How to respond when kid gets into school and is Legacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

I’m surprised that you think rejection and disappointment confers the right to be an a**hole. Maybe I shouldn’t be.

Speaking of reading comprehension.

You like typing that phrase over and over again as if it’s making a point.

First time I personally typed it, but yes it has been a theme on this thread.

[Anonymous]

I’m starting to think I’ve given my children a tremendous and rare advantage in life: self-awareness and perspective. You guys are amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I got a full-ride to a top-ranked law school and dramatically outperformed my numbers (I'm white, before you come after me). In the scholarship interview, they asked what I attributed my success thus far to. I paused and said I'm just an all around lucky person and detailed a few opportunities my family helped me secure and a few opportunities that honestly were strokes of luck that happened to set me on my path. I remember specifically noting that the dean of admissions for my undergrad told me that growing up in an underrepresented state gave me a huge leg up in the admissions process despite having middling stats and being otherwise unhooked. That college ended up being a phenomenal fit for me and set me up to win big scholarships and accolades down the pike.

I only learned in my last semester of law school that the admissions officer thought incredibly highly of that answer (which I said with all sincerity, not trying to sound self-righteous or something). She said an amazing number of candidates refuse to attribute their success to anything other than their personal qualities and achievements, and it's a red flag to her when candidates can't acknowledge the ways in which they've benefited from others or from circumstances outside of their control.

I hope we can encourage all students--including legacies--to reflect honestly about things like "merit" and "deserving" to be admitted to a particular school. Frankly, none of us deserve to be admitted anywhere, and we all owe it to ourselves and our communities to admit how much good fortune plays a role in who we are and what we achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

Underrepresented minorities deserve any leg up they get in admissions, and it is still not a level playing field. It is far easier to be a white applicant when you account for a lifetime of advantages.

But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I don’t know? You can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone with humility and concern for other people?

And that’s the only way to show it? You don’t seem to have much concern for the kid by defending the rude ones.

Let me guess you expected minorities to say “yes I only got in because I’m a minority”

No.

Why not? Because it’s rude?

Underrepresented minorities deserve any leg up they get in admissions, and it is still not a level playing field. It is far easier to be a white applicant when you account for a lifetime of advantages.

But you knew that.

I know quite a few wealthy immigrant black people who know full well they got an unfair advantage. And they’re a lot more honest about it than OP and her kid are.

[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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

[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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

You need to take an intro stats class. And also an etiquette class. Because bringing something like this up is rude. Full stop.

The fact that so many people are OK with the fact that the rejected kids mentioned it is horrifying. They might be right - one can make a very good argument for that. But to mention it is really low class. I don't see why this is even debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

You need to take an intro stats class. And also an etiquette class. Because bringing something like this up is rude. Full stop.

The fact that so many people are OK with the fact that the rejected kids mentioned it is horrifying. They might be right - one can make a very good argument for that. But to mention it is really low class. I don't see why this is even debatable.

Not PP obviously but most of us have acknowledged the rudeness. Some posters feel that because the kids were rude, nothing else matters. I do not agree — but that’s not the same thing as defending the rudeness itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

You need to take an intro stats class. And also an etiquette class. Because bringing something like this up is rude. Full stop.

The fact that so many people are OK with the fact that the rejected kids mentioned it is horrifying. They might be right - one can make a very good argument for that. But to mention it is really low class. I don't see why this is even debatable.

Not PP obviously but most of us have acknowledged the rudeness. Some posters feel that because the kids were rude, nothing else matters. I do not agree — but that’s not the same thing as defending the rudeness itself.

From OP’s description the rudeness was stating a fact, one for my own kid I would hope they wouldn’t vocalize, but the truth nonetheless and I am willing to give grace to both OP’s kid and the rejected one who no doubt said it out of disappointment. Further, if OP’s kid can’t handle it they aren’t well prepared to attend the college they just got into as their legacy status will be known and commented on there as well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

You need to take an intro stats class. And also an etiquette class. Because bringing something like this up is rude. Full stop.

The fact that so many people are OK with the fact that the rejected kids mentioned it is horrifying. They might be right - one can make a very good argument for that. But to mention it is really low class. I don't see why this is even debatable.

Not PP obviously but most of us have acknowledged the rudeness. Some posters feel that because the kids were rude, nothing else matters. I do not agree — but that’s not the same thing as defending the rudeness itself.

No. Most people here think that the rudeness is justified and merits a defensive response. Which is sad. I am glad there are people like you who are more rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

You need to take an intro stats class. And also an etiquette class. Because bringing something like this up is rude. Full stop.

The fact that so many people are OK with the fact that the rejected kids mentioned it is horrifying. They might be right - one can make a very good argument for that. But to mention it is really low class. I don't see why this is even debatable.

Not PP obviously but most of us have acknowledged the rudeness. Some posters feel that because the kids were rude, nothing else matters. I do not agree — but that’s not the same thing as defending the rudeness itself.

From OP’s description the rudeness was stating a fact, one for my own kid I would hope they wouldn’t vocalize, but the truth nonetheless and I am willing to give grace to both OP’s kid and the rejected one who no doubt said it out of disappointment. Further, if OP’s kid can’t handle it they aren’t well prepared to attend the college they just got into as their legacy status will be known and commented on there as well

Clearly you haven't gone to a competitive school. People have better things to talk about than legacy status. Once you are there you have bigger things to worry about than how people got in. The only reason it might come up is if someone is truly well below everyone else academically, to the point of being an outlier. Then people might say "how did they get in here?" But if someone is just minding their own business and not consistently making dumb comments, no one will care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

Why wouldn’t you acknowledge it when talking to people who didn’t get in? I’m honestly gobsmacked by this attitude. This would be the first thing I would say, but I really hate lording it over people.

Why do I have total confidence that you apply this only to legacies and not to of the advantages your kids have?

I got a full-ride to a top-ranked law school and dramatically outperformed my numbers (I'm white, before you come after me). In the scholarship interview, they asked what I attributed my success thus far to. I paused and said I'm just an all around lucky person and detailed a few opportunities my family helped me secure and a few opportunities that honestly were strokes of luck that happened to set me on my path. I remember specifically noting that the dean of admissions for my undergrad told me that growing up in an underrepresented state gave me a huge leg up in the admissions process despite having middling stats and being otherwise unhooked. That college ended up being a phenomenal fit for me and set me up to win big scholarships and accolades down the pike.

I only learned in my last semester of law school that the admissions officer thought incredibly highly of that answer (which I said with all sincerity, not trying to sound self-righteous or something). She said an amazing number of candidates refuse to attribute their success to anything other than their personal qualities and achievements, and it's a red flag to her when candidates can't acknowledge the ways in which they've benefited from others or from circumstances outside of their control.

I hope we can encourage all students--including legacies--to reflect honestly about things like "merit" and "deserving" to be admitted to a particular school. Frankly, none of us deserve to be admitted anywhere, and we all owe it to ourselves and our communities to admit how much good fortune plays a role in who we are and what we achieve.

This is a very introspective and insightful post. I wish more kids and adults understood their privilege and luck. Thank you for sharing.

[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

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”.

No that’s not the point of this thread. It is not inconsistent to think that the kids were being rude to OP’s kid while also thinking the kids had some validity in what they said.

It’s like telling your kids not to tell anyone they’re fat. They should never say it to anyone but it can still be true that the person is fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “rudeness” was pointing out that OP’s DC was a legacy meaning that they had odds in the 1 out of 3 or 4 range while the rejected kids faced 1 out of 100 odds. . .

You need to take an intro stats class. And also an etiquette class. Because bringing something like this up is rude. Full stop.

The fact that so many people are OK with the fact that the rejected kids mentioned it is horrifying. They might be right - one can make a very good argument for that. But to mention it is really low class. I don't see why this is even debatable.

Not PP obviously but most of us have acknowledged the rudeness. Some posters feel that because the kids were rude, nothing else matters. I do not agree — but that’s not the same thing as defending the rudeness itself.

From OP’s description the rudeness was stating a fact, one for my own kid I would hope they wouldn’t vocalize, but the truth nonetheless and I am willing to give grace to both OP’s kid and the rejected one who no doubt said it out of disappointment. Further, if OP’s kid can’t handle it they aren’t well prepared to attend the college they just got into as their legacy status will be known and commented on there as well

Clearly you haven't gone to a competitive school. People have better things to talk about than legacy status. Once you are there you have bigger things to worry about than how people got in. The only reason it might come up is if someone is truly well below everyone else academically, to the point of being an outlier. Then people might say "how did they get in here?" But if someone is just minding their own business and not consistently making dumb comments, no one will care.

Sure Karen, whatever you need to believe to maintain your illusions that no one else sees your privilege, it's just a secret power you use and then blend in with everyone else. . . .