Stanford bringing back legacy preference and test required

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privlege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy tend to be just as qualified on testing and GPA. I’m using old data, but it makes sense. As a person who attended a top college, I now understand how being a legacy helps kids perform better. For example, my kids are studying for the SAT, while my husband and I just took the test. We encourage our kids to develop relationships with teachers and seek extra help when necessary. Non-legacies may not understand the smarts are necessary but not sufficient to outperform their peers.

I am fine if a college wants to consider legacy but this post sounds silly. Believe it or not, even parents that did not go to standford understand the need for SAT prep.

My kid refused to prep for the SAT. Grateful she’s a good test taker - 1550.

[Anonymous]

I know someone who went to Berkeley whose kid wants to go to Stanford with 1440 SAT.

Unlikely admit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

In the same report I found this gem:

"While 19.8 percent of respondents who supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election reported having cheated, 30.2 percent of those who backed Donald Trump said they had cheated."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

Cite?

I can't find anything for stanford but here is something for harvard:

'Legacy students also had a higher average SAT score than non-legacy students, at 1523 for legacy students and 1491 for non-legacy students. "
https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academics-narrative/

In the same report I found this gem:

"While 19.8 percent of respondents who supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election reported having cheated, 30.2 percent of those who backed Donald Trump said they had cheated."

In reality it was 50%+ of both groups

[Anonymous]

If colleges were forced to be transparent about how much of a bump each type of hook provided it would help everyone:
Disclose the average GPA/Test Scores of the legacies, plus their admit rate, i.e. 30% admit rate.
Same for recruited athletes, i.e., same for FGLI.
What is galling is parents of the hooked kids acting like their kids got in at a 4% rate when they didn't- they might STFU on their bragging. Plus the unhooked kids and their parents would know that they are really facing a lottery with a 1% chance . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies are only white guys named Chad?

Legacies are dominated by rich white people.

Uh, do you even know what the demographics of Stanford undergraduates have been for the last few decades?

Most of the legacies that I know who have gotten into Stanford in recent years are Asian.

Anecdotal

You would have us think that there aren’t many non-white Stanford alums with kids?

Post a peer-reviewed study if you want to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Your privilege is showing. Why do you feel so entitled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the perspective of an active alumnus, this is a huge relief. College admissions have become so competitive, it has become almost random. The legacies are every bit as qualified on paper as the other admitted students but they aren't subject to the same RNG in the admissions process.

If they are every bit as qualified then maybe they should just be fine applying without the legacy advantage. The process is should be random for everyone. They have the privilege of having educated parents who give then access to all resources and then they also get an unfair advantage in admissions. Does not seem right at all.

But we don't want to have the same chance of getting in as the non-legacy applicant.
If our kid is just as good as every other kid that gets accepted why shouldn't he have a preference based on the fact that he is much likelier to donate as an adult than a non-legacy admit.
It's not like he is getting a 200 point SAT advantage or a 5 point ACT advantage. He is high stat but because of the incredibly large applicant pool, admissions has become somewhat random and his chances are probably 25% or less but with a legacy preferences it might be 50% or more.

Cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are they struggling for money or something? I don't see why these multibillion dollar institutions need legacy admissions. If you have the money to pull weight for legacy, your child doesn't need legacy for admission, they have every other advantage in the book

legacy builds stronger connections to the school. simple as that. and wealth begets wealth

Yeah but if you’re truly wealthy you should have no problem getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
More full pay helps buffer against higher costs from the endowment tax and other monetary pressures from the administration.

No it doesnt? It just allows institutions to double down on their near 100k/year COA