Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other things being equal between two otherwise identical candidates, your kid will get admitted. Marginal or not, it still helps.

People say this, but how often are two candidates truly identical? Perhaps they could have identical stats, but wouldn’t their essays and such distinguish them from one another? I don’t think my special snowflake is any more special than anyone else’s special snowflake, but I genuinely believe no other kid could have written my kid’s essays (and vice versa), had the same combination of activities and awards, etc.

No other kid could have written your kid's essays, but an essay coach might have!

Two kids from top schools with GPAs and test scores with <5% difference, who have both taken all top rigor courses and have good but not national level ECs, with similar ethic/ economic/ educational circumstances -- maybe has slightly more impressive ECs, and the other has more enthusiastic letters: they are functionally identical. Unless a kid is truly remarkable (Regeneron winner, nationally ranked figure skater, etc), any decision btw them is random.

In such a case, legacy can often be the tie breaker.

My family attended a T5 early admit reception earlier this year, and the 15 or so students who’d been admitted from our geographical region were extremely distinctive from each other (AO did a shout-out of each kid and why their particular application had stood out). I honestly don’t think these kids had enough similarities (beyond test scores and GPAs) to go head to head with a tie breaker like you describe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yeah it is a tough call between trying early at the Ivy or maybe trying a school early like UChicago/Hopkins/NYU/Georgetown.

I actually think my kid will blow it out of the park in college since the sports road is ending and the kid is a wizard and managing time and studying efficiently so they will fit in a lot of stuff.

But I recognize that almost recruited level isn't special when you are reading it...but as a parent I can say it is pretty special the level of time and dedication and grit it takes to give it a go, even if it doesn't work out.

Didn't realize nyu was that highly regarded

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it helps anymore at Harvard if you aren't a donor. Among my friends, no one's kids have gotten in. Among aquaintances, the kids who got in all had some kind of big hook, national recognition.

My own extremely high stat, strong ECs, strong leadership, but no non-profit/published research kid was rejected (double legacy). Yet he was accepted at a different ivy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, legacy helps at Ivies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/
A 2023 civil rights complaint against Harvard reported that between 2014 and 2019, donor-related applicants were a whopping seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants, while legacy applicants were almost six times more likely to be admitted. Though “recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff” make up less than 5% of the applicant pool, they constitute approximately 30% of those accepted each year. At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year. The school has one of the highest rates of legacy admission nationally. In other words, at top schools, legacy status still matters—and it matters a lot.

But were these applicants less qualified? Or do smart people have smart kids who work really hard to get into mom and/or dad's alma mater because they want the same experience.

My spouse went to an Ivy. I went to an Ivy equivalent. Our HS freshman wants to go to one of our schools really badly. We don't donate a lot. We have made it clear that he has to work really hard to get in. He is already a highly motivated, smart kid, but this pushes him even more.

There are definitely some kids who get an edge because of donations and/or legacies. But the reported numbers are really exaggerated.

What's your evidence that the reported numbers are really exaggerated? My spouse and I both went to Ivies, and recognize that if our kids do want to go to any of our alma maters, it will be a big boost that they have relative to non-legacy kids.

I am saying that all of these people getting really worked up about legacies being accepted at a much higher rate are assuming that the vast majority of these kids are several standard deviations below the average non-legacy admit. And that is not true. I would bet that a large percentage would have gotten in anyway, a decent percentage are borderline, most of the rest are relatively close, with a few notable outliers.

No, that's not the case. Try reading some studies with data rather than assuming that legacy kids are highly deserving replicas of their parents. This one finds that roughly 3/4 of white ALDC (athletes, legacies, big donors, children of faculty or staff) wouldn't have gotten in without their special status.
https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-arcidiacono.pdf

Well, for sure athletes make up most of that. Everyone knows they aren’t held to the same standard, regardless of race.

Adding this piece basically states that when distinguishing between Aldc and ldc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, legacy helps at Ivies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/
A 2023 civil rights complaint against Harvard reported that between 2014 and 2019, donor-related applicants were a whopping seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants, while legacy applicants were almost six times more likely to be admitted. Though “recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff” make up less than 5% of the applicant pool, they constitute approximately 30% of those accepted each year. At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year. The school has one of the highest rates of legacy admission nationally. In other words, at top schools, legacy status still matters—and it matters a lot.

But were these applicants less qualified? Or do smart people have smart kids who work really hard to get into mom and/or dad's alma mater because they want the same experience.

My spouse went to an Ivy. I went to an Ivy equivalent. Our HS freshman wants to go to one of our schools really badly. We don't donate a lot. We have made it clear that he has to work really hard to get in. He is already a highly motivated, smart kid, but this pushes him even more.

There are definitely some kids who get an edge because of donations and/or legacies. But the reported numbers are really exaggerated.

What's your evidence that the reported numbers are really exaggerated? My spouse and I both went to Ivies, and recognize that if our kids do want to go to any of our alma maters, it will be a big boost that they have relative to non-legacy kids.

I am saying that all of these people getting really worked up about legacies being accepted at a much higher rate are assuming that the vast majority of these kids are several standard deviations below the average non-legacy admit. And that is not true. I would bet that a large percentage would have gotten in anyway, a decent percentage are borderline, most of the rest are relatively close, with a few notable outliers.

No, that's not the case. Try reading some studies with data rather than assuming that legacy kids are highly deserving replicas of their parents. This one finds that roughly 3/4 of white ALDC (athletes, legacies, big donors, children of faculty or staff) wouldn't have gotten in without their special status.
https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-arcidiacono.pdf

Well, for sure athletes make up most of that. Everyone knows they aren’t held to the same standard, regardless of race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, legacy helps at Ivies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/
A 2023 civil rights complaint against Harvard reported that between 2014 and 2019, donor-related applicants were a whopping seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants, while legacy applicants were almost six times more likely to be admitted. Though “recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff” make up less than 5% of the applicant pool, they constitute approximately 30% of those accepted each year. At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year. The school has one of the highest rates of legacy admission nationally. In other words, at top schools, legacy status still matters—and it matters a lot.

But were these applicants less qualified? Or do smart people have smart kids who work really hard to get into mom and/or dad's alma mater because they want the same experience.

My spouse went to an Ivy. I went to an Ivy equivalent. Our HS freshman wants to go to one of our schools really badly. We don't donate a lot. We have made it clear that he has to work really hard to get in. He is already a highly motivated, smart kid, but this pushes him even more.

There are definitely some kids who get an edge because of donations and/or legacies. But the reported numbers are really exaggerated.

What's your evidence that the reported numbers are really exaggerated? My spouse and I both went to Ivies, and recognize that if our kids do want to go to any of our alma maters, it will be a big boost that they have relative to non-legacy kids.

I am saying that all of these people getting really worked up about legacies being accepted at a much higher rate are assuming that the vast majority of these kids are several standard deviations below the average non-legacy admit. And that is not true. I would bet that a large percentage would have gotten in anyway, a decent percentage are borderline, most of the rest are relatively close, with a few notable outliers.

No, that's not the case. Try reading some studies with data rather than assuming that legacy kids are highly deserving replicas of their parents. This one finds that roughly 3/4 of white ALDC (athletes, legacies, big donors, children of faculty or staff) wouldn't have gotten in without their special status.
https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-arcidiacono.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, legacy helps at Ivies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2024/11/01/does-legacy-still-matter-for-ivy-league-college-admission/
A 2023 civil rights complaint against Harvard reported that between 2014 and 2019, donor-related applicants were a whopping seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants, while legacy applicants were almost six times more likely to be admitted. Though “recruited athletes, legacies, relatives of donors and children of faculty and staff” make up less than 5% of the applicant pool, they constitute approximately 30% of those accepted each year. At Princeton, legacy applicants are four times more likely to earn admission. In a 2022 interview, Notre Dame’s former head of enrollment Don Bishop estimated that 19–25% of the school’s incoming class is made up of legacy students each year. The school has one of the highest rates of legacy admission nationally. In other words, at top schools, legacy status still matters—and it matters a lot.

But were these applicants less qualified? Or do smart people have smart kids who work really hard to get into mom and/or dad's alma mater because they want the same experience.

My spouse went to an Ivy. I went to an Ivy equivalent. Our HS freshman wants to go to one of our schools really badly. We don't donate a lot. We have made it clear that he has to work really hard to get in. He is already a highly motivated, smart kid, but this pushes him even more.

There are definitely some kids who get an edge because of donations and/or legacies. But the reported numbers are really exaggerated.

What's your evidence that the reported numbers are really exaggerated? My spouse and I both went to Ivies, and recognize that if our kids do want to go to any of our alma maters, it will be a big boost that they have relative to non-legacy kids.

I am saying that all of these people getting really worked up about legacies being accepted at a much higher rate are assuming that the vast majority of these kids are several standard deviations below the average non-legacy admit. And that is not true. I would bet that a large percentage would have gotten in anyway, a decent percentage are borderline, most of the rest are relatively close, with a few notable outliers.