Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure- I'm all for merit.

What I don't like is a Hopkins president (and others) seeing legacy as a spoiled kid.

Not every kid that a parent attend a top 20 university comes from wealth, nor did their parents. Many have tons of student loan, were raised by single parents and worked multiple jobs in college...and now their own children are looked down for being legacies and they are lauding driving down the numbers of legacies.

That's what I have a problem with.

If the parents aren’t privileged now I don’t get why they care about getting their kids into a supposedly elite institution that didn’t actually launch them well.

Because their values and priorities might be different from yours. Not everyone makes educational and career decisions based on the goal of being economically privileged.

Does “launch” now just mean ending up rich?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools rely on alumni for fundraising. How will this affect a school's donations if there is no such legacy preference? Doesn't this fundraising help financial aide?

I'm a PP above who gives more to the school without legacy status.

People need to seriously reflect if they know they would give less to their alma mater based on the removal of legacy policies.

Likewise, schools need to find a way to cut this tie while still encouraging people to give.

And how do you propose this? Many many people do contribute just in case their kid(s) want to attend. It doesn't help really help for admissions I suspect, unless you are contributing in the 6 figures+ yearly. But for those contributing 2-3K/year in hopes it helps their kid get in, that money is what helps pay for merit and FA awards for others. Donations dwindle, and the colleges that meet "full FA without loans beyond the standard federal $5.5K" will be much smaller. So it's a catch 22.

Yes---we personally gave $2-3K/year for the 7 years before our kids might apply. Last kid had the stats/resume/interest, did ED and got deferred and rejected. Did I give this year? Nope. Plan to redirect that money to local organizations where I have more control/can see exactly where the money is going. Much better ways to support education than a T10 school---I'd prefer to help at the pre-K/ES/MS level locally in the neediest areas to help provide for those kids so when they finish HS they are on track to attend college.

Maybe I am an outlier, but I actually have no problem if schools were explicit that they have X number of spots for anyone willing to donate X$$s or above (first come)...imagine it would be at least 7 figures, maybe 8 figures. Your kid has to meet some minimum qualifications with respect to GPA/Test scores (which you would know ahead of your donation), but you won't be bothered with writing supplementals and all the other BS. At least it would be transparent to the rest of us...who all know that is happening anyway but behind closed doors.

Get rid of legacy and just make it clear that donating $100 or $1000 or even $10,000 per year is not impactful to these schools, so help more deserving groups somewhere else.

Finally, I imagine that admissions can probably throw out 50% of the applications they receive from kids who really have no business applying to that school. For the remainder, maybe create some buckets of kids to create geographic and income and whatever diversity (yeah, I know this is still rife with some problems, but just trying to communicate the idea)...and then just pull names out of the buckets for admission. Admission is kind of a lottery already, so again, just be transparent that it literally will be a lottery.

Most of the T20 schools, at ~90-95%of applicants have "business applying to that school". Most T20 schools could build amazing freshman classes many times over. Issue is there are too many qualified students, so not everyone will get in. It's a lottery in so many ways, people need to recognize this and pick strong targets and safeties as well, so they are happy come May 1

Wish I could find the article, but a Stanford professor did an analysis of Stanford applicants back in 2019 and said 50% were "easy" to toss out due to a number of different factors:

- SAT scores well below the 50% Stanford SAT score (this was prior to TO...not sure how many of his 50% were tossed due to low test scores)...these kids were not athletes or URM, but were applying with 1200 SAT scores prior to TO;
- Glaring application errors/typos...kids applying to Stanford plus all the Ivies and forgetting to do simple find-and-replace on their essays, so their essay about why they wanted to go to Stanford was a generic essay where they forgot to remove Harvard from the essay...you may argue that kid was qualified based on everything else, but seems fair that this application gets easily tossed;
- For whatever reason, applied but the application was never complete...transcripts, recommendation letters, official scores were not sent and the applicant never bothered to check the portal to try to remedy...again, likely applied to too many schools and just didn't have the bandwidth

Yes, in instances #2 and #3 above those kids could absolutely be qualified, however, Stanford AOs are looking for easy reasons to toss an application, and those are easy reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Not true for the kids at our Big 3. I'll start with the fact that I am referring to the set of kids who are all privileged - so none of them needs a leg up or a favor - they will all do fine. But certainly there are kids who are nowhere close to being in most rigorous courses, highest GPA/scores who are getting in as legacy. They are not brining some other special quality to the table other than the fact that their parent went to the Ivy (and often that the other parent is a VIP).

Yes, they will graduate from their Ivy - but there is no reason why that kid is special and needs the Ivy admit over the 20 kids who worked their tails off to get better grades in FAR harder classes.

Yes, those kids exist, but I dare you to show me that all of Harvards/Yale/Princton's legacy admits only got in because they are legacy. 95% of them would have made ideal candidates already. So you are nitpicking for 15-20 slots per year at each school (at the most) that went to "underqualified" candidates. When there are 40K applicants, this has minimal effect. The students who would benefit most from getting that spot are not donut hole families, but more first gen/lower income students and most of the Ivy's/T20 schools make a concerted effort already to increase this population yearly and work to better support them.
Most of you on this group arguing are not doing it to provide access to those that would truly benefit from getting into a T20 school, which is the first gen/lower income students. you are mad that your donut hole student isn't part of the 5% admission at a T20 school because your kid "worked so hard they deserve this".

The benefit of legacy is that even an ideal candidate is a long shot. Legacy gives that same candidate a decent chance

I'd need to see the stats for how many legacies the T20 schools don't accept each year.

Yes, it increases their chances. no doubt about that, but for the majority, they worked there asses off to have the stats to be an ideal candidate. When 95% of students are rejected, you are arguing about such a small number it's not that significant. People really need to get over the "my kid worked their ass off and has a 1580/4.0 and deserves a T20 school" mentality. You would be a lot happier with life if you said, sure it's a lottery, I earned a lottery ticket, now while I wait for the drawing lets find several other amazing schools that I'd like to attend, where it's easier to get in and focus all that working our ass off efforts into getting into those". For those UMC kids, going to HYP gives only a minimal advantage. The fact so many are obsessed with this and how it's unfair their kid didn't get in is shocking.
(hint: my kids didn't get into T20 schools, despite 2 of them having the stats/resume to compete)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Not true for the kids at our Big 3. I'll start with the fact that I am referring to the set of kids who are all privileged - so none of them needs a leg up or a favor - they will all do fine. But certainly there are kids who are nowhere close to being in most rigorous courses, highest GPA/scores who are getting in as legacy. They are not brining some other special quality to the table other than the fact that their parent went to the Ivy (and often that the other parent is a VIP).

Yes, they will graduate from their Ivy - but there is no reason why that kid is special and needs the Ivy admit over the 20 kids who worked their tails off to get better grades in FAR harder classes.

Yes, those kids exist, but I dare you to show me that all of Harvards/Yale/Princton's legacy admits only got in because they are legacy. 95% of them would have made ideal candidates already. So you are nitpicking for 15-20 slots per year at each school (at the most) that went to "underqualified" candidates. When there are 40K applicants, this has minimal effect. The students who would benefit most from getting that spot are not donut hole families, but more first gen/lower income students and most of the Ivy's/T20 schools make a concerted effort already to increase this population yearly and work to better support them.
Most of you on this group arguing are not doing it to provide access to those that would truly benefit from getting into a T20 school, which is the first gen/lower income students. you are mad that your donut hole student isn't part of the 5% admission at a T20 school because your kid "worked so hard they deserve this".

I'm not mad at anything. I just don't think legacy should be a factor. Take it away and THEN you will see who is admitted and who isn't. Then when your legacy child gets in, there's no question as to legacy status.

Sure - the self congratulatory special poster above whose family is "known by name" at the University will probably have her kids still get in based on connections. But I bet many others won't.

My kid doesn't even want to go to an Ivy. I just think it's ridiculous that all these Ivy parents feel their kids were just as qualified as anyone and would have gotten in regardless. Or that they are so entitled to think they deserve some sort of compensation for the time/$ they gave or carry some special contribution by being a loyal legacy kid with extra school spirit in their (blue) blood.

If your kid is so great and deserving - then apply without legacy and see how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse and and I attended the same TOP 10 SLAC to which we have committed much time, talent and treasure over the 30+ years since graduation. I am gong to be completely honest, the legacy status of our children would be recognized by the university even if there wasn't a box to check on the Common App. There is no denying when you are on a first name basis with the Dean of Admissions, Alumni Director and other top administrators. I say this as someone who received 100% financial aid from this institution and have been more than happy to give back to them.

And as long as you kid has scores/stats/EC/overall resume to be part of the incoming freshman class, then yes I see no reason not to give admission. Even if "legacy" is ruled out by SC, it will be difficult to enforce, especially since most colleges offer holistic admissions. Very few legacies are admitted that aren't within the norm for that school.

The fact is a kid only gets this legacy status at 2 schools (unless grandparents are wealthy and involved with a university). Harvard still turns away qualified legacies each year. It's not a guarantee that your kid will get admitted.

I agree that it is not a guarantee at all, but our child was completely qualified and admitted ED. I would never want my child to be admitted to such selective college if they were not qualified, but being as involved as we are, we are well aware of what it takes to be considered for admission.

My oldest is a good but not stellar student (26 Act/3.5UW/only 1 AP course and didn't do well). For one of their top 2 choices, we have a friend/colleague who is personal friends with the University president and Head of admissions (the president's wife)--as in vacations with them, actual really good friends, not just acquaintances. Yes, we are privileged, but hell yes, we had the friend write a letter of recommendation and help make sure we got to meet head of admissions when we visited. Yes, my kid got in and there's a 95% chance they would have gotten in anyhow (was at 50% for stats and their in depth ECs made them extemely attractive to that a university that values service, commitment to community), but of course we utilized every means we could to help ensure they got admitted (This was for a T100 school with 50% acceptance rate) They did, but choose their other top choice.

So my kid was qualified, and we used our connections. This happens in life with everything. We recognize our privilege and work to give back to the community to help others less privileged. I grew up poor and didn't have these privileges then. I worked my ass off to do better in life and provide more for my family. Don't normally use connections for our kids--we believe in them working hard and earning things as it means much more. However, I will also use connections to help our kids get jobs should they need it (they likely wont---that same kid graduated, found an amazing job all on their own at a T100 university).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Not true for the kids at our Big 3. I'll start with the fact that I am referring to the set of kids who are all privileged - so none of them needs a leg up or a favor - they will all do fine. But certainly there are kids who are nowhere close to being in most rigorous courses, highest GPA/scores who are getting in as legacy. They are not brining some other special quality to the table other than the fact that their parent went to the Ivy (and often that the other parent is a VIP).

Yes, they will graduate from their Ivy - but there is no reason why that kid is special and needs the Ivy admit over the 20 kids who worked their tails off to get better grades in FAR harder classes.

Yes, those kids exist, but I dare you to show me that all of Harvards/Yale/Princton's legacy admits only got in because they are legacy. 95% of them would have made ideal candidates already. So you are nitpicking for 15-20 slots per year at each school (at the most) that went to "underqualified" candidates. When there are 40K applicants, this has minimal effect. The students who would benefit most from getting that spot are not donut hole families, but more first gen/lower income students and most of the Ivy's/T20 schools make a concerted effort already to increase this population yearly and work to better support them.
Most of you on this group arguing are not doing it to provide access to those that would truly benefit from getting into a T20 school, which is the first gen/lower income students. you are mad that your donut hole student isn't part of the 5% admission at a T20 school because your kid "worked so hard they deserve this".

The benefit of legacy is that even an ideal candidate is a long shot. Legacy gives that same candidate a decent chance

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Not true for the kids at our Big 3. I'll start with the fact that I am referring to the set of kids who are all privileged - so none of them needs a leg up or a favor - they will all do fine. But certainly there are kids who are nowhere close to being in most rigorous courses, highest GPA/scores who are getting in as legacy. They are not brining some other special quality to the table other than the fact that their parent went to the Ivy (and often that the other parent is a VIP).

Yes, they will graduate from their Ivy - but there is no reason why that kid is special and needs the Ivy admit over the 20 kids who worked their tails off to get better grades in FAR harder classes.

Yes, those kids exist, but I dare you to show me that all of Harvards/Yale/Princton's legacy admits only got in because they are legacy. 95% of them would have made ideal candidates already. So you are nitpicking for 15-20 slots per year at each school (at the most) that went to "underqualified" candidates. When there are 40K applicants, this has minimal effect. The students who would benefit most from getting that spot are not donut hole families, but more first gen/lower income students and most of the Ivy's/T20 schools make a concerted effort already to increase this population yearly and work to better support them.
Most of you on this group arguing are not doing it to provide access to those that would truly benefit from getting into a T20 school, which is the first gen/lower income students. you are mad that your donut hole student isn't part of the 5% admission at a T20 school because your kid "worked so hard they deserve this".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse and and I attended the same TOP 10 SLAC to which we have committed much time, talent and treasure over the 30+ years since graduation. I am gong to be completely honest, the legacy status of our children would be recognized by the university even if there wasn't a box to check on the Common App. There is no denying when you are on a first name basis with the Dean of Admissions, Alumni Director and other top administrators. I say this as someone who received 100% financial aid from this institution and have been more than happy to give back to them.

And as long as you kid has scores/stats/EC/overall resume to be part of the incoming freshman class, then yes I see no reason not to give admission. Even if "legacy" is ruled out by SC, it will be difficult to enforce, especially since most colleges offer holistic admissions. Very few legacies are admitted that aren't within the norm for that school.

The fact is a kid only gets this legacy status at 2 schools (unless grandparents are wealthy and involved with a university). Harvard still turns away qualified legacies each year. It's not a guarantee that your kid will get admitted.

I agree that it is not a guarantee at all, but our child was completely qualified and admitted ED. I would never want my child to be admitted to such selective college if they were not qualified, but being as involved as we are, we are well aware of what it takes to be considered for admission.

Anonymous wrote:Spouse and and I attended the same TOP 10 SLAC to which we have committed much time, talent and treasure over the 30+ years since graduation. I am gong to be completely honest, the legacy status of our children would be recognized by the university even if there wasn't a box to check on the Common App. There is no denying when you are on a first name basis with the Dean of Admissions, Alumini Director and other top administrators. I say this as someone who received 100% financial aid from this institution and have been more than happy to give back to them.

And as long as you kid has scores/stats/EC/overall resume to be part of the incoming freshman class, then yes I see no reason not to give admission. Even if "legacy" is ruled out by SC, it will be difficult to enforce, especially since most colleges offer holistic admissions. Very few legacies are admitted that aren't within the norm for that school.

The fact is a kid only gets this legacy status at 2 schools (unless grandparents are wealthy and involved with a university). Harvard still turns away qualified legacies each year. It's not a guarantee that your kid will get admitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Not true for the kids at our Big 3. I'll start with the fact that I am referring to the set of kids who are all privileged - so none of them needs a leg up or a favor - they will all do fine. But certainly there are kids who are nowhere close to being in most rigorous courses, highest GPA/scores who are getting in as legacy. They are not brining some other special quality to the table other than the fact that their parent went to the Ivy (and often that the other parent is a VIP).

Yes, they will graduate from their Ivy - but there is no reason why that kid is special and needs the Ivy admit over the 20 kids who worked their tails off to get better grades in FAR harder classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white, from a privileged background, and have parents and grandparents who went to Ivy league schools, Stanford, and other top universities. I don't think legacy status should be considered at all. I mean come on; the truth is the practice does give a leg up to those who are already privileged - aka resource hoarding. It says little to nothing about the applicant themselves. There is just no way to defeat that argument. It is a bs reason to let a kid into a school over another equally qualified applicant (as that is really how its most frequently used). It should not be considered a hook in any way.

I have one question though that I have never been able to find a solution to - how do you encourage alum to donate if it won't help their kid get in? It is the number one reason people donate long term. How do you replace the private scholarships funded for basically the same reason? How do you replace all that money that the school depends on? When most don't have enough to give to have a building named for them, and there is no longer any legacy status bestowed on their kids, how do you get donations from the ordinary graduates?

Schools that got rid of legacy have not had a measurable effect on donations. They are still getting plenty of donations.
Most people give money because they ultimately believe in the school’s mission and values - that is what the big donations are generally about

+1 Not only that, but they could lower the cost and so they don't need to provide that much aide.

Oxbridge is half the cost of Harvard, but it's still an elite college. And they don't look at legacies.

We have a friend in the UK whose kid went to Oxbridge. We were talking to them about how college works here, the cost, the legacy hooks, etc.. and they were just floored.

The US college system of today is beyond absurd. We are encouraging our kids to study abroad.

+1

Too many people, too many students, and not enough spaces. The US is becoming overcrowded - FAST.

There are tons of spaces. Most colleges out there are dying for students. The problem is that everyone want sot go to the same few places.

+1000

Step outside the T20-25 and it is much easier to get accepted. These are still excellent universities---majority of people attend schools ranked below T20 and many do well in life. Change your attitude and you can succeed at a great school

If you think crazy admissions are limited to T25, you haven't been paying attention for the last few years

Oh, I've been living it thank you.

However, if you choose well, you can find amazing schools for your kids even outside the T50. My own high stat kid (1500/3.99UW, 10 AP with 5's on all, EC with 20+ hours per week dedication along with several other ECs), didn't get into T20, but they got into one in 30s, 2 in 40s, and one in the 60s (their safety). How did we do this? We showed interest (but didn't visit until summer before and for one didn't visit until April senior year), and continued to show interest. We scheduled interviews at schools that offered them---learned what it takes to show demonstrated interest so my kid was not "yield protected". We had a wide range of schools selected, including safeties that my kid loved. My kid seriously considered their top safety up until mid April---because it was an amazing school.

Had we needed merit, we would have applied to schools that would have offered it---it would have meant dropping a tier but that would be fine, much better than being in debt. As it is my kid got 60% tuition at a T45 school, making it $40-45K/year cost. So decent merit at a good school and 30% tuition at their safety. Had we needed 100% tuition, there were schools we could have found that (likely ranked 80+ or beyond, but these schools exist).

Basically, we got rid of the "t20 or bust" mentality and actively searched for the best fit for our kid. Did the ED at a T20, got deferred, made our kid "get over it" 48 hours later and consider it a rejection and focus on the rest of process. Found a great safety school, that was so good my own kid seriously considered turning down 3 higher ranked schools and attend the safety.

Yes, it's competitive, but if you choose wisely you will have amazing choices for your kid. Sure my kid isn't at a T20 school, but they will do amazing things because they aren't at college complaining they didn't get into a T20/elite school. Instead they are focused on life, learning and getting all they can out of their best fit school. They will go far in life because of what they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Yes, I include all of these groups when removing legacy. You don't "volunteer" or "donate" to an organization because you are expecting to get something in return for the organization.

If I were to choose one category to keep, it would be probably be faculty children. But, if I were a prof, I'd be ok if that were removed as long as my benefits included reimbursement for my kid to go to whatever other school they were accepted to (they get paid so little!)

Why would you keep legacy for faculty children but deny it to children of employees or staff? Faculty members are much more privileged than staff. What about former faculty and staff (someone who retired or moved to another position)?

Again - as I noted - I'd get rid of it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Yes, the legacy candidates are qualified. The issue is that "legacy" admissions typically represent a history of privilege, because certain demographic groups were historically prohibited from attending the university. There is no need to give preference to those who already have that privilege in their family, when there are plenty of other ways to select candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Absolutely. None of what you describe comes close to compensating for denying seats to more academically qualified applicants, and shutting out a swathe of diverse candidates who cannot be legacy because of this country's previously racist university admissions.

You don't seem to grasp that you're talking about minor, insignificant acts of service here, PP. Go read the files of worthy applicants and you'll see what the really valuable candidates have managed to do in their short life. It's incredibly unfair to deny them a spot just because someone's parent did a little something for their alma mater. And it's entirely wrong-headed of you to think that what the parent does somehow makes their child worthier. Do you even realize what you're saying?!?! You're passing judgment on a kid because of who their parent is and what their parent has done? Are you crazy?


So bizarre.

The majority of "legacy" spots are going to candidates that are equally qualified...majority are not George W Bush who obviously got in to college when he didn't have the resume. Yes there are some who are extremely well connected/wealthy who get in when they don't have the qualifications, but that is NOT the norm.

They are not just "giving a spot to someone for what their parent has done". So when comparing two candidates, they choose to tip the scales to the one who is a legacy. IN the same way that the scales might be tipped to someone who writes an exceptional essay or does a unique EC. Harvard only fills 14% of their class with legacy (so about 150 kids). Majority of those 150 kids have the resume to be at Harvard. But just as easily could have been denied, like the 95% of applicants who are denied.
Just because you have the stats, EC, resume for a top 20 school, it doesn't mean you will gain admission. It doesn't mean you are entitled to admission.
Whether you get in or not can simply depend upon if the AO read your application for 2-3 mins right after having their morning coffee or if they read it at midnight 2 days before decisions are due. Was the AO having a pissy day and just miserable or were they having a great day and totally on their job? Most applications are given less than 5 mins of review (that's being generous). So the decision to say "yay or nay" is a toss up, given that 95%+ of applicants to t20 schools would make ideal candidates. But only 5-7% will get an acceptance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the anti-legacy posters do you also oppose any and all legacy preference for kids of current and former faculty, staff and employees of the University (including those who are alumni themselves)?

What about legacy preference for kids of alumni who donate hundreds (or thousands) of hours of their time over the years answering the university's call to interview undergraduate applicants for admission in their town?

What about the alumni who spend hundreds of hours volunteering to organize the 5 year class reunions?

Should the relationship for those employees and alumni be a one way street with all the benefits going to the university?

My long experience with a school that offers a legacy boost (for ED applicants only) is that a large percentage of "legacy" applicants fall into one of the above categories. That makes sense as those are the parents/kids who know the university better than your ordinary alumni whose connection to the University may not go much beyond some donations to the annual fund.

Curious whether folks on here think banning all legacy -- with zero exceptions -- really is the right approach.

Yes, I include all of these groups when removing legacy. You don't "volunteer" or "donate" to an organization because you are expecting to get something in return for the organization.

If I were to choose one category to keep, it would be probably be faculty children. But, if I were a prof, I'd be ok if that were removed as long as my benefits included reimbursement for my kid to go to whatever other school they were accepted to (they get paid so little!)

Why would you keep legacy for faculty children but deny it to children of employees or staff? Faculty members are much more privileged than staff. What about former faculty and staff (someone who retired or moved to another position)?