NYT: Confessions of an Application Reader (Admissions at UC Berkeley)

[kubiac]

I'm sure exclusive-school legacies do get in at higher rates than the average applicant, but I would argue that it's because they have the lifelong advantages I mentioned above (success begets success, etc.), not because of the mere fact that they are legacies: It's (largely, although not completely, of course) correlation not causation.

[regentrude]

I'm sure exclusive-school legacies do get in at higher rates than the average applicant, but I would argue that it's because they have the lifelong advantages I mentioned above (success begets success, etc.), not because of the mere fact that they are legacies: It's (largely, although not completely, of course) correlation not causation.

 

Call me cynical, but I can't shake the suspicion that the generous donations the school can expect from the grateful alumni fathers tip the scale as well. In fact, the dean of admissions from Yale admits as much in this article from 2011:

 

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/

 

The article also states:

Harvard’s acceptance rate for legacies has hovered around 30 percent—more than four times the regular admission rate—in recent admissions cycles, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 told The Crimson in an interview this week.

Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College alumnae.

 

This is not a negligible advantage, but a significant one.

(Overall, the 12 % of the total student population, however, will not change the level of the school, even if those were not of teh same caliber than the other students. )

[ThisIsTheDay]

So this article is all a lie?:

http://www.businessinsider.com/legacy-kids-have-an-admissions-advantage-2013-6

 

(I know you are not directing it at me, but it seems like such a defensive comment!)

 

I'm using Harvard as an example.

 

Legacies have a 30% acceptance rate.  30% of however many legacies who apply are accepted.

 

The general acceptance rate is about 6%. 

 

I certainly wouldn't consider they have a "staggeringly unfair advantage."  In order to prove that, the author should have gone a bi deeper and compared the qualifications of legacy applicants v. general applicants.  Legacies may be more likely to apply, knowing they have an advantage, and non-legacies may apply to a larger number of schools.  The title of the article is extremely misleading, and the statistics provided don't provide any information to make an accurate judgment.

 

::shrug::

 

 

[kubiac]

Just as reference from the Harvard article:

 

* Fitzsimmons also said that Harvard’s undergraduate population is comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies, a group he defined as children of Harvard College alumni and Radcliffe College alumnae.

* According to a New York Times story on the event, Brenzel said that Yale rejected 80 percent of its legacy applicants. Brenzel reported that Yale legacies comprise less than 10 percent of the class, according to Kahlenberg.

* “If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,†said Fitzsimmons, part of what he sees as the explanation for the disparity in the acceptance rate. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.â€

 

From the Princeton article:
"He said he thought that Princeton admission standards were obvious — a 2100 SAT score, a 3.7 unweighted GPA, four or five AP classes — and that applicants simply needed a 'hook' to get them in. Kyle’s hook, he said, was his family’s connection to campus."

 

I think that's basically correct. You have to be a really strong student as a baseline, and then you have to have something else. Sometimes that's sports, sometimes that's your award-winning science research, and sometimes it's that four generations of your family have gone there.

 

All I can say is that when I met kids at my school that were legacies, they were from high-achieving families, and none of them were outlying dopes:

* One came from a cluster of geniuses with two Nobel prizes in the family

* The kid whose family had gone to the school for four generations was also on the nationally competitive basketball team and was majoring in chemical engineering (which he planned to use in service of the family business)

* The quiet one who had a name that belongs to one of the famous families in the state just sold his startup to Amazon.com earlier this year. 

[Laura in CA]

 

But, what I really find interesting is his perspective since coming home from a competitive summer camp. This camp was full of really bright, high-achieving kids. He is now acutely aware of the difference in discussion and instruction between a regular classroom and a select group discussing a similar topic. Before camp, he wasn't sure that "what" school was going to really matter that much, but now he is definitely aware that the "whats" going on inside he classroom are very different. He is now afraid that finances are going to end up controlling the decision and leaving him with the lesser options as the only ones feasible for our family.

 

8Fill, this was my experience as well (at the same summer camp :) ). It really was life-changing. The only reason these selective schools were on my radar (coming from a mediocre high school) was hearing about them at camp (and having college admissions people come give their pitch to us campers). And to my (and my parents') great surprise, not only was I admitted, but I received generous financial aid from some of them -- enough to enable me to attend, and enough to make these selective private schools as cheap as the public schools we thought were our only options. Here's hoping that will be the case for your son!

Oh, also -- I'm sure you realize that having attended this camp will be a big plus in your son's favor as he applies to college. I'm convinced that my attendance at -- and love for -- and recommendations from teachers at -- my camp gave me an edge in college admissions, even if test scores weren't as stellar as those of some other applicants ...

[Beth in Mint Hill]

.... We didn't groom them in dd in order to fill out applications; we did it so that she would succeed in higher education and life in general.

 

I still say that if you raise them to be the best people they can be, you can't be disappointed in the college admissions process, ... There was no overarching plan for college apps, just living her best life and using the talents God gave her. I like to think that this will be evident, and that someone will appreciate her authentic path over a parent-groomed package.

 

Amen!  Well said, Angela. This is just what our approach was, too. Work at developing the child's mind, heart and soul. Model living life to the fullest, good habits, and great attitudes. My oldest did not participate in Debate Clubs, nor was he a Boy Scout, but somehow he is making his way through law school!  He even got a big scholarship for it.

 

I love all of these articles that people have posted. I really resonated with the one called "Apply Sideways."