I don't see a college with 30% legacy student class. That would be a pretty extraordinary result that so many students would want to go to the same exact college as a parent. The actual data appears to be more complex. See e.g. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html)
A lot of the boost is simply that parents who went to tier 1 colleges know what is needed (often from their parents), and they get their kids on the right path from the start. In contrast, this group has HS juniors asking what they should be doing.
I read an article in late April ‘24 or early May ‘24 that one Ivy school (I think that it was Harvard but could be wrong) that 30% of their acceptance offers went to legacy.
I remember this article because at the same time, the State of Maryland introduced a bill to ban legacy admissions in the state.
That would imply that the yield rate for legacy admissions is very low. That does happen to line up with the anecdotes that show up here of people asking if they have to go to the college that their parents want them to go to.
Legacy applicants still have to meet the stringent academic thresholds. The wiggle room comes with ecs, they still have to be good but not as insane as normal applicants. This ensures that they don't stick out as incompetent academically amongst the crowd of students.
this. you’re exactly right that they still need to meet the academic requirements, but they don’t need to achieve nearly as much EC wise as normal admits
None. They still need to achieve the same things as non-legacy applicants. Where it makes a difference is if two applicants are both qualified, the admissions are more likely to choose the legacy applicant
But at places like HPYSM, if you aren't an athlete or legacy, you do need to be phenomenal, or "cracked" to get in. Are you saying that legacy admits at these places are equally phenomenal and cracked? Because I don't believe that for a second.
You don't need to be "cracked" to get in without hooks. I go to one of these ivies/T10s (and have friends who go to other ones) and a lot of people aren't super "cracked" in any way, they are just normal high achieving students with good grades, high SAT, well rounded ECs, etc.
well arguably the bar for HYPSM is a step up in selectivity than other ivies/t10s.
all my friends at hypsm are “cracked”, as well as the many others i’ve met at hypsm, and if they weren’t what you’d typically call cracked they typically had some kind of institutional priorities met.
you simply don’t get into a college with a 3% acceptance rate (taking 1 in 30 people) without being “cracked” and a standout from the applicant pool or meeting institutional priorities, or both
I got rejected Salutatorian of 400 grads and a 1600 SAT with crazy ECs. And every other T20 I applied to. I really got to get off this sub this is killing my mentals 💀
While useful Alphafold has a tendency to hallucinate native protein structures. A better example would be the use of AI in protein ligand binding affinity prediction
hmm, well if you didnt have any hooks, you’re massively underselling yourself. how else do you think you were picked when they can only admit 1 in 30 people?
This is silly. I feel like only HS students who live on this sub say shit like this lol… y’all think too highly of the students at these schools and put them/us on a pedestal.
My SO went to H, my brother went to P, and I went to another Ivy — none of us are “cracked” and most of our friends aren’t “cracked” either. I don’t know a lot of Y/M grads, but have a lot of friends from S and they aren’t “cracked” either. The “cracked” students represent a small % of the student body.
Most of us just had good grades in HS, solid test scores, well-rounded ECs, and well-written essays. Not everyone at HYPSM is an IMO medalist lmao
sorry but everyone i know who goes to hypsm was excellent in some area if they werent hooked, but our definitions of “excellent” or “cracked” might differ. also you can be cracked without an IMO medal or things at that tier lmfao. you can be “cracked” by having other strong ecs.
and also i hope you arent talking about admissions like 10 or 20 years ago, but about admissions today because things have definitely gotten a lot crazier. i don’t buy that in today’s admissions landscape, people with “good grades, solid test scores, etc” gets you admission to a school taking 1 in 30 applicants.
Kid, we interview and hire almost exclusively at Ivies (and other elite schools like Stanford, Duke, etc.) — it’s hard to even get an interview in IB/PE, so I’d assume these kids are in the top 25% (or at the very least top 50%) of their respective schools. Even among that cohort, there’s still a bunch of idiots.
But you’re right — what do I know? A high school senior def knows more about the general Ivy/T5 student body as opposed to an alum who screens/interviews current students and whose social circle is mostly Ivy alumni
Were you at an elite boarding school? Otherwise it’s hard to imagine you/your colleagues didn’t have some kind of major advantage for the admits. Either that or you attended many years ago..
yeah a bunch of idiots can get in through elite privates as well. and bro appears to be somewhat high up in finance so even if he graduated just 10-15 years ago, the competitiveness has drastically increased for unhooked applicants
Ha I wish. I went to a not-so-good private school, but my brother, my SO, and my SO's sister all went to CA public schools. I got into Brown and Cornell (and Oxford), whereas the 3 of them went to Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford, respectively. We graduated from late 2010s to early 2020s, and we're all Asian so not URM.
The majority of my friends from college and a lot of the kids I've interviewed come from public schools btw. IMO, 95%+ of them aren't "cracked" based on their resumes and my perception of them (obviously they had good grades and test scores, but that's everyone at these schools). I think that's a huge misconception here on A2C - college admissions is extremely random, so as long as your grades/test scores are within range, you have a chance.
again, a bunch of people get in because of some kind of hooks and bs AA stuff they do: legacy, athlete, donor, first gen, low income, etc, arguably close to 50%, and many still land finance interviews, even if they’re unprepared, or idiots.
i’m talking about those who got in with no hooks. i would love to chat about this, but you tell me how someone gets in without any hooks when they’re accepting such a small sliver of applicants? they have to be standout, unusual, and excellent in some way to admissions. sure, even they might seem like idiots in interview but the fact of the matter is they stood out to admissions
then they had hooks or institutional priorities met then, or your evaluation of not cracked could just not be accurate. you dont get into a so low acceptance rate school without having something to stand out
This kind of proves my point. Many legacy admits at top colleges like Harvard would not have been admitted without legacy status. Which totally sucks and is patently unfair for other, stronger applicants who were denied. So I applaud the decision by Wesleyan and other colleges for deep sixing legacy admissions.
Nope. Not true. Chetty et al has done excellent research in all things in higher education. His latest article with published of outcomes of Ivy plus vs. Selective state is excellent.
Don't know if this data made it in there but from his overall research in relation of legacy in admissions: Legacy gives you 3x higher chance of getting into THAT school. They looked at that same kid and the chance that same kid got into another Ivy plus school was no different then another kid with similar stats as non legacy. Yeah legacy makes a BIG DIFFERENCE.
yeah agree, legacy admits i’ve seen were all solid applicants, but normal admits needed to be exceptional and generally had a big spike that helped them standout, which legacies usually dont
I’ve witnessed many legacy admits, and generally the trend is for legacies to get in, they still need to be solid, strong applicants. But for ultra selective colleges, the vast majority of these solid, strong applicants are rejected, and to be admitted you usually need to meet institutional priorities or have a spike/standout area or both. Legacy basically pushes these strong applicants that would’ve normally been rejected to admits.
Usually the legacies don’t need to have a super insane profile that your usual hypsm admit has. So basically legacy improves your chances significantly and will turn someone strong to an admit, but won’t revive the unqualified.
Every story needs a villain.
The crazy thing, of course, is the tacit assumption that every legacy applicant is unqualified and therefore taking a spot from someone who **IS** qualified.
It’s an entirely reasonable assumption that the average legacy applicant may actually be MORE qualified than the average non-legacy applicant. With at least one parent graduating from a top/elite school, the family would be statistically likely to have an above average household income/net worth, and lots of things related to college admissions are highly correlated with income/net worth…
- attending above average private or public high schools
- statistically higher GPA and test scores
- ability to afford better/more EC’s
- ability to hire tutors, pay for SAT prep courses, etc
- family focus on — and role models for — higher academic performance
- social peer group with similar focus/role-models for academic achievement
- etc
In fact, last year there was [an analysis of Princeton undergrads](https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-legacy-senior-survey-frosh-survey-gpa-sat-act-career) and the mean Princeton GPA of legacy students was higher than the mean GPA of non-legacy Princeton undergrads.
>”*Graduating seniors who had a legacy connection had higher GPA’s while at Princeton as well. According to the 2023 Senior Survey, over three-quarters of legacy students finished with a GPA of 3.7 or above, with less than 60 percent of non-legacies accomplishing the same feat.*”
The same analysis showed that legacy students also had higher high school GPAs and test scores than non-legacy students… even when controlling for family income/net-worth.
hmm at elite schools like HYPSM with 3% acceptance rates though there could be 5x as many “qualified”applicants than admits (or even more). so i’ve seen time and time again that legacy often pushes you from the qualified pool that wouldve normally been rejected to the admit pile.
to have been qualified and admitted, you typically needed to have other institutional priorities met or some other standout area like a spike, but typically legacy admits dont have to have that spike
side note though qualified is really hard to define, like you could make an argument that qualified for hypsm means some standout area, or you could define it as if 3.7+ 1450+ is qualified
30%?!? Your entire premise is whacked. Top Ivies have ~ 4% admit rate; a legacy hook can almost double that, and put you closer to 8%. (Nowhere near 30%.) That’s 8% of some of the most highly qualified/prepared/advantaged applicants, where you’d expect to find the highest rates of admission. Compare the applications of rejected legacy kids to admitted kids and I think you’d find that it’s far more beneficial in admissions to be FGLI.
OP was referring to harvard, who did a survey and saw like 36% of the student bodies being legacy. the legacy admit rate could be 30% or it could be lower: it’s probably a closely guarded secret. stanford has sent in a letter before to alumni saying the overall admit rate for legacies is 3x the overall, though it might be more than that if you applied REA
36% of Harvard’s student body is not legacy. I believe you’re referring to a study which found that out of just white students at Harvard, 36% were either recruited athletes, legacies, or from major donor families. That’s the only study I know of which could fit the stats you’re citing.
here is the data, its under the legacy tab https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup/
but yeah its for sure lower than 36%. that data says 36% had some ties to harvard, but the real legacies would where the parents went for undergrad, so its probably closer to 15%. not sure how much admissions cares if another relative went to harvard tho
Cornell doesn’t have 30 percent of the admits as legacies. I gave zero shits that the family who funded my scholarship had relatives there. I had many friends with EFC of 0 though. It’s less of a problem than you think. I actually met someone from the family who funded the scholarship. He was totally embarrassed that I’d figured out who he was and worked very hard in all of his classes.
Ok. The percentages of legacy applicants to legacy admits differs by college. But we can also agree that legacies are admitted at a much higher rate than those without such ties. We can also agree that many legacy admits, like many athletic admits, don't have to hit as many of the same high notes as those without those connections.
>But we can also agree that legacies are admitted at a much higher rate than those without such ties.
Assuming that this is true, it would be a reasonable consequence of the data from the Princeton study cited above.
I assume they dont need to stand out as much because they already have something
of course, if that's the \*only\* thing that makes them stand out then theyre not exactly special because there's still a decent amount of legacy applicants, but still
Nepotism at its worst. Legacy admission should be banned, much as test optional policies created due to covid are being eliminated. Everyone should be given an equal shot. Legacy admissions prevents that from happening.
Legacy status matters much more with REA at Harvard and ED at Columbia. Since student in question gained admission RD to both Stanford and MIT, it means they also applied RD at Harvard and Columbia. Legacy card means little in RD pool. So that's likely your answer.
Something missing in a lot of discussions of legacies is only those whose families donate generously(Think donating at least a few/tens of thousands/year for a few decades or donating a few million at once) and/or who are notably accomplished in their field(Think scion of a politician, royal/aristocratic family, topflight academic, literary figure, olympic athlete who medaled, celebrity, etc) will get a meaningful tip.
The majority who are Ivy/peer private elite alums who donate a a few hundred or less/year or only donate occasionally who don't have connections or notable accomplishments in one's field aren't treated very differently than the non-legacy non developmental\* applicant. They used to have that tip until sometime after the early '80s.
This was something my college guidance counselor related to us as HS seniors 3+ decades ago and was confirmed by a couple of friends and an older relative who worked elite university admissions(Including an Ivy).
\* Developmental applicants are scions of non-alum parents who either donate generously and/or are well-connected or have notable accomplishments.
So there are different levels of legacies, based on history and amount of giving and alumni involvement? So, there's no bump for being a legacy whose parents give little, and/or aren't active alumni? And big bumps for legacies whose parents give boatloads of money and/or are super involved alumni?
15% of Harvard students have a parent who attended. Not 30%. [https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/](https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/)
Others have already answered the question quite well, but I would still like to know your source for the supposed 30% of admitted students being legacy. I seriously question that percentage given that most highly selective schools have legacy populations in the 10-15 range. Legacies probably yield higher than others so they should be more of the student population if they are 30 percent of admits. You should probably check your information.
its not just legacy. there’s also more things like AA, elite private high schools, athletes, firstgenlowincomes, etc, and these people who meet institutional priorities could easily be at least 50% of the class
Where is that data from? The Harvard data I have seen says the legacy applicants have a 30+% admit rate, but not that they are 30+% of the admitted students. Those are two different things. I have seen where ALDC all together for Harvard are a high percentage but that’s misleading since legacies are not parsed out from the others.
i just did a quick google search. the harvard newspaper conducted a survey and they landed at 36% legacy. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/legacy-admissions-harvard-affirmative-action-supreme-court.html#:~:text=Legacy%20students%20made%20up%2036,and%20legacy%20applicants%20are%20white.
Although Slate quoted the figure as 36%, they linked to the Crimson survey results showing that it's actually about 15% of students who have a parent who attended Harvard. Not sure how Slate came up with their number. [https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup/](https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup/)
The annual Crimson survey results show that it's actually about 15% of students who have a parent who attended Harvard. The 30% figure is widely and incorrectly repeated. [https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/](https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/)
50,000 applicants, of which 5%, or 2500, are legacies. say there’s a 4% acceptance rate, so you admit 2,000. you admit 600 of the 2500 legacies, and 1400 of the 48750 non legacies. so legacies make up 30% of the admits, even though they’re just 5% of the applicant pool.
this is an oversimplification but just shows you how it can happen
There are none of those, generally. If you look at freshman surveys at top schools, legacies have a clearly higher distribution of GPAs and - most importantly - test scores than the general student population. They also tend to have much higher family income and all the advantages that come along with it; but the advantages are not in the form of getting a break in the admissions process itself.
Legacy admit rates at top schools are just a particular manifestation of the fact that kids with highly educated rich parents tend to be be better prepared to apply to the most selective colleges.
The only place legacy really comes into play is as a tiebreaker. You don't get a break for being a legacy, but if a legacy and a non-legacy have substantially identical applications, the legacy is getting in first.
legacies do tend to have higher gpas and scores. and they do tend to have access to better ecs, essay help, etc. but just having all this is never enough to get you admitted to hypsm.
like i said in another comment, legacy admits are generally academically qualified and are strong applicants, but wouldve normally been rejected but legacy gets them in. its because academically qualified + strong overall most of the time results in rejection at hypsm.
side note tiebreakers pretty much never happen. they could both get admitted, one get admitted, or none gets admitted
Again, the freshman surveys I've seen report that legacies have significantly higher average GPA and SAT scores than the non-legacy average. Harvard's average legacy SAT is 30 points higher than non-legacies. Princeton's is as well. Harvard doesn't seem to report GPA in the freshman survey, but Princeton's legacy GPA average is also higher than the non-legacy average.
The argument that legacies get in because of their legacy status is rebutted by the fact that their objective application metrics are better than the average admitted student. Why is everyone else getting in, then?
I don't see a college with 30% legacy student class. That would be a pretty extraordinary result that so many students would want to go to the same exact college as a parent. The actual data appears to be more complex. See e.g. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/upshot/ivy-league-legacy-admissions.html) A lot of the boost is simply that parents who went to tier 1 colleges know what is needed (often from their parents), and they get their kids on the right path from the start. In contrast, this group has HS juniors asking what they should be doing.
they said 30% of admits were legacy, not that 30% of the class ended up being legacy students
I read an article in late April ‘24 or early May ‘24 that one Ivy school (I think that it was Harvard but could be wrong) that 30% of their acceptance offers went to legacy. I remember this article because at the same time, the State of Maryland introduced a bill to ban legacy admissions in the state.
That would imply that the yield rate for legacy admissions is very low. That does happen to line up with the anecdotes that show up here of people asking if they have to go to the college that their parents want them to go to.
Legacy applicants still have to meet the stringent academic thresholds. The wiggle room comes with ecs, they still have to be good but not as insane as normal applicants. This ensures that they don't stick out as incompetent academically amongst the crowd of students.
this. you’re exactly right that they still need to meet the academic requirements, but they don’t need to achieve nearly as much EC wise as normal admits
None. They still need to achieve the same things as non-legacy applicants. Where it makes a difference is if two applicants are both qualified, the admissions are more likely to choose the legacy applicant
But at places like HPYSM, if you aren't an athlete or legacy, you do need to be phenomenal, or "cracked" to get in. Are you saying that legacy admits at these places are equally phenomenal and cracked? Because I don't believe that for a second.
You don't need to be "cracked" to get in without hooks. I go to one of these ivies/T10s (and have friends who go to other ones) and a lot of people aren't super "cracked" in any way, they are just normal high achieving students with good grades, high SAT, well rounded ECs, etc.
well arguably the bar for HYPSM is a step up in selectivity than other ivies/t10s. all my friends at hypsm are “cracked”, as well as the many others i’ve met at hypsm, and if they weren’t what you’d typically call cracked they typically had some kind of institutional priorities met. you simply don’t get into a college with a 3% acceptance rate (taking 1 in 30 people) without being “cracked” and a standout from the applicant pool or meeting institutional priorities, or both
I got into Princeton and my GPA is probably top 10%ish and my ECs are a wasteland.
I got rejected Salutatorian of 400 grads and a 1600 SAT with crazy ECs. And every other T20 I applied to. I really got to get off this sub this is killing my mentals 💀
I think my aim (AI/medicine integration) fulfilled their priorities
AI Medicine is an oxymoron.
Have you seen AI folding proteins?
While useful Alphafold has a tendency to hallucinate native protein structures. A better example would be the use of AI in protein ligand binding affinity prediction
hmm, well if you didnt have any hooks, you’re massively underselling yourself. how else do you think you were picked when they can only admit 1 in 30 people?
My hooks are immigrant and low(ish) income
This is silly. I feel like only HS students who live on this sub say shit like this lol… y’all think too highly of the students at these schools and put them/us on a pedestal. My SO went to H, my brother went to P, and I went to another Ivy — none of us are “cracked” and most of our friends aren’t “cracked” either. I don’t know a lot of Y/M grads, but have a lot of friends from S and they aren’t “cracked” either. The “cracked” students represent a small % of the student body. Most of us just had good grades in HS, solid test scores, well-rounded ECs, and well-written essays. Not everyone at HYPSM is an IMO medalist lmao
sorry but everyone i know who goes to hypsm was excellent in some area if they werent hooked, but our definitions of “excellent” or “cracked” might differ. also you can be cracked without an IMO medal or things at that tier lmfao. you can be “cracked” by having other strong ecs. and also i hope you arent talking about admissions like 10 or 20 years ago, but about admissions today because things have definitely gotten a lot crazier. i don’t buy that in today’s admissions landscape, people with “good grades, solid test scores, etc” gets you admission to a school taking 1 in 30 applicants.
Kid, we interview and hire almost exclusively at Ivies (and other elite schools like Stanford, Duke, etc.) — it’s hard to even get an interview in IB/PE, so I’d assume these kids are in the top 25% (or at the very least top 50%) of their respective schools. Even among that cohort, there’s still a bunch of idiots. But you’re right — what do I know? A high school senior def knows more about the general Ivy/T5 student body as opposed to an alum who screens/interviews current students and whose social circle is mostly Ivy alumni
Were you at an elite boarding school? Otherwise it’s hard to imagine you/your colleagues didn’t have some kind of major advantage for the admits. Either that or you attended many years ago..
yeah a bunch of idiots can get in through elite privates as well. and bro appears to be somewhat high up in finance so even if he graduated just 10-15 years ago, the competitiveness has drastically increased for unhooked applicants
Ha I wish. I went to a not-so-good private school, but my brother, my SO, and my SO's sister all went to CA public schools. I got into Brown and Cornell (and Oxford), whereas the 3 of them went to Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford, respectively. We graduated from late 2010s to early 2020s, and we're all Asian so not URM. The majority of my friends from college and a lot of the kids I've interviewed come from public schools btw. IMO, 95%+ of them aren't "cracked" based on their resumes and my perception of them (obviously they had good grades and test scores, but that's everyone at these schools). I think that's a huge misconception here on A2C - college admissions is extremely random, so as long as your grades/test scores are within range, you have a chance.
again, a bunch of people get in because of some kind of hooks and bs AA stuff they do: legacy, athlete, donor, first gen, low income, etc, arguably close to 50%, and many still land finance interviews, even if they’re unprepared, or idiots. i’m talking about those who got in with no hooks. i would love to chat about this, but you tell me how someone gets in without any hooks when they’re accepting such a small sliver of applicants? they have to be standout, unusual, and excellent in some way to admissions. sure, even they might seem like idiots in interview but the fact of the matter is they stood out to admissions
Nah my friends at P weren’t cracked
then they had hooks or institutional priorities met then, or your evaluation of not cracked could just not be accurate. you dont get into a so low acceptance rate school without having something to stand out
I don’t know if that’s true. I know average kids with killer essays that got into HYPSM
[удалено]
This kind of proves my point. Many legacy admits at top colleges like Harvard would not have been admitted without legacy status. Which totally sucks and is patently unfair for other, stronger applicants who were denied. So I applaud the decision by Wesleyan and other colleges for deep sixing legacy admissions.
Nope. Not true. Chetty et al has done excellent research in all things in higher education. His latest article with published of outcomes of Ivy plus vs. Selective state is excellent. Don't know if this data made it in there but from his overall research in relation of legacy in admissions: Legacy gives you 3x higher chance of getting into THAT school. They looked at that same kid and the chance that same kid got into another Ivy plus school was no different then another kid with similar stats as non legacy. Yeah legacy makes a BIG DIFFERENCE.
[удалено]
yeah agree, legacy admits i’ve seen were all solid applicants, but normal admits needed to be exceptional and generally had a big spike that helped them standout, which legacies usually dont
I’ve witnessed many legacy admits, and generally the trend is for legacies to get in, they still need to be solid, strong applicants. But for ultra selective colleges, the vast majority of these solid, strong applicants are rejected, and to be admitted you usually need to meet institutional priorities or have a spike/standout area or both. Legacy basically pushes these strong applicants that would’ve normally been rejected to admits. Usually the legacies don’t need to have a super insane profile that your usual hypsm admit has. So basically legacy improves your chances significantly and will turn someone strong to an admit, but won’t revive the unqualified.
Every story needs a villain. The crazy thing, of course, is the tacit assumption that every legacy applicant is unqualified and therefore taking a spot from someone who **IS** qualified. It’s an entirely reasonable assumption that the average legacy applicant may actually be MORE qualified than the average non-legacy applicant. With at least one parent graduating from a top/elite school, the family would be statistically likely to have an above average household income/net worth, and lots of things related to college admissions are highly correlated with income/net worth… - attending above average private or public high schools - statistically higher GPA and test scores - ability to afford better/more EC’s - ability to hire tutors, pay for SAT prep courses, etc - family focus on — and role models for — higher academic performance - social peer group with similar focus/role-models for academic achievement - etc In fact, last year there was [an analysis of Princeton undergrads](https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-legacy-senior-survey-frosh-survey-gpa-sat-act-career) and the mean Princeton GPA of legacy students was higher than the mean GPA of non-legacy Princeton undergrads. >”*Graduating seniors who had a legacy connection had higher GPA’s while at Princeton as well. According to the 2023 Senior Survey, over three-quarters of legacy students finished with a GPA of 3.7 or above, with less than 60 percent of non-legacies accomplishing the same feat.*” The same analysis showed that legacy students also had higher high school GPAs and test scores than non-legacy students… even when controlling for family income/net-worth.
hmm at elite schools like HYPSM with 3% acceptance rates though there could be 5x as many “qualified”applicants than admits (or even more). so i’ve seen time and time again that legacy often pushes you from the qualified pool that wouldve normally been rejected to the admit pile. to have been qualified and admitted, you typically needed to have other institutional priorities met or some other standout area like a spike, but typically legacy admits dont have to have that spike side note though qualified is really hard to define, like you could make an argument that qualified for hypsm means some standout area, or you could define it as if 3.7+ 1450+ is qualified
30%?!? Your entire premise is whacked. Top Ivies have ~ 4% admit rate; a legacy hook can almost double that, and put you closer to 8%. (Nowhere near 30%.) That’s 8% of some of the most highly qualified/prepared/advantaged applicants, where you’d expect to find the highest rates of admission. Compare the applications of rejected legacy kids to admitted kids and I think you’d find that it’s far more beneficial in admissions to be FGLI.
OP was referring to harvard, who did a survey and saw like 36% of the student bodies being legacy. the legacy admit rate could be 30% or it could be lower: it’s probably a closely guarded secret. stanford has sent in a letter before to alumni saying the overall admit rate for legacies is 3x the overall, though it might be more than that if you applied REA
36% of Harvard’s student body is not legacy. I believe you’re referring to a study which found that out of just white students at Harvard, 36% were either recruited athletes, legacies, or from major donor families. That’s the only study I know of which could fit the stats you’re citing.
here is the data, its under the legacy tab https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup/ but yeah its for sure lower than 36%. that data says 36% had some ties to harvard, but the real legacies would where the parents went for undergrad, so its probably closer to 15%. not sure how much admissions cares if another relative went to harvard tho
Cornell has taken steps to hugely reduce legacies. Congratulations on contacting your scholarship sponsor. That's a really classy move.
Cornell doesn’t have 30 percent of the admits as legacies. I gave zero shits that the family who funded my scholarship had relatives there. I had many friends with EFC of 0 though. It’s less of a problem than you think. I actually met someone from the family who funded the scholarship. He was totally embarrassed that I’d figured out who he was and worked very hard in all of his classes.
true I'm going to cornell this fall and I've spoken to one legacy so far out of many many people
That’s was my experience at Cornell as well. Lots of FGLI and very few legacy.
Ok. The percentages of legacy applicants to legacy admits differs by college. But we can also agree that legacies are admitted at a much higher rate than those without such ties. We can also agree that many legacy admits, like many athletic admits, don't have to hit as many of the same high notes as those without those connections.
>But we can also agree that legacies are admitted at a much higher rate than those without such ties. Assuming that this is true, it would be a reasonable consequence of the data from the Princeton study cited above.
My friend going to Cornell is a double legacy. So I don’t know
I assume they dont need to stand out as much because they already have something of course, if that's the \*only\* thing that makes them stand out then theyre not exactly special because there's still a decent amount of legacy applicants, but still
[удалено]
Nepotism at its worst. Legacy admission should be banned, much as test optional policies created due to covid are being eliminated. Everyone should be given an equal shot. Legacy admissions prevents that from happening.
[удалено]
Legacy status matters much more with REA at Harvard and ED at Columbia. Since student in question gained admission RD to both Stanford and MIT, it means they also applied RD at Harvard and Columbia. Legacy card means little in RD pool. So that's likely your answer.
Something missing in a lot of discussions of legacies is only those whose families donate generously(Think donating at least a few/tens of thousands/year for a few decades or donating a few million at once) and/or who are notably accomplished in their field(Think scion of a politician, royal/aristocratic family, topflight academic, literary figure, olympic athlete who medaled, celebrity, etc) will get a meaningful tip. The majority who are Ivy/peer private elite alums who donate a a few hundred or less/year or only donate occasionally who don't have connections or notable accomplishments in one's field aren't treated very differently than the non-legacy non developmental\* applicant. They used to have that tip until sometime after the early '80s. This was something my college guidance counselor related to us as HS seniors 3+ decades ago and was confirmed by a couple of friends and an older relative who worked elite university admissions(Including an Ivy). \* Developmental applicants are scions of non-alum parents who either donate generously and/or are well-connected or have notable accomplishments.
So there are different levels of legacies, based on history and amount of giving and alumni involvement? So, there's no bump for being a legacy whose parents give little, and/or aren't active alumni? And big bumps for legacies whose parents give boatloads of money and/or are super involved alumni?
15% of Harvard students have a parent who attended. Not 30%. [https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/](https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/)
Others have already answered the question quite well, but I would still like to know your source for the supposed 30% of admitted students being legacy. I seriously question that percentage given that most highly selective schools have legacy populations in the 10-15 range. Legacies probably yield higher than others so they should be more of the student population if they are 30 percent of admits. You should probably check your information.
My % number of 30% legacy was from Harvard. I.merely assumed other colleges would have similar stats.
[удалено]
its not just legacy. there’s also more things like AA, elite private high schools, athletes, firstgenlowincomes, etc, and these people who meet institutional priorities could easily be at least 50% of the class
probably referring to harvard because they have stags for legacy being 30+% there
Where is that data from? The Harvard data I have seen says the legacy applicants have a 30+% admit rate, but not that they are 30+% of the admitted students. Those are two different things. I have seen where ALDC all together for Harvard are a high percentage but that’s misleading since legacies are not parsed out from the others.
i just did a quick google search. the harvard newspaper conducted a survey and they landed at 36% legacy. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/legacy-admissions-harvard-affirmative-action-supreme-court.html#:~:text=Legacy%20students%20made%20up%2036,and%20legacy%20applicants%20are%20white.
Although Slate quoted the figure as 36%, they linked to the Crimson survey results showing that it's actually about 15% of students who have a parent who attended Harvard. Not sure how Slate came up with their number. [https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup/](https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup/)
The annual Crimson survey results show that it's actually about 15% of students who have a parent who attended Harvard. The 30% figure is widely and incorrectly repeated. [https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/](https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/makeup/)
How can 5/100 applicants fill 30/100 admissions.
50,000 applicants, of which 5%, or 2500, are legacies. say there’s a 4% acceptance rate, so you admit 2,000. you admit 600 of the 2500 legacies, and 1400 of the 48750 non legacies. so legacies make up 30% of the admits, even though they’re just 5% of the applicant pool. this is an oversimplification but just shows you how it can happen
There are none of those, generally. If you look at freshman surveys at top schools, legacies have a clearly higher distribution of GPAs and - most importantly - test scores than the general student population. They also tend to have much higher family income and all the advantages that come along with it; but the advantages are not in the form of getting a break in the admissions process itself. Legacy admit rates at top schools are just a particular manifestation of the fact that kids with highly educated rich parents tend to be be better prepared to apply to the most selective colleges. The only place legacy really comes into play is as a tiebreaker. You don't get a break for being a legacy, but if a legacy and a non-legacy have substantially identical applications, the legacy is getting in first.
legacies do tend to have higher gpas and scores. and they do tend to have access to better ecs, essay help, etc. but just having all this is never enough to get you admitted to hypsm. like i said in another comment, legacy admits are generally academically qualified and are strong applicants, but wouldve normally been rejected but legacy gets them in. its because academically qualified + strong overall most of the time results in rejection at hypsm. side note tiebreakers pretty much never happen. they could both get admitted, one get admitted, or none gets admitted
Again, the freshman surveys I've seen report that legacies have significantly higher average GPA and SAT scores than the non-legacy average. Harvard's average legacy SAT is 30 points higher than non-legacies. Princeton's is as well. Harvard doesn't seem to report GPA in the freshman survey, but Princeton's legacy GPA average is also higher than the non-legacy average. The argument that legacies get in because of their legacy status is rebutted by the fact that their objective application metrics are better than the average admitted student. Why is everyone else getting in, then?