Reply to How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How much does legacy matter at Ivy League schools "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted.  Marginal or not, it still helps.[/quote]

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.[/quote]

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters:  they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.[/quote]

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.[/quote]

All T5 admits (with the possible exception of the children of 8-figure donors) have these kinds of stories. So do the top 5% of students who got rejected from these schools.

Yes, they are distinct, but interchangeable too.  One exceptional kid could be swapped out for another exceptional kid. That's not true of all the applicants, of course. But even the heads of admission at the top tier places admit that they could fill their classes three times over without losing any quality.

I'm happy your kid was accepted -- I'm sure they are amazing!  -- but there are also some amazing kids who didn't make the cut.  There are arbitrary reasons for that last cut: geography, gender, intellectual interest, and yes, child of alumni status.

[/quote]

Thank you for both your kind words about DC and your thoughtful explanation, which does make sense to me. Of the ~15 admits, I could suss out from parent name tags that 3 were legacy. But given how impressive these kids were, I very much disagree with the PPs who keep insisting that legacies are less qualified than non-legacies.[/quote]

There are empirical studies that control for measurable qualifications that show a statistically significant preference to legacy candidates, all else fixed.  But even if you choose to disregard those studies, you can note that the Ivies can fill their classes 10x over with similarly qualified candidates with high GPAs and class rankings, strong extracurriculars, near perfect test scores etc--all of those students have the capacity to succeed as admits-so factors that have nothing to do with merit like being a legacy, a donor etc can easily tip the admissions decision.  [/quote]

[b]So NOT less qualified.[/b] Seems like legacy alone is at most a feather, not a thumb, on the scale. Similar to other institutional priorities like geographic diversity, major selection, etc.[/quote]

Can we stop with this? 80-90% of applicants are "qualified." It means nothing. That does not mean 80-90% of applicants should get in. Nor should 80-90% of athletes...[/quote]

What you are saying makes zero sense since the first part comes directly from school AOs themselves. Regarding the athletes it makes even less sense. They are being admitted for their athletics skill first and foremost provided that they cross an acceptable academic threshold. Their admissions success should be near 100% because they have been so heavily prescreened. YOu may not like it but athletics are important to the Ivy schools (the separate rating factor at Harvard should be a clure there) and will continue to be recruited long after we are gone.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics