Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.
The Chetty research used data from more than 400 colleges and universities whereas this board is debating legacy for the Top 20 or so schools.
Here is an excerpt: Using data from more than 400 colleges and universities and about three and a half million undergraduate students per year, the two economists found that legacy and other elite school admissions practices significantly favor students from wealthy families and serve a gate-keeping function to positions of power and prestige in society.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
The Chetty et al paper looks at this question and finds that—despite having a 4-fold advantage over non-legacy applicants at the legacy institution—the legacy applicants have only slightly higher admissions rates at other institutions, implying that most of the difference at the legacy institution is due to legacy.
Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
Legacy doesn't mean a guaranteed admit. Legacy does mean that the applicant is hooked, which is another way of saying the applicant is considered more favorably than those who lack a hook. Once you have the general stats for admission, would you rather be considered in the massive pile of applications where it is essentially a lottery OR would you rather be considered with a smaller pile of ones that are getting more time, a second look, more reasons for someone to champion your acceptance, etc?
Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
If OP had these kinds of cross-admits, that would have come out on page one.
Anonymous wrote:Well, the legacies I know who were rejected were more than qualified. One example: friends who are double legacy at Harvard, all three kids are at Yale instead because they didn't get into Harvard. All the legacies I know rejected from their parents school ended up at an equally elite school - so yes, those kids were qualified for the legacy school. I just don't think it's as easy as as "oh, she got in because of legacy, or she didn't get in because they didn't donate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just be smart where you apply. If the legacy school fits everything you want in a school, then apply there early. That's a no brainer. But don't be delusional you'll get in based on legacy. All the kids in our friend circle/family circle with legacy to Top 5 have been rejected.
+1
Legacy gets the kid a second look. But the kid’s application - grades, test scores, essays, etc - are what get them in.
If you wouldn’t have gotten in but for your legacy status, legacy got you in.
So for all the qualified legacy applicants who don't get in, why didn't legacy get them in?
Because legacy is only a small bump. Remember the vast majority of qualified applicants get rejected, including 67% of qualified legacies and 99% of qualified non-legacies.
The difference between a 1% chance and 33% is not a small bump- it is a significant advantage.
+1. Those who don’t understand what an advantage legacy can be, have problems understanding basic math
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just be smart where you apply. If the legacy school fits everything you want in a school, then apply there early. That's a no brainer. But don't be delusional you'll get in based on legacy. All the kids in our friend circle/family circle with legacy to Top 5 have been rejected.
+1
Legacy gets the kid a second look. But the kid’s application - grades, test scores, essays, etc - are what get them in.
If you wouldn’t have gotten in but for your legacy status, legacy got you in.
So for all the qualified legacy applicants who don't get in, why didn't legacy get them in?
Because legacy is only a small bump. Remember the vast majority of qualified applicants get rejected, including 67% of qualified legacies and 99% of qualified non-legacies.
The difference between a 1% chance and 33% is not a small bump- it is a significant advantage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just be smart where you apply. If the legacy school fits everything you want in a school, then apply there early. That's a no brainer. But don't be delusional you'll get in based on legacy. All the kids in our friend circle/family circle with legacy to Top 5 have been rejected.
+1
Legacy gets the kid a second look. But the kid’s application - grades, test scores, essays, etc - are what get them in.
If you wouldn’t have gotten in but for your legacy status, legacy got you in.
So for all the qualified legacy applicants who don't get in, why didn't legacy get them in?
My question, exactly.
Anonymous wrote:
Your kid should reply that he is opposed to the legacy system. That is the only correct answer.