Mixed feelings about legacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprised that anyone is buying this. This seems like C- concern trolling by one of the anti-legacy posters.

I read it as beginning the process of eventually rationalizing and explaining why legacy child (LC) didn't get in. "From the beginning we were uncomfortable with the process, so really ...."

The excuse-making usually comes in the form of 'I didn't donate 7 figures so that's why my legacy kid wasn't admitted."

But it’s true. I can name the famous people in my Harvard class who gave seven digits or more and their children did get in. That’s logical not sour grapes. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprised that anyone is buying this. This seems like C- concern trolling by one of the anti-legacy posters.

I read it as beginning the process of eventually rationalizing and explaining why legacy child (LC) didn't get in. "From the beginning we were uncomfortable with the process, so really ...."

The excuse-making usually comes in the form of 'I didn't donate 7 figures so that's why my legacy kid wasn't admitted."

But it’s true. I can name the famous people in my Harvard class who gave seven digits or more and their children did get in. That’s logical not sour grapes. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

Just because you have a cute anecdote doesn’t mean the opposite is true.

If 33% of legacy applicants are getting admitted each year it is incredibly unlikely that their parents are donating 7 figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are missing the point entirely. I got in on my own, with no ones help. How will DC feel? Will they always wonder if they really deserved it, being there? Especially when they get there.

Not if you got the first gen bump you didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me sick to my stomach.

Signed,
A first gen graduate

How so? I ask because I’m a first-gen grad too and it’s interesting to see legacy admission under fire once the pool of alumns got diversified! I’m ambivalent because I realize that my kid doesn’t need HYPS, at least not in the way I did. But I also know that if a legacy kid like mine opts out, the spot they don’t take is going to another legacy kid with fewer scruples — not to a first-gen kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing the point entirely. I got in on my own, with no ones help. How will DC feel? Will they always wonder if they really deserved it, being there? Especially when they get there.

Not if you got the first gen bump you didn’t.

Yeah, that part (questioning whether they’re deserving) sucks. And I (not PP being addressed) was a first gen kid before that was a thing, so no bump there. Then again, being smart isn’t something I earned — I just won a genetic lottery and lucked into a nerdy/permissive household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprised that anyone is buying this. This seems like C- concern trolling by one of the anti-legacy posters.

I read it as beginning the process of eventually rationalizing and explaining why legacy child (LC) didn't get in. "From the beginning we were uncomfortable with the process, so really ...."

The excuse-making usually comes in the form of 'I didn't donate 7 figures so that's why my legacy kid wasn't admitted."

But it’s true. I can name the famous people in my Harvard class who gave seven digits or more and their children did get in. That’s logical not sour grapes. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

They’re also famous, so it’s probably not just money driven...and I can name a bunch of non-famous people (mostly academics) from my Harvard class who didn’t give 7 figures and their kids got in.

[Anonymous]

At Harvard and Yale, money often talks and bs donations often walks. I'm amazed at how many legacies who would be very viable candidates don't get in to Harvard and Yale but do get in to very similar colleges.

But if you do get in, you will often wonder about why you're there. It's sad. I know a Yale legacy who was an academic and extracurricular superstar and got in to Yale. Every time this person scored a B on a test, which happens to.most high school superstars who end up at Yale from time to time, the person felt like an imposter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprised that anyone is buying this. This seems like C- concern trolling by one of the anti-legacy posters.

I read it as beginning the process of eventually rationalizing and explaining why legacy child (LC) didn't get in. "From the beginning we were uncomfortable with the process, so really ...."

The excuse-making usually comes in the form of 'I didn't donate 7 figures so that's why my legacy kid wasn't admitted."

But it’s true. I can name the famous people in my Harvard class who gave seven digits or more and their children did get in. That’s logical not sour grapes. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

They’re also famous, so it’s probably not just money driven...and I can name a bunch of non-famous people (mostly academics) from my Harvard class who didn’t give 7 figures and their kids got in.

University faculty? I think there is also special consideration given to faculty (Harvard's own of course, but also those of peer institutions) -- kind of like protecting their own kind. They may also figure that kids of academics (who by definition did well in their studies and are well, academic) are good bets for kids who do well in college. It's not talked about much because it's such a small group.

[Anonymous]

Probably a larger group than alumns who have donated millions by the time their kids are graduating from HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably a larger group than alumns who have donated millions by the time their kids are graduating from HS.

More likely that the one thing they all have in common is the only thing that matters - they are all legacies.

[Anonymous]

We are double legacy Stanford. It’s no secret how much you have to donate to make the bump count. $800,000 minimum. Unless you’re in that range, you’re feeding false hopes OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are double legacy Stanford. It’s no secret how much you have to donate to make the bump count. $800,000 minimum. Unless you’re in that range, you’re feeding false hopes OP.

So if they are deciding between two kids, the fact that one of them has two parents that went to Stanford makes no difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are double legacy Stanford. It’s no secret how much you have to donate to make the bump count. $800,000 minimum. Unless you’re in that range, you’re feeding false hopes OP.

So the 16% of the class that is legacy (who are admitted at a rate that is at least triple the non legacies) have all given a minimum of $800000? If they have that much money to donate ($800000 by the time you are say 50 and your kid is college age is at least $25k a year since you graduated college) then the value proposition of Stanford is off the charts. If you can donate $25k on average a year, you are making a lot of money right away.

[Anonymous]

If you have it, take advantage of it.

As a system though, of course it's absolutely unfair. It's a system that exists to perpetuate economic, social and political inequality given the opportunities these top universities grant to students in business (top hedge funds, consulting firms, tech startups love touting their elite school grads), politics (Biden is the first non-Ivy grad president in how long? How many non-Ivy grads in the SC - 0), et.

Unsurprisingly, schools that don't have legacy admissions have reputations for being far more rigorous despite being less "prestigious" ( a completely nebulous concept) - primarily MIT, Caltech and Berkeley. For publics, UC's basically dominate the top 10 public schools.

And with the likes of George W Bush, Trump etc. touting Ivy degrees, there's a general stigma among the general populace now that these schools tend to admit the wealthy rather than the smartest students (which has always been true)