Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One can try to convince oneself by saying that legacy has no role in their or their children's admission but they can not fool their conscience.

Except that no one in the thread argued that. Cite where anyone has said this.

Reread the thread carefully with open mind and try to discern what is between the lines. You will get it. Just a little patience and due diligence will reveal what you are asking.

You're not too bright.

So in other words, no one has said what you are claiming and you're clinging to "reading between the lines" except that words have meaning. Please cite the posts that you think say something other than what they mean, or else you're completely full of BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One can try to convince oneself by saying that legacy has no role in their or their children's admission but they can not fool their conscience.

Except that no one in the thread argued that. Cite where anyone has said this.

Reread the thread carefully with open mind and try to discern what is between the lines. You will get it. Just a little patience and due diligence will reveal what you are asking.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds about right for at least one third

Meh, many if not most of the legacies would've gotten in on their own merits without it -- maybe not EA/ED but eventually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being full pay and/or a legacy is what gets your kid into a top school, not because they're particularly smart. Going to a Big 3 private signals full pay.

You really should stop. You have no idea.

Sounds about right for at least one third

Anonymous wrote:Being full pay and/or a legacy is what gets your kid into a top school, not because they're particularly smart. Going to a Big 3 private signals full pay.

You really should stop. You have no idea.

Anonymous wrote:One can try to convince oneself by saying that legacy has no role in their or their children's admission but they can not fool their conscience.

Except that no one in the thread argued that. Cite where anyone has said this.

Anonymous wrote:Being full pay and/or a legacy is what gets your kid into a top school, not because they're particularly smart. Going to a Big 3 private signals full pay.

At Harvard,33% of the class is legacy. and "approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year. Twenty percent of parents pay nothing".

Please do the math on this and justify your statement.

Can we get back on track and discuss any news about placement? Lots of kids heard back from ED and EA applications this week.

Anonymous wrote:Being full pay and/or a legacy is what gets your kid into a top school, not because they're particularly smart. Going to a Big 3 private signals full pay.

You really are an imbecile. Just stop.

Being full pay and/or a legacy is what gets your kid into a top school, not because they're particularly smart. Going to a Big 3 private signals full pay.

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.

Clueless (again). As if this thread of maybe a dozen private school parents is indicative of EVERY parent at a private school.

You - really - don't - get - it.

Knock the chip off your shoulder and you'll have a happier Christmas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone is in denial. Most of the posters say it helps. It’s a question of whether you can draw any general conclusions about the legacy pool or claim that you must be hooked to be admitted.

Exactly. It's the folks dismissing certain admit as merely "legacies" who are, without any evidence, implying that these students were somehow less qualified or deserving on the merits. When in fact the opposite is generally true.

There are certain similarities and dissimilarities between a track race and vying for admission to highly selective schools. In both cases many worthy candidates are competing with one another. There are a limited number of prizes in track and seats in Freshman class. On an oval track it appears as though, as you go from the outermost to the innermost lane, each runner has longer distance to run than the runners in the inner lanes. But we know all runners have exactly the same distance to run. Whereas, in the case of admissions, all candidates compete on a straight-line path not oval. But certain considerations such as politically connected, large donations, recruited athlete, affirmative action, legacy, under-represented geographic locations/ethnicity/whether LGBTQ or straight etc. will place such applicants at various distances closer to the finish line (admission offer) than applicants having no such qualifiers. If we are to go by the plaintiff's arguments in Harvard University admissions case, Asian American applicants are placed behind the start line (similar to a track runner having to carry extra weights for the race).

Of course, not all legacies get admitted. That doesn't mean legacy status doesn't get bonus points. Just because a legacy student didn't get admitted to the legacy school but admitted to a similarly selective school in the area doesn't mean the legacy school didn't give bonus points to the student. One can try to convince oneself by saying that legacy has no role in their or their children's admission but they can not fool their conscience.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone is in denial. Most of the posters say it helps. It’s a question of whether you can draw any general conclusions about the legacy pool or claim that you must be hooked to be admitted.

Exactly. It's the folks dismissing certain admit as merely "legacies" who are, without any evidence, implying that these students were somehow less qualified or deserving on the merits. When in fact the opposite is generally true.

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 . . .

Right. Because you just don't get it. And thats fine by people who do.

+100