Any parents with or know of a child in the bottom of their entering class at very selective college?

I remember my S complaining fairly often that he’d be stuck with a lab partner or on a team with someone who clearly had no business in the class - studying EE at a top school. He had one partner who kept pressing the go button on a project even though they hadn’t made any changes. S had to keep telling him that there was no point in pressing the button if they hadn’t changed anything.

I think there are students who want to study engineering (or feel pressured to) but don’t have the chops, and they really struggle. Contrasted with my D who majored in political science, also at a top school, and who never mentioned an obviously unqualified student.

Calmom, about this: “A lower SAT/ACT score does not mean the student is at the “bottom” of their class. There are two kinds of students: those who have been admitted, and those who haven’t.”. That isn’t exactly true. Those who are admitted as legacy or development admits are often not of the same caliber as the rest in terms of their academic ability and history. Sometimes they are. But it’s not a give because it isn’t on the basis of their achievements that they were admitted.

Lostaccount, I agree that legacy admits at the most highly selective colleges are “not of the same caliber as the rest in terms of academic ability and history”. They are typically stronger. These colleges admit students recognizing the context from which they have achieved and on the whole, legacy applicants come from families with better educational opportunities where academic achievement was prioritized and are from higher SES. There may be some oddball developmental admits but those are few given the millions of dollars needed to register on the scale at tippy top universities. The bottom scorers on the CDS dataset are not the legacies but rather the less advantaged kids. A 28 ACT score when you are a first gen applicant with parents who work in a factory is impressive and probably signals more achievement than the upper SES kid with lawyer parents and a 33 score. When you have an admit rate below 10% you are turning down scores of kids academically qualified to do the work. These schools are not questioning whether the bottom 25% is capable of handling the work but there is support for those that want it. At the end of the day the students at the top and the bottom as they enter all get the same degrees.

Have a freshman in one of my groups right now who not only shouldn’t be in this class, the student shouldn’t be in a university period. Their capacity versus the other 4 members of the group is night and day. Worst of all, the student is a lazy jerk who’s taking advantage of the fact we will pick up the slack. We’ve had three group meetings and the student has strolled in late to all and played on their phone literally the entire time. Snapchat and social media sports pages, some with the sound on.

I have no issue with the school giving low SES students a chance but why isn’t someone coaching them to have a mature appearance, good hygiene, show up on time, be a good person? We all took time out of our schedule to help bring the student up to speed and the student clearly could not care less. This student is stuck in immature middle school mentality.

If legacies are stronger, why would colleges have an additional preference for them beyond their existing advantages?

“I agree that legacy admits at the most highly selective colleges are “not of the same caliber as the rest in terms of academic ability and history”. They are typically stronger.”

The evidence (Espanshade, Harvard lawsuit, other studies) says they’re not stronger, they need a bump, additional preference as ucbalumnus notes to be competitive. Espenshade says they get a 140 point bump in admissions, meaning that if Asians are at say 1450 for the ivies, legacies are at 1310.

Let’s not overlook the kids who are lopsided - one score much better than the other. The score distributions that the colleges provide do not break apart that x students scored 3 ACT points higher in English than math, and y students were the flip.

They are still highly capable, just maybe not across all areas. They will pull through their distribution requirements and then shine in their majors.

The last year the Crimson actually covered SAT scores in detail - legacies had higher SAT scores than the average applicant. https://features.thecrimson.com/2015/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/ Note that their scores weren’t as high as the average Asian score. They could still be getting a bump compared to specific groups.

My younger son who was lopsided verbal high did much better than we expected in admissions, which leads me to think that very high verbal scores and an interest in non-STEM subjects - especially for males - make actually be a bit of an advantage.

Espenshade’s paper on admissions preferences, which I just skimmed, is 21 years old and the latest cohort data used is 1997 although he includes earlier years as well. The aggregate admit rates in that paper are about 30% again confirming this from another time and likely not applicable today. I’ll readily grant that legacy preference was a more significant thing in the past and may be a slight benefit now when choosing amongst kids who share the same demographic but compared to the class as a whole, they have stronger applications accounting for the vast majority of their higher admit rate. As mathmom states above, Harvard, which seems to have stronger legacy preference than other Ivy’s, shows higher objective standardized test scores in legacy vs. the average applicant. There are some schools like MIT that state they give no legacy preference but I think it is safe to say most schools want their alumni to think there is at least some legacy preference for fundraising and I’m sure those admits yield at higher rates which helps with selectivity statistics and both those outcomes are desirable at an institutional level.

“I’ll readily grant that legacy preference was a more significant thing in the past and may be a slight benefit now when choosing amongst kids”

The court filings show that the legacy admit rate for Harvard is five times the non-legacy rate (33% to 6%) over the past five years, how is that slight?

Standardized test scores are far from the full package that the applicant brings. Indeed, since standardized test scores tend to correlate well to family income, and legacies (particularly HYPS legacies) likely skew much higher in family income than the overall applicant pool, it is entirely possible that legacies are better than average in standardized test scores, but not necessarily in other application aspects (HS GPA, extracurricular achievement, etc.), so at least some of them “need” the legacy preference to get admitted.

It is likely that some of the higher legacy admit rate is due to being a stronger applicant pool – HYPS legacies tend to grow up in very advantaged families who can send them to the best schools, give them full support to achieve to their highest potential in school, standardized tests, and extracurriculars, minimize barriers, etc., so that they can present the best college application credentials. But if that were true for all legacy admits, there would be no need for the colleges to give any legacy preference at all.

The math doesn’t work that way, given the fact that Harvard and other top elites turn away many more well-qualified applicants than they admit.

If, hypothetically, there is a 1:10 chance that a well-qualified applicant to Harvard (based on stats alone) will be admitted — assuming that the other half the applicant pool who get rejected simply aren’t qualified — then that would mean that absent a preference, 9 out of 10 well-qualified legacy applicants would be rejected. So if, hypothetically, they want legacies to have a 1:3 chance – they do need a preference to achieve that rate.

It would be slight if the admission rate for comparable non-legacy applicants was 25-30%, not 6%. The 6% average overall admission rate likely includes all sorts of people whose admission likelihood is essentially 0%. While the legacy pool may also contain some no-chance applicants, by and large one would expect the legacy applicant base to have more than average understanding of Harvard admission standards, and not to submit hopeless applications. I know that has generally been the case with my Yale alumni/legacy cohort and Yale applications: the acceptance rate runs around 25%, but kids don’t apply unless they have a pretty good argument for admission.

For years, there was folklore from various sources that after every year’s acceptances went out the Harvard admissions department would compare its acceptance rate for Harvard legacies to its acceptance rate for Princeton and Yale legacies (who of course received no special consideration at Harvard unless they were also Harvard legacies, in which case they were in the first group, not the second). The point was to create an artificial control group consisting of a population that would be demographically very similar to the Harvard legacies in ways that were significant (including things like family attitude towards higher education and the liberal arts), and to see how much of a boost the Harvard legacies actually got. The answer, supposedly, was “no meaningful advantage,” i.e., the rate at which Harvard accepted Harvard legacies was only slightly higher than the rate at which it accepted Yale legacies.

Indeed, many of the Yale or Harvard legacies I know who were accepted at their legacy college were also accepted everywhere else or almost everywhere else they applied, if they applied elsewhere. The last of my many cousins to go to Harvard went as a third-generation legacy, but she turned down actual RD acceptances from Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Columbia in order to attend Harvard.

The service academies which are generally known for being selective even if their overall programs cannot be compared apples-to-apples with similarly ranked civilian colleges, represent an interesting example of the OP’s question. By mission and design, the SAs value brains and brawn somewhat equally, so their incoming classes comprise a broad range of scholastic aptitude. Like civilian colleges, the SAs maintain an academic bar that all incoming appointees must hurdle, no exceptions even for athletes, but only one-third of any incoming class is selected for outstanding academic chops. The remaining 2/3 are chosen for equally shiny traits but fall further down on the academic scale. Obviously, some enter at the bottom of that scale even though they pass the admissions standard like those the OP is questioning.

Freshman choose their majors at the end of freshman year and guidance (“nudging?”) is both by interest and aptitude as shown by first-year performance. Navy, for instance, is purely an engineering program, so “easier” may be relative. Army offers a wider curriculum and, certainly, some choose paths that help ensure higher GPAs as GPA is one component of class rank that affects which branches a cadet has reasonable access to. The academies do everything in their power to support their students through to graduation with small class sizes, easy access to the brain trust, and freely available peer and faculty tutoring available 24x7, but they do expect students to know when they need help and to seek it out. The difference at the SAs, though, is that each student is a member of a corps glued together by an ethic that no brother is left behind, even on the academic battlefield. Our son is a math peer tutor and spent many hours freshman year doing his damnedest to ensure no one in his company failed a math class though some did. Even with all these support structures, some don’t make it, and the sifting is transparent and harsh: Fail a class, any class, twice and you’re out. Cut and dried. But it’s not always those entering at the bottom of the class who struggle. One of our son’s freshman roommates was valedictorian of his high school. He was separated for academics at the end of freshman year, but he was not an outlier. Some at the upper end of the incoming academic scale just don’t seem to be able to admit they need help until it’s too late. Some lower on the academic scale are used to getting help and don’t attach any stigma to reaching out to those more advanced; they will make fine officers. By graduation, they’ve all caught up in the sense that they have endured the rigor and earned their commissions and the right to be called “sir.” At West Point, each member of the graduating class donates a dollar to the kitty presented to the “goat,” the lowest ranked cadet on the graduating totem pole, and that cadet is celebrated for finishing the race.

Because the SAs are Federally mandated to produce and maintain a certain number of officers per branch, they go to extreme lengths to support their students toward that goal, but civilian colleges are evaluated by graduation rates, too, so they have an interest in helping their students earn their diplomas. I would say that ALL students, not just those entering toward the bottom of the academic scale, should know which supports are offered by their colleges and how to take advantage of them but, more importantly, understand when to take advantage of them, and that’s the trickier part, especially for freshman who may have been used to extra credit, test corrections, curves, lowest-score-dropped or other grade-enhancing devices in high school that most likely aren’t available to bail them out in college. It is important for all students to understand that asking for help as soon as it’s needed is a marker of strength, not weakness, and it’s our job as parents to send this message sooner rather than later.

USNA does offer majors in Arabic, chemistry, Chinese, economics, English, history, math, physics, and political science, but says that “While the majority of midshipmen will choose their majors, the needs of the Naval Service take precedence. For the Naval Academy Class of 2013 and beyond, at least 65% of those graduates commissioned into the U.S. Navy must complete academic majors in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics disciplines”, according to https://www.usna.edu/BlueAndGoldBook/academic.php . Distribution of majors for a recent graduating class of the USNA is at https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=naval+academy&s=all&id=164155#programs .

Of course, many people may find that something like Arabic or Chinese (two of the languages considered to be among the most difficult to learn for English speakers) to be the opposite of “easier”.

Yep, that’s true @ucbalumnus, I meant to say “primarily.” It is much more heavily engineering than Army, though.

We had the same experience as JHS with my kids cohort of friends. The kids who were legacies at Harvard or Yale and applied to both got into both the school where they were a legacy and the other school. The legacies were all in the top 2% of the class with high SAT scores.

The math is not that difficult. If you have 100 identical kid and 10 of them are legacies. If you accept 3 legacies and 3 other kids. The overall acceptance rate is 6%, and the legacy acceptance rate is 30% even though they all have identical stats.

the acceptance rate for non legacies is 3/90 or 3.33%, and the legacy rate of 30% is actually 9 times the non-legacy in your example. So two things, one is that the Harvard case should show the actual defacto acceptance for unhooked to be in the 2-3%, which your example shows. Second, why do you need to accept 3 legacies and 3 non-legacies, why not, you know, make it more fair and admit 1 legacy and 5 non-legacy? In that case, the legacy is 10% and the non-legacy is 5.5%, a smaller difference.

Wondering here, if the legacy pool is very strong, why do they need the extra help to get in?

$$$$ - my opinion.

More likely to be full pay or close to full pay. Helps to keep the cohort at that roughly 50% full pay mark.

Multigeneration alumni may give donations at a higher rate.

Yield - more likely to attend especially if they apply ED or SCEA.