I think I read somewhere that at Brown U., if you take out all the spots for legacies, donors, athletes, international students, that leaves something like 10% of the spots open for the general public.

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

I am strongly in favor of getting rid of the athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) preferences. I think they are awful - and I say that as someone whose children would hugely benefit from my legacy preferences. My kids will do fine even if they don't go to my elite college.

But it's more complicated than "by far the most strongly advantaged." For example, when you look at the admit rates by race and LDC status (p.66), you see that of white LDC with academic rating of 3, only 21 percent got in, but of African American non-ALDC, 40 percent were admitted. For Asian non-LDC applicants with that rating, only 6 percent were admitted. On the other hand, the admit rates for the most academically qualified African Americans were lower than for that of whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.

Which would make it more challenging for non-hooked white applicants to get in, would it not?

It makes it harder for ALL applicants to get in. What it really demonstrates is that all you folks who complain about URMs should really be focusing your energies elsewhere - athletic recruits in particular.

Anonymous wrote:You know, people can have happy and productive lives without going to Harvard. It’s one school with more qualified applicants than seats available.

It's sad that there is a national obsession with schools that the majority will never, ever interact with in any way.

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.

Which would make it more challenging for non-hooked white applicants to get in, would it not?

You know, people can have happy and productive lives without going to Harvard. It’s one school with more qualified applicants than seats available.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: What do you think of the children of faculty and staff getting those preferences?

Because it helps with retention of in demand faculty members. Also if staff kids choose another college, (most) universities/colleges pay the tuition (usually full or half depending on employer and length of service).

Cheaper for Harvard to educate them at ‘home’ than paying elsewhere.

That's not completely true. At some privates, they incentivize faculty kids going elsewhere by paying a portion of that tuition so they don't take up a full pay spot with a non-paying faculty brat. Most state schools do not have reciprocity with other schools but may give full or half tuition to faculty kids as a recruitment/retention perq.

Anonymous wrote: What do you think of the children of faculty and staff getting those preferences?

Because it helps with retention of in demand faculty members. Also if staff kids choose another college, (most) universities/colleges pay the tuition (usually full or half depending on employer and length of service).

Cheaper for Harvard to educate them at ‘home’ than paying elsewhere.

It’s a place with a 5% admissions rate. Why is anyone surprised that it is highly unlikely that their kid will get in?

People will keep sending them $60 for the pleasure of getting a rejection, regardless of the numbers.

At many schools, faculty kids get tuition paid for too at any school they choose which is awesome!

What do you think of the children of faculty and staff getting those preferences?

I believe it.
There have been many studies and books written that come to the same conclusion.
If the shoe fits...

I'm not saying it not correct, but this seems to be based on a very shaky foundation: "It is important to point out that we no longer have access to Harvard’s individual-level applicant data. As a result, the findings presented in the current paper are based solely on information in the publicly released versions of the expert witness reports or information publicly released in other documents. A full list of the documents we rely on is presented in Appendix A. Fortunately, the publicly available documents provide enough detailed in- formation for us to infer the characteristics of ALDC applicants relative to their non-ALDC peers, and the preferences afforded to ALDC applicants in the admissions process. Appendix B provides both a general and detailed account of how each number we present is generated based on information in the public record."

No individual SAT/GPA scores, just internal rankings and expert testimony that allows them to infer the average characteristics of each group.


There was a recent study that looked at what the demographics of the top (30?) colleges would look like if only SAT scores were used for admissions. The white proportion went from ~65 to about 75%, the Asian proportion stayed basically the same, and the black/Hispanic proportion went down considerably.

Tell us something we don't know.

More evidence that athletic, legacy, donor and children of faculty and staff (ALDC) are by far the most strongly advantaged in the admissions process. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

Using the data disclosed in the lawsuit, the researchers modeled it and came to several conclusions. From the abstract: published a bunch of findings including:

Holistic admissions favors students in these categories, not minorities or first gen students (unless they are also in one of these groups).

43% of Harvard white admits fall into the above categories. Three-quarters of those admitted ALDCs would be rejected without those hooks based on their academic records.

Only by removing prefs for legacy and athletes will you change the admission rates of non-white racial and ethnic groups.