Anonymous wrote:I thought it was good and covered all bases, except one, that I continue to rant about.

Part of the reason there is so much competition for the top schools is because so-called elite employers only recruit from them. We need companies to see that there are tons of bright students everywhere. Just look at the girl profiled in the article who is clearly smart and likely has a ton of grit. She's going to Hunter College where no investment bank or MBB would ever look to hire from. Until that mindset is broken, things will not change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

My argument is that we have no idea exactly how big the legacy hook is, because the statistics you love to cite don't take into account that legacies as a whole are likely coming from families with more money. Which means better test scores, more extra-curriculars that create other hooks (i.e., recruited athlete in niche sports), etc. In other words, legacies often have at least some other big hooks or other qualifications too that explain why they're being admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies.

There are data that disprove your argument. You really think researchers haven't bothered to control for high socioeconomic status, rich kid sports and private schools?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html

New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.

Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.
Yet the admissions advantage they get at many elite colleges for being children of alumni is far greater than that. They were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores, according to the data, released Monday. And legacy students from the richest 1 percent of families were five times as likely to be admitted.

The new study was based in part on internal admissions data from several of a group of 12 elite colleges: the Ivy League as well as Duke, M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Stanford. Because the researchers promised anonymity to the colleges that shared it, they would not say whether Harvard was one of them, but they said that admissions practices were generally consistent across other colleges in the group, except for M.I.T.

Controlling for test scores is pretty useless given how low the ceiling is relative to the level of accomplishment that these schools look for. The correct way to do the study would be to control for overall application strength, but if course that's impossible (by design) as the admissions process is holistic and thus not quantitative.

Test scores are highly correlated with income. You can suggest pie-in-the-sky study design, but legacy admissions are obvious to anyone who has the capacity to look at data (and even those who don't).
www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31492/w31492.pdf

Lol you think gpa, ec, essay are not??
Colleges also found test scores are correlated with academic success in college.

THIS. Everything in the process is correlated with income. At least a dedicated low income kid can test prep with free resources even if they can't hire an expensive essay coach and spend their whole life curating impressive ECs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

My argument is that we have no idea exactly how big the legacy hook is, because the statistics you love to cite don't take into account that legacies as a whole are likely coming from families with more money. Which means better test scores, more extra-curriculars that create other hooks (i.e., recruited athlete in niche sports), etc. In other words, legacies often have at least some other big hooks or other qualifications too that explain why they're being admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies.

There are data that disprove your argument. You really think researchers haven't bothered to control for high socioeconomic status, rich kid sports and private schools?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html

New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.

Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.
Yet the admissions advantage they get at many elite colleges for being children of alumni is far greater than that. They were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores, according to the data, released Monday. And legacy students from the richest 1 percent of families were five times as likely to be admitted.

The new study was based in part on internal admissions data from several of a group of 12 elite colleges: the Ivy League as well as Duke, M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Stanford. Because the researchers promised anonymity to the colleges that shared it, they would not say whether Harvard was one of them, but they said that admissions practices were generally consistent across other colleges in the group, except for M.I.T.

Controlling for test scores is pretty useless given how low the ceiling is relative to the level of accomplishment that these schools look for. The correct way to do the study would be to control for overall application strength, but if course that's impossible (by design) as the admissions process is holistic and thus not quantitative.

Test scores are highly correlated with income. You can suggest pie-in-the-sky study design, but legacy admissions are obvious to anyone who has the capacity to look at data (and even those who don't).
www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31492/w31492.pdf

Lol you think gpa, ec, essay are not??
Colleges also found test scores are correlated with academic success in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

My argument is that we have no idea exactly how big the legacy hook is, because the statistics you love to cite don't take into account that legacies as a whole are likely coming from families with more money. Which means better test scores, more extra-curriculars that create other hooks (i.e., recruited athlete in niche sports), etc. In other words, legacies often have at least some other big hooks or other qualifications too that explain why they're being admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies.

There are data that disprove your argument. You really think researchers haven't bothered to control for high socioeconomic status, rich kid sports and private schools?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html

New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.

Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.
Yet the admissions advantage they get at many elite colleges for being children of alumni is far greater than that. They were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores, according to the data, released Monday. And legacy students from the richest 1 percent of families were five times as likely to be admitted.

The new study was based in part on internal admissions data from several of a group of 12 elite colleges: the Ivy League as well as Duke, M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Stanford. Because the researchers promised anonymity to the colleges that shared it, they would not say whether Harvard was one of them, but they said that admissions practices were generally consistent across other colleges in the group, except for M.I.T.

Controlling for test scores is pretty useless given how low the ceiling is relative to the level of accomplishment that these schools look for. The correct way to do the study would be to control for overall application strength, but if course that's impossible (by design) as the admissions process is holistic and thus not quantitative.

Test scores are highly correlated with income. You can suggest pie-in-the-sky study design, but legacy admissions are obvious to anyone who has the capacity to look at data (and even those who don't).
www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31492/w31492.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

My argument is that we have no idea exactly how big the legacy hook is, because the statistics you love to cite don't take into account that legacies as a whole are likely coming from families with more money. Which means better test scores, more extra-curriculars that create other hooks (i.e., recruited athlete in niche sports), etc. In other words, legacies often have at least some other big hooks or other qualifications too that explain why they're being admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies.

There are data that disprove your argument. You really think researchers haven't bothered to control for high socioeconomic status, rich kid sports and private schools?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html

New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.

Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.
Yet the admissions advantage they get at many elite colleges for being children of alumni is far greater than that. They were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores, according to the data, released Monday. And legacy students from the richest 1 percent of families were five times as likely to be admitted.

The new study was based in part on internal admissions data from several of a group of 12 elite colleges: the Ivy League as well as Duke, M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Stanford. Because the researchers promised anonymity to the colleges that shared it, they would not say whether Harvard was one of them, but they said that admissions practices were generally consistent across other colleges in the group, except for M.I.T.

Controlling for test scores is pretty useless given how low the ceiling is relative to the level of accomplishment that these schools look for. The correct way to do the study would be to control for overall application strength, but if course that's impossible (by design) as the admissions process is holistic and thus not quantitative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

My argument is that we have no idea exactly how big the legacy hook is, because the statistics you love to cite don't take into account that legacies as a whole are likely coming from families with more money. Which means better test scores, more extra-curriculars that create other hooks (i.e., recruited athlete in niche sports), etc. In other words, legacies often have at least some other big hooks or other qualifications too that explain why they're being admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies.

There are data that disprove your argument. You really think researchers haven't bothered to control for high socioeconomic status, rich kid sports and private schools?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html

New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.

Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.
Yet the admissions advantage they get at many elite colleges for being children of alumni is far greater than that. They were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores, according to the data, released Monday. And legacy students from the richest 1 percent of families were five times as likely to be admitted.

The new study was based in part on internal admissions data from several of a group of 12 elite colleges: the Ivy League as well as Duke, M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Stanford. Because the researchers promised anonymity to the colleges that shared it, they would not say whether Harvard was one of them, but they said that admissions practices were generally consistent across other colleges in the group, except for M.I.T.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

My argument is that we have no idea exactly how big the legacy hook is, because the statistics you love to cite don't take into account that legacies as a whole are likely coming from families with more money. Which means better test scores, more extra-curriculars that create other hooks (i.e., recruited athlete in niche sports), etc. In other words, legacies often have at least some other big hooks or other qualifications too that explain why they're being admitted at a higher rate than non-legacies.

New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.

Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.
Yet the admissions advantage they get at many elite colleges for being children of alumni is far greater than that. They were nearly four times as likely to be admitted as applicants with the same test scores, according to the data, released Monday. And legacy students from the richest 1 percent of families were five times as likely to be admitted.

The new study was based in part on internal admissions data from several of a group of 12 elite colleges: the Ivy League as well as Duke, M.I.T., the University of Chicago and Stanford. Because the researchers promised anonymity to the colleges that shared it, they would not say whether Harvard was one of them, but they said that admissions practices were generally consistent across other colleges in the group, except for M.I.T.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^sorry, couldn’t for force a student to attend a college they couldn’t *afford*. Typo.

Before you ED, you run the numbers on their website. If the final offer exceeds what you saw, you can go back to them for adjustment. If not, you are obligated to attend unless of course your situation has changed drastically. BTW, your affordability is determined by them, not you.

+1. This. Y’all have to take loans like everyone else. All y’all who had multiple kids in succession are sol too, btw.

I understand we’ll have to take loans and I’m aware the school determines what they think we can pay and I only have one kid, thank you very much. I was only confused because the article suggested that by applying ED and being accepted you had to immediately withdraw other applications and were obligated to attend before knowing what the FA might include and regardless of whether it matched the calculator.

I appreciate all the other pp’s who reassured me that the article has it wrong and my understanding was correct.

I'm going to say the article is correct in spirit, but maybe not from a legal standpoint. I have read that legally colleges cannot hold you to your ED contract, but the spirit of the ED contract is that you won't ED unless you are confident you can afford it and will attend if offered admittance. Students are definitely supposed to pull their other outstanding applications once they are admittted ED. UMiami as one example said very clearly at their admissions presentation that ED is binding and that you should not apply ED unless you know the finances will work out for you and you will attend if offered a spot. Can they hold you to this? Probably not, but if it was super easy to back out of an ED contract, everyone would apply ED. The high school college counselor has to also sign the ED contract. They will absolutely ask you to rescind all outstanding applications if your child is accepted ED. The process was not created for people to be able to compare their financial options. It definitely discriminates against people needing financial aid.

Hint===that's not discrimination. It's a path to college. It's not a path that will work for everyone, but that doesn't make it discrimination. Anyone can choose to ED, it's based on your finances and whether or not you are willing to be full pay at a school.

Fine maybe the word discrimination is technically wrong, but ED favors those who can afford college without financial concerns, even more than the regular process already does. ED is tough for those requiring aid as they cannot compare financial offers from various schools prior to making a decision (some may, but theoretically students are supposed to pull all of their outstanding apps once they get an ED offer).

For those needing aid, I would suggest ED 2 as a better option as some of the state school decisions come out prior to ED2 decisions and if you are happy with your state school option, you can switch your ED2 app to RD prior to the ED2 decision (this reduces the advantage of ED2, but does give you the ability to compare options).

Anonymous wrote:The girl in the article is wealthy, a legacy with perfect test scores, great grades, and private school education PS -12th. Plus the parent has donated to Dartmouth for more than 20 years. I think she’ll be fine.

The point in the article is that perfect children get rejected, but I’d be a little embarrassed being the example of the perfect child here.