How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

[Anonymous]

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.

This is our experience at TT school in NYC. Legacy kids are often highly qualified if not the very top of the class, but legacy families know the game very well and plot this path out early on. At our school, many legacy families are also donating substantially if not necessarily endowing chairs (which is also happening). Unhooked families only figure out the rules late in the game and, though their kids might be the very top of their class academically, cannot compete with in-the-know families.

It goes without saying that athletics (+legacy) is a cheat code for old money white families whose kids can't compete academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah, that makes sense about ED applicants, unless they were deferred to RD in which case they would still see other results. Regardless, my alma mater has SCEA/REA, so non-binding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is the legacy boost is significant. My memory was that it was about a 3x difference, but this article states legacies for Harvard have 6x the admit rate while Princeton 4x.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/

Harvard is under too much scrutiny due to the legal case. Word is they're more careful now.

Not about legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is the legacy boost is significant. My memory was that it was about a 3x difference, but this article states legacies for Harvard have 6x the admit rate while Princeton 4x.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/

Harvard is under too much scrutiny due to the legal case. Word is they're more careful now.

Not about legacy.

Precisely. It’s probably an even bigger advantage now. Republicans aren’t going to be suing Harvard for taking too many wealthy legacy white students.

[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.

Same here. My kid does not want to go to my Ivy because they don't want the stigma of being a legacy kid. I did not love my experience there either, so I'm not pushing it; however, given what admissions is like these days, applying ED to my Ivy seems like the way to ensure admission at an Ivy, since there are so many applicants that are going to have high stats and similar profiles with my UMC, Asian American, STEM-major kid. I am not a big fan of binding ED or legacy and wish both would go away entirely.

[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.

Can we stop with this? 80-90% of applicants are "qualified." It means nothing. That does not mean 80-90% of applicants should get in. Nor should 80-90% of athletes...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same here. My kid does not want to go to my Ivy because they don't want the stigma of being a legacy kid. I did not love my experience there either, so I'm not pushing it; however, given what admissions is like these days, applying ED to my Ivy seems like the way to ensure admission at an Ivy, since there are so many applicants that are going to have high stats and similar profiles with my UMC, Asian American, STEM-major kid. I am not a big fan of binding ED or legacy and wish both would go away entirely.

May I ask, with zero snark and 100% curiosity only, why you think Ivy admission is so important for your STEM kid? My kid has a similar profile as yours - UMC, Asian American, and CS-focused. They wanted Stanford because it’s tops in CS and they preferred the school’s vibe over that of MIT, CMU, and Berkeley, not because Stanford happens to be my alma mater. No doubt Ivies are amazing schools - my spouse and siblings attended Harvard, Yale, Penn/Wharton among them - but they were never even on my kid’s radar because they are not the best for the T and E parts of STEM.

[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.

Can we stop with this? 80-90% of applicants are "qualified." It means nothing. That does not mean 80-90% of applicants should get in. Nor should 80-90% of athletes...

Can you substantiate your claim? If you’re the same poster who purports that URM admits to highly rejective schools score 230-460 points lower than Asians on the SAT, please provide a source for that as well. I have no issue with being proven wrong, but won’t simply accept numbers you appear to be pulling out of the air.

[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.

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.

Yes, anecdotally, you can find Asian legacy kids, and there will be more non-white legacy kids each year. But legacy preferences are primarily affirmative action for white kids. For example for Harvard: A 2019 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “Over 43 percent of white admits are ALDC” — athletes, legacies, “dean’s interest” and children of faculty and staff — “compared to less than 16 percent of admits for each of the other three major racial/ethnic groups” and that around three-quarters of them would not have been admitted otherwise.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is the legacy boost is significant. My memory was that it was about a 3x difference, but this article states legacies for Harvard have 6x the admit rate while Princeton 4x.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/

Harvard is under too much scrutiny due to the legal case. Word is they're more careful now.

Not about legacy.

Precisely. It’s probably an even bigger advantage now. Republicans aren’t going to be suing Harvard for taking too many wealthy legacy white students.

But they might sue to get rid of the advantage for children of faculty! Anything to destroy the libs . . .

[Anonymous]

All the legacies I know of at my alma mater (Cornell) were double legacies through both parents, and applied ED. (And were fantastic students, strong ECs etc.). But I know of plenty of kids who also had these characteristics and were rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the legacies I know of at my alma mater (Cornell) were double legacies through both parents, and applied ED. (And were fantastic students, strong ECs etc.). But I know of plenty of kids who also had these characteristics and were rejected.

And that's the crux of it. No one is saying that the legacy kids admitted are bad or extreme outliers compared to the rest of the class. But there are far more non-legacy kids who look pretty similar to legacy kids who are rejected. Any Ivy grad who doesn't recognize the privilege that legacy brings isn't looking at the available information. Of the Harvard class of 2022, 36% were legacies. If you think they were all the most outstanding students available who applied, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yeah it is a tough call between trying early at the Ivy or maybe trying a school early like UChicago/Hopkins/NYU/Georgetown.

I actually think my kid will blow it out of the park in college since the sports road is ending and the kid is a wizard and managing time and studying efficiently so they will fit in a lot of stuff.

But I recognize that almost recruited level isn't special when you are reading it...but as a parent I can say it is pretty special the level of time and dedication and grit it takes to give it a go, even if it doesn't work out.

The way you describe your kid is more or less like my kid who got into an Ivy in RD and was legacy. We never donated anything at all. What role did the legacy play? Who knows. Maybe it was a tie-breaker - we will never know. One advice - do not waste your early attempt on Georgetown, their REA gives no advantage whatsoever. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same here. My kid does not want to go to my Ivy because they don't want the stigma of being a legacy kid. I did not love my experience there either, so I'm not pushing it; however, given what admissions is like these days, applying ED to my Ivy seems like the way to ensure admission at an Ivy, since there are so many applicants that are going to have high stats and similar profiles with my UMC, Asian American, STEM-major kid. I am not a big fan of binding ED or legacy and wish both would go away entirely.

I'm an Ivy league grad married to an Ivy league grad and think legacies are ridiculously unfair to the rest of the population. That said, it's not like legacy kids have a scarlet "L" tattooed to their forehead. No employer or professor will ever know how the legacy kid got in, and the legacy kid doesn't need to disclose it unless they want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yeah it is a tough call between trying early at the Ivy or maybe trying a school early like UChicago/Hopkins/NYU/Georgetown.

I actually think my kid will blow it out of the park in college since the sports road is ending and the kid is a wizard and managing time and studying efficiently so they will fit in a lot of stuff.

But I recognize that almost recruited level isn't special when you are reading it...but as a parent I can say it is pretty special the level of time and dedication and grit it takes to give it a go, even if it doesn't work out.

The way you describe your kid is more or less like my kid who got into an Ivy in RD and was legacy. We never donated anything at all. What role did the legacy play? Who knows. Maybe it was a tie-breaker - we will never know. One advice - do not waste your early attempt on Georgetown, their REA gives no advantage whatsoever. Good luck!

+1 Kid also sounds exactly like my kid who got into Ivy RD unhooked/no legacy. Injured entire recruiting year. Also, accepted RD to Hopkins, NYU, Georgetown, Pomona, BC RD--could have played sport at the D3s (JHU/Pomona)- but ended up choosing the Ivy as it was the best fit for everything else. Club is about the same level as D3 at those schools. Only two Freshmen made the squad which has some that were on the Varsity team--but dropped due to schedule/conflicts.

We also were weighing REA vs EA vs ED. Mine ended up not applying early to Ivies because he didn't have a hook or legacy at any of them and thought it was a long shot--EA GU. Accepted to one RD and WL at another.