledge it? Is this required for everyone? “I got in but I had a tutor for math in 9th grade, a private coach for track and my parents could afford to pay for a summer program so that’s why got accepted.” Everyone’s got some advantage over someone else - some are just better than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, most everything I've read has said the hook is most beneficial in the early round.

[Anonymous]

According to the brainiacs with inferiority complexes dominating this thread, no legacy has ever deserved to get into their parents school and thus must all have guilt that low class morons who didn't go to good schools and their children will think less of them.

This is the dumbing down of America that Trump is striving for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You have problems with reading comprehension, so again, enjoy arguing with yourself.

No one is saying it’s justified for kids to be rude about a legacy kid getting into an elite university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why does anyone need to acknowledge it? Is this required for everyone? “I got in but I had a tutor for math in 9th grade, a private coach for track and my parents could afford to pay for a summer program so that’s why got accepted.” Everyone’s got some advantage over someone else - some are just better than others.

Of course and you can acknowledge that too. That’s the meaning of the phrase “check your privilege.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only legacy kid I know got into Yale, her parent's school.

She is a brilliant, hard-working, initiative-taking, community-minded student. She deserves to be there. But being legacy did help secure her a spot, of course, there's no question about that. The top schools turn away so many brilliant, hard-working, initiative-taking, community-minded students! Who all deserve to go to top schools and can't, because there aren't enough seats!

So I think this is the price you need to pay for your privilege, OP. It's not your or your child's fault. It's the system's fault, for putting a price on legacy. Universities should stop prioritizing athletes, legacies and big donors.

Your kid should reply that he is opposed to the legacy system. That is the only correct answer.

You don’t know that though, you can’t. So many assumptions being made. I applied to 2 HYPSM. I was a legacy at 1. I got into both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

These kids were rude but in the scheme of things that kids that age can be rude about, my goodness. Are egos that fragile? Please recall that these kids are dealing with their own disappointment. Teach your children to be gracious about their victories.

So if your kid is disappointed you’re teaching them it’s ok to be rude? Seems like you’re condoning a pretty fragile reaction to a college decision that was more than likely going to be a rejection. I’ll teach my kids to be gracious about their victory and the victories of their friends. Maybe you should too.

My children have been very successful so I’ve been more focused on being gracious in their victories.

In all seriousness my comments are directed at the OP. The parents of the rude kids didn’t write in, and all commentary on them is pointless here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You have problems with reading comprehension, so again, enjoy arguing with yourself.

No one is saying it’s justified for kids to be rude about a legacy kid getting into an elite university.

That’s the whole point of the thread. Kids were rude to OPs kid and half the posters think the proper answer is that the kid has to be “gracious” and acknowledge their “privilege”.