Which Ivies aren't selective?

Anonymous wrote:It is ridiculous for people to suggest that legacy isn't a hook at Harvard that gives students a boost in admissions when Harvard openly acknowledges that it is.

No one in this thread is suggesting this. Everyone wants to go to the tired narrative on the subject, by suggesting that the standards are lower. Just isn't the case.

It is ridiculous for people to suggest that legacy isn't a hook at Harvard that gives students a boost in admissions when Harvard openly acknowledges that it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you linked to is not helpful.

Here:

Seventy-four percent of respondents who reported having at least one parent who attended the College said that they were accepted early to Harvard. By comparison, 56 percent of all respondents said they were admitted early.

Not helpful only if you want to ignore facts. Legacy admits had on average 50 point higher SATs. Where is the lowering of the bar that everyone refers to?

Citation, please?

Go to the beginning of the thread and click on the link. See SAT by Legacy Status.

Most applicants to Harvard have great SAT scores. The legacy advantage is that you lead little more than top grades and top SAT scores to get in. Non-legacies need exceptional accomplishments in addition to great test scores and a great gpa. Isn't this common knowledge?

Also, note that only 70% of the class responded. Surely less qualified, hooked students would be less likely to want to participate in a survey like this. This data isn't reliable.

It only helps if you are on the bubble.

big legacy advantage is through their dna.

I have a few different takeaways from looking at the data. Please help me is I am reading incorrectly:

1. Successful legacy applicants had 60 point higher SATs, so at least statistically the hook value is dubious
2. Recruited athletes had the largest SAT gap with the class average at -188 points
3. Comparatively URM groups, while having lower SAT scores, were not as far behind as I thought at -55 points for Hisp/Lat and -99 points for AA
4. One of the highest correlations of scores seems to be with family income. Example, 133 point delta between $250k family and lowest income group (pure speculation, but this may explain quite a bit of the gaps in URM scores)
5. I have read elsewhere that recruited athletes on average have higher SES than the rest of the class
6. So, normalized for income, recruited athletes are the biggest drag on scores, the flipside of which is that being a recruited athlete is the single most valuable hook - perhaps by far

I am a little surprised by the number of recruited athletes in the class, at 11%. I would have expected this to be higher.

Anonymous wrote:All your facts tell me is that if they are very likely to admit a legacy at some point, they do it in the early round rather than waiting to RD. Why piss off your donor base? There is also a decided "awareness advantage" of legacy applicants, which is to be understood given the fact that most of them have spent time on campus through the years at reunions etc. and some are even the sons/daughters of faculty and administrators. No one has ever disputed the point that on a non-normalized basis, legacies get in more frequently especially in the early round. Harvard fully admits this. They also assert that the legacy pool of applicants is quite strong, which is partially evidenced by the Crimson's data.

In general, selective colleges will only give legacy a bump in the early decision round. The rationale is to only give a leg up if the school is the student's first choice. If a legacy would prefer to go elsewhere, they aren't any more likely to give or be more involved with the school, so there's no reason to treat them any differently. But because they are from a pretty privileged group, they tend to have higher test scores and higher gpas than the average applicant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you linked to is not helpful.

Here:

Seventy-four percent of respondents who reported having at least one parent who attended the College said that they were accepted early to Harvard. By comparison, 56 percent of all respondents said they were admitted early.

Not helpful only if you want to ignore facts. Legacy admits had on average 50 point higher SATs. Where is the lowering of the bar that everyone refers to?

Citation, please?

Go to the beginning of the thread and click on the link. See SAT by Legacy Status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you linked to is not helpful.

Here:

Seventy-four percent of respondents who reported having at least one parent who attended the College said that they were accepted early to Harvard. By comparison, 56 percent of all respondents said they were admitted early.

Not helpful only if you want to ignore facts. Legacy admits had on average 50 point higher SATs. Where is the lowering of the bar that everyone refers to?

Citation, please?

Anonymous wrote:What you linked to is not helpful.

Here:

Seventy-four percent of respondents who reported having at least one parent who attended the College said that they were accepted early to Harvard. By comparison, 56 percent of all respondents said they were admitted early.

All your facts tell me is that if they are very likely to admit a legacy at some point, they do it in the early round rather than waiting to RD. Why piss off your donor base? There is also a decided "awareness advantage" of legacy applicants, which is to be understood given the fact that most of them have spent time on campus through the years at reunions etc. and some are even the sons/daughters of faculty and administrators. No one has ever disputed the point that on a non-normalized basis, legacies get in more frequently especially in the early round. Harvard fully admits this. They also assert that the legacy pool of applicants is quite strong, which is partially evidenced by the Crimson's data.

Anonymous wrote:What you linked to is not helpful.

Here:

Seventy-four percent of respondents who reported having at least one parent who attended the College said that they were accepted early to Harvard. By comparison, 56 percent of all respondents said they were admitted early.

Not helpful only if you want to ignore facts. Legacy admits had on average 50 point higher SATs. Where is the lowering of the bar that everyone refers to?

What you linked to is not helpful.

Here:

Seventy-four percent of respondents who reported having at least one parent who attended the College said that they were accepted early to Harvard. By comparison, 56 percent of all respondents said they were admitted early.

First time that I have seen real data on the subject, rather than just rampant conjecture:

http://features.thecrimson.com/2014/freshman-survey/admissions/

Very interesting.