How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

[Anonymous]

Op here thanks for sharing this maybe it will all go better than we are expecting. The child is a great writer so I think the essays should be great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very much at HYPS and esp. Harvard and Stanford. Less relevant at Brown and Penn in our experience. Only matters in early round, of course. Seeing it up close is eye-opening.

California banned legacy admission, so no boost at Stanford anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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]

Congrats to your kid for all the effort.
Sports discipline will pay dividends forever.
D3 take a lot of athletes ED so if not recruit might be harder. Midd is the one where ed seems to help regardless.
Seems legacy does still help - guessing more at the ED than the REA.
should Spend lots of time on the essays. Even kids who are great academic writers sometimes write snoozer essays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

Someone who does not understand basic statistics well enough to understand studies and how they are structured has no business opining on the smarts of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

Please cite the study that supports your opinion that legacy admissions benefit non-whites more than whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

Please cite the study that supports your opinion that legacy admissions benefit non-whites more than whites.

I don't think they said that. And with the significant increase in the number of minority students in the 80s and 90s due to affirmative action, the number of minorities who can potentially benefit from legacy admissions has gone up a lot. So it does not solely perpetuate the whiteness of schools.

[Anonymous]

I can really see some good points on both sides of this argument. However, given the current attack on academic institutions, I hardly see that it matters anymore. Some top schools currently consider legacy and others do not. My alma mater does not. But all the schools will all be forced to change radically for the worse and toe the party line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Stop citing this useless study. Athletes and legacies are completely different. Athletes are mostly dumber than the average applicant. Legacies are mostly smarter than the average applicant. Any study that lumps them together (done to make legacies look bad) has zero validity.

Please cite the study that supports your opinion that legacy admissions benefit non-whites more than whites.

I don't think they said that. And with the significant increase in the number of minority students in the 80s and 90s due to affirmative action, the number of minorities who can potentially benefit from legacy admissions has gone up a lot. So it does not solely perpetuate the whiteness of schools.

No one said legacy "solely" perpetuates the whiteness of schools. It was said that legacy admission benefits whites more than non-whites. Feel free to cite evidence to the contrary, but you're not going to find it, not for HYP anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, legacy helps at Ivies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/
A 2023 civil rights complaint against Harvard reported that between 2014 and 2019, donor-related applicants were a whopping seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants, while legacy applicants were almost six times more likely to be admitted. Though “recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff” make up less than 5% of the applicant pool, they constitute approximately 30% of those accepted each year. At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year. The school has one of the highest rates of legacy admission nationally. In other words, at top schools, legacy status still matters—and it matters a lot.

But were these applicants less qualified? Or do smart people have smart kids who work really hard to get into mom and/or dad's alma mater because they want the same experience.

My spouse went to an Ivy. I went to an Ivy equivalent. Our HS freshman wants to go to one of our schools really badly. We don't donate a lot. We have made it clear that he has to work really hard to get in. He is already a highly motivated, smart kid, but this pushes him even more.

There are definitely some kids who get an edge because of donations and/or legacies. But the reported numbers are really exaggerated.

What's your evidence that the reported numbers are really exaggerated? My spouse and I both went to Ivies, and recognize that if our kids do want to go to any of our alma maters, it will be a big boost that they have relative to non-legacy kids.

I am saying that all of these people getting really worked up about legacies being accepted at a much higher rate are assuming that the vast majority of these kids are several standard deviations below the average non-legacy admit. And that is not true. I would bet that a large percentage would have gotten in anyway, a decent percentage are borderline, most of the rest are relatively close, with a few notable outliers.

No, that's not the case. Try reading some studies with data rather than assuming that legacy kids are highly deserving replicas of their parents. This one finds that roughly 3/4 of white ALDC (athletes, legacies, big donors, children of faculty or staff) wouldn't have gotten in without their special status.
https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-arcidiacono.pdf

Try actually reading and understanding what you point to. The originating work by Arcidicano was shredded by Card in the SFFA case. And this paper purposely leaves out the personal rating (they say that it is a bioased variable) because including it would result in a finding opposite of what they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here - We have 2 Ivy early choices and one is ED and one SCEA (not Princeton or Harvard unfortunately as I did hear those have the biggest boost).

Child is good enough to be recruited at schools that aren't an academic match. The Ivy's have upped their sports level so just isn't quite there. Top academic d 3 indicated child could walk on if they get in but no coach support for app process - child is debating going for Ivy and doing the sport club in college or walk on at D3...not sure if high academic d3 will be a harder admit or legacy at Ivy is a harder admit but we want to choose correctly for early.

Not sure about the sport or the schools that you are looking at but the academic bar for athletes at the top NESCACs is higher than for athletes in the Ivy league. Finding a NESCAC match for their sport would be a huge boost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that a quick search reveals that the Harvard class of 1995 (parents of current applicants) was over 1/3 minorities, and it only went up from there. So for all the complaining about the downfall of affirmative action, these groups are increasingly benefitting from legacy admissions.

Yes, this is the ironic part of trying to ban legacy now. It will actually make schools more diverse (in comparison to banning it) now that affirmative action is gone. These previous classes were created with affirmative action so many minorities are benefiting from legacy admission. I think its also unfortunate that states are banning it now that more URMs are actually benefiting from it.

There is no evidence that legacy preferences will make schools more diverse. It's basically affirmative action for white people.

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

Don't bring that thing again, it doesn't say what you think that it says.

David Card shredded Peter Arcidicano's work in that case and Harvard WON the discrimination case (the battle) while they effectively (along with UNC and everyone else) the war because SFFA was able to use the case to get in front of the Supreme Court and make an Equal Protection Clause argument which was successful and their actual goal.

Oh--so do share your better quality studies that show that legacy preferences benefit non-whites more than whites?