Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of Big 3 grads don't get into the Ivy League. Meaning that had they simply gone public they'd have done just as well and saved the family $$$$$$. Makes zero sense to me . . .

Anonymous wrote:The level of denial re: the importance of being a legacy is striking. Don't think it matters? Fine. Get rid of it. Cal Tech doesnt do legacies. Neither does MIT. Berkeley? Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a legacy is an enormous advantage. It gets kids admitted to schools that otherwise would not seriously consider them.

What you describe may have been true decades ago, but is no longer accurate in 2018. The applicant pools are way bigger now.

Legacies who are admitted, but they were already qualified on the merits and the legacy status was the tiebreaker in their favor. The notion that today's legacy applicants are somehow less qualified is a myth. This isn't to say that they didn't benefit, but on paper, they were almost certainly worthy of admission. There are too many qualified applicants vying for basically the same number of spots as when we were kids, and legacy status is one of the few ways to break ties or make close calls.

this is just wrong. seriously, go read up on the harvard suit. i mean, we don't have to speculate or surmise. the admissions folks talk about what a big deal it is if you're a legacy.

"But Harvard has not disputed the preference given to legacy students. A 2013 internal study, made public in the Friday documents, found a strong positive association between legacy status and an individual applicant’s odds of admission.

Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 previously defended the “tip” he says his office gives to legacy applicants—which he described in a 2011 interview as a “self-selecting group.”

“If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,” Fitzsimmons said. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.”

Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane referred to a statement on the Admissions Office website about whether likelihood of admission is “enhanced if a relative has attended Harvard.”

“The application process is the same for all candidates,” the statement reads. “Among a group of similarly distinguished applicants, the daughters and sons of Harvard College alumni/ae may receive an additional look.”

Yes - it's a big deal. Yes - it helps immensely. But, you are taking the one fact we know, which is the legacy admit rate, and then assuming everything else. The lawsuit presented ZERO information on the point you are making - which is that legacy admits are less qualified.

Your quote says what most data has shown... legacies are usually more qualified than the average candidate. See above.

Also, not true. You're skipping the parts about the "Z List," the "Dean's Interest List," etc. The Boston Globe describes the Z List thusly:

"They are predominantly (70 percent) white students, and nearly half have parents who attended Harvard. Just a few are economically disadvantaged, and nearly 60 percent are drawn from a special list kept by the dean that includes children of significant donors and potential donors. As a group, their test scores and academic records fall somewhere in between students who were rejected from Harvard and those who got in."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a legacy is an enormous advantage. It gets kids admitted to schools that otherwise would not seriously consider them.

What you describe may have been true decades ago, but is no longer accurate in 2018. The applicant pools are way bigger now.

Legacies who are admitted, but they were already qualified on the merits and the legacy status was the tiebreaker in their favor. The notion that today's legacy applicants are somehow less qualified is a myth. This isn't to say that they didn't benefit, but on paper, they were almost certainly worthy of admission. There are too many qualified applicants vying for basically the same number of spots as when we were kids, and legacy status is one of the few ways to break ties or make close calls.

this is just wrong. seriously, go read up on the harvard suit. i mean, we don't have to speculate or surmise. the admissions folks talk about what a big deal it is if you're a legacy.

"But Harvard has not disputed the preference given to legacy students. A 2013 internal study, made public in the Friday documents, found a strong positive association between legacy status and an individual applicant’s odds of admission.

Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 previously defended the “tip” he says his office gives to legacy applicants—which he described in a 2011 interview as a “self-selecting group.”

“If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,” Fitzsimmons said. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.”

Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane referred to a statement on the Admissions Office website about whether likelihood of admission is “enhanced if a relative has attended Harvard.”

“The application process is the same for all candidates,” the statement reads. “Among a group of similarly distinguished applicants, the daughters and sons of Harvard College alumni/ae may receive an additional look.”

Yes - it's a big deal. Yes - it helps immensely. But, you are taking the one fact we know, which is the legacy admit rate, and then assuming everything else. The lawsuit presented ZERO information on the point you are making - which is that legacy admits are less qualified.

Your quote says what most data has shown... legacies are usually more qualified than the average candidate. See above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of Big 3 grads don't get into the Ivy League. Meaning that had they simply gone public they'd have done just as well and saved the family $$$$$$. Makes zero sense to me . . .

Clueless.

As if Ivy Admissions was the be all end all of what people are seeking in a private school.

Clueless.

Well you can't blame the pp for coming to this conclusion. Look at the obsession of ivy on this thread alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of Big 3 grads don't get into the Ivy League. Meaning that had they simply gone public they'd have done just as well and saved the family $$$$$$. Makes zero sense to me . . .

Clueless.

As if Ivy Admissions was the be all end all of what people are seeking in a private school.

Clueless.

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of Big 3 grads don't get into the Ivy League. Meaning that had they simply gone public they'd have done just as well and saved the family $$$$$$. Makes zero sense to me . . .

Anonymous wrote:Having 1550 SAT/35 ACT, unweighted 3.9+, and some great extra-curriculars gets you in the game at HYPS. But then you need something extra on top of that. Legacy counts as that something extra. Legacy kids aren’t in the game without the top stats but those who do have them get pulled out of the pool of amazingly and virtually indistinguishably qualified kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a legacy is an enormous advantage. It gets kids admitted to schools that otherwise would not seriously consider them.

What you describe may have been true decades ago, but is no longer accurate in 2018. The applicant pools are way bigger now.

Legacies who are admitted, but they were already qualified on the merits and the legacy status was the tiebreaker in their favor. The notion that today's legacy applicants are somehow less qualified is a myth. This isn't to say that they didn't benefit, but on paper, they were almost certainly worthy of admission. There are too many qualified applicants vying for basically the same number of spots as when we were kids, and legacy status is one of the few ways to break ties or make close calls.

this is just wrong. seriously, go read up on the harvard suit. i mean, we don't have to speculate or surmise. the admissions folks talk about what a big deal it is if you're a legacy.

"But Harvard has not disputed the preference given to legacy students. A 2013 internal study, made public in the Friday documents, found a strong positive association between legacy status and an individual applicant’s odds of admission.

Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 previously defended the “tip” he says his office gives to legacy applicants—which he described in a 2011 interview as a “self-selecting group.”

“If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,” Fitzsimmons said. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.”

Harvard spokesperson Rachael Dane referred to a statement on the Admissions Office website about whether likelihood of admission is “enhanced if a relative has attended Harvard.”

“The application process is the same for all candidates,” the statement reads. “Among a group of similarly distinguished applicants, the daughters and sons of Harvard College alumni/ae may receive an additional look.”

Yes - it's a big deal. Yes - it helps immensely. But, you are taking the one fact we know, which is the legacy admit rate, and then assuming everything else. The lawsuit presented ZERO information on the point you are making - which is that legacy admits are less qualified.