SLAC Legacy Admission

[Anonymous]

My dd is a top 3 SLAC legacy, and I suspect she may very well be admitted if she applies early (but likely not if she applies regular decision). BUT, I’m not sure if it is the right move. She has 3.7 uw gpa and 1380 SAT (so she almost certainly would not be admitted otherwise). I worry that she will struggle academically and may lose confidence. Is she better off just applying to schools where she would fit in better academically - maybe Denison, Dickinson etc. and give up a bit of prestige? She is on the fence and, while realizing the differences, thinks she would be happy either way. She is undecided about major etc. but her strengths are math and science. She is a very hard worker but has some minor exec functioning issues, which haven’t really impacted her academically thus far (but may in a very demanding academic setting).

[Anonymous]

I don’t think she will be admitted with those stats, even with a legacy.

[Anonymous]

Seems like she’s not committed to the school so shouldn’t apply ED.

[Anonymous]

How strong of a legacy- one uninvolved parent, I doubt she gets in. Multiple generations or both parents plus some continued involvement with the school- maybe

[Anonymous]

Agreed - don't do it if it's not her first choice.

[Anonymous]

OP here. The legacy aspect is pretty strong - very active involvement plus decent sized donations.

[Anonymous]

Most admitted kids with lower than the school average stats can handle the work just fine if they pick a reasonable major that plays to their academic strengths. They may not graduate college with a 3.9 GPA but they will graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The legacy aspect is pretty strong - very active involvement plus decent sized donations.

When you say, "decent sized donations," I say she's in.
She won't be the only lower-stat kid there. She'll find plenty of company, so I wouldn't worry about her fitting in academically. Even at Ivies, a significant % are in because of a hook or hooks, including donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The legacy aspect is pretty strong - very active involvement plus decent sized donations.

Not with those stats. At this point legacy only works if it is really a coin toss between two applicants. A mediocre standardized tester with a parent who gives "decent sized" donations isn't a gimme.

[Anonymous]

OP, understand, there are likely many better qualified legacy applicants than your daughter.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Understood. But I’m not really asking if she will be admitted. Reframing the question, assuming she would be admitted (and I fully understand that may not happen), would she be better off struggling a bit academically at a SLAC Top 3 or going somewhere where she would be more in line academically with the rest of the class (like Dickinson) but not reap some of the benefits of an Amherst/Williams/Pomona education. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Well if that's the issue, I posted on another thread and I believe there isn't really a direct correlation always between how hard it is to get into a school and how hard is once you are there - that depends on classes taken, major, and the rigor of certain courses of study - some Ivy's aren't that hard once you get there, but some schools, are known for being really tough in terms of academics.

[Anonymous]

Speaking from the perspective of a professor: the extraordinarily high stats that define the majority of the admit pool these days do not mean that those stats are necessary for success in very high-ranked colleges. Kids whose numbers are fine but wouldn't get them noticed without a legacy boost in the admit pool are quite honestly not distinguishable academically once they're all in class together, except perhaps for cases of extraordinary talent in one area. Many, many kids at the top-ranked SLAC I'm most familiar with have various kinds of executive function or similar issues, so I wouldn't worry about that per se.

A better question is whether she would thrive in the atmosphere of the particular school in question. Some of the top SLACs have a very academically competitive culture, especially in the sciences, quite apart from the actual talents of the students, and some have a much more supportive vibe. My hope for every student is that they find the school that's the best fit for their personality, where they will do their best work because they feel supported as well as reasonably challenged by their peers as well as the faculty. There are so many great schools out there. In your daughter's situation, I'd be inclined to let her take the full admissions cycle to find a great fit rather than applying ED, and hope that by next spring on-campus visits are even possible before she has to make a decision.

[Anonymous]

I recall talking to a neighbor whose son was one of the top graduates at our fairly competitive public high school a few years back and ended up at Williams. She said he was shocked at how much more intense it was than high school (and he thought he went to a pretty intense high school.) I don’t know how I would make the decision you’re considering but it does seem to be that how a young person feels about themselves and their academic growth over four years might be more important the name prestige. So many kids struggle with depression and anxiety in college specifically as pertains to the workload. I think ultimately I would want my kid in the school that was best fit vs most prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Some very thoughtful comments immediately above. Probably not an issue because I’d say it’s a vanishingly small chance at Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore. (Though this year could be very different given the pandemic.) Legacy means different things at different places. Some weigh heavily. Others value it not at all, explicitly.