Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

So 2 applicants are virtually equal in scores and gpa and equally desirable as students.

Who gets the nod? Would legacy be ok to make the decision?

That buffoon can’t comprehend that just saying “merit” has no meaning. You can’t argue with simpletons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

So 2 applicants are virtually equal in scores and gpa and equally desirable as students.

Who gets the nod? Would legacy be ok to make the decision?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I mean, I get it. It's your kid, and I understand wanting to give them every advantage you can. I completely understand.

But I don't think anyone should be able to pull that particular string. I definitely don't think the answer is to shame parents into refraining from using existing connections, but instead to change the system so that no one can leverage those connections.

Well yes, we "pulled that string" because we could. And as long as it's available we will utilize it. However, my kid 95% likely would have gotten in without that anyhow. They got into a very similar (essentially the same ranking) university with same stats and got one of the highest general merit awards there as well (meaning the one that most private schools just automatically award upon acceptance---no extra application needed). So fact is my kid probably didn't need what we did, but yeah, it's our kid, it's available and if others can use it we might as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see what seems like a lot of posts from people strongly opposed to “legacy admissions” and I’m curious about this position. I agree that unqualified applicants should not be admitted to any schools. Do you assume that no legacy applicants are qualified for admission to the school their parent attended? That seems odd to me given how important parental expectations are for success in school and life.

Do you mean that no kids should be permitted to apply to the schools their parents attended? How would it even work, when the common app asks for parental information (and that appears to be the basis for first generation applicants)? And how is it different from school that look at demonstrated interest? Why should legacy kids’ interest in attending the school they are familiar with, have a personal/family connection to, and likely grew up knowing about, visiting, rooting for its sports teams, etc not be allowed to follow that interest?

Genuinely curious, I promise.

Not rocket science. Simply ignore legacy status, focus on merit 100%.

Candidate deserves it? Gets in.

Doesn't deserve it? Doesn't get in.

Who your parents are should be irrelevant.

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.

No I'm not crazy since these are not my policies. What you are saying, however, is that most of the top private universities in the US are "bizarre" and "crazy"

DP.. well, they certainly had racist practices which caused mostly these white parents to have the privilege of volunteering at their almamater to give their already privileged kids an advantage that non white kids don't have, both currently and historically.

But in the last 20-25 years these schools have become majority POC and now you want to remove legacy preference just when it starts benefitting alumni POC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I mean, I get it. It's your kid, and I understand wanting to give them every advantage you can. I completely understand.

But I don't think anyone should be able to pull that particular string. I definitely don't think the answer is to shame parents into refraining from using existing connections, but instead to change the system so that no one can leverage those connections.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.