<p>No, but Yale might come in at 1001 milli-Harvards. Everybody deserves a little thumb on the scale. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haven’t seen it, but it certainly does look like misguided entitlement, particularly if an applicant who presumably had all of the possible advantages from growing up in a family wealthy enough to donate a building still fell short of the presumably very low bar put in front of development applicants.</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>You are suggesting that the school admit a student because his/her parents may have a tiger-parent-like focus on him/her attending that school?"</p>
<p>That’s an unusual interpretation. The ones who went to elite schools themselves tend to have a balanced perspective on what they offer - so, while, sure, they’d love their kid to go to Ye Olde Alma Mater, they realize there are other nice opportunities elsewhere, and so the disappointment is personal and internal, not because of any belief now the kid will have to flip burgers. It’s the people who DIDN"T go to these kinds of schools who have that tiger-parent-like focus on certain schools, because they mistakenly think these places are Golden Tickets to The Good Life, and the Only Golden Tickets available. </p>
<p>Re-read Hunt’s 126.<br>
There’s a lot of assumption that these colleges are stupid, that some reporter or attorney will just go and snuff out the reality that there’s this sort of discrimination or that “preference.” But the colleges are wiser and can use “holistic” to their great advantage. Some on CC literally think if you can just get your hands on “that kid’s” app, you’ll see the notes: “But he’s Asian.” Or, “Her scores suck and she almost flunked hs, but she fits our quotas.” Nope. </p>
<p>And many on CC seem to feel most kids apply on relatively equal footing. Ie, that one 2300 is the same is the next- and a 2350 or 2400 is even better- maybe with class president, varsity captain, some award or some internship thrown in. Or 12 APs. [And so, if X number of, say, Asians apply with great stats, they all deserve an admit…and in proportion to their app numbers.] </p>
<p>The reality is that with holistic, the app process, the applicant’s decisions leading up to it, and the actual full content are great dividers. The app is the presentation, where you show more than stats; offhand, I can’t name a college that just says send in your transcript and scores, though there must be some. Most kids have never done anything like a college app before and many miss the significance of the parts, no matter their grades, parents, coaches whatever. I don’t mean this as a criticism, but it’s a limitation. </p>
<p>Legacies do tend to know the college better. (Though it’s not fixed in stone.) I don’t think it’s genetics, privilege, SES, coddling, etc. If their parent(s) liked the school and saw value in their experience, it was likely an undeniable aspect of the family, growing up. These kids can understand some of the subtleties better, what a school is about, the interactions, values, challenges, opportunities and more. [Even so, if they are not qualified, fergit it. No top college needs kids who can’t succeed there.]</p>
<p>And wait list serves many functions, as someone suggested. </p>
<p>
The grievance stems not from a few kids getting admitted w slightly lower academic qualifications, but from the fact that one demographic group is expected as a class to score a whopping 400 points more than another demographic group, all other things (ECs, SES, etc ) being equal.</p>
<p>I’d be interested to see a scatterplot of harvard admits, coded for legacy and nonlegacy, and asian vs nonasian, then we can have an informed debate.</p>
<p>That 400 point expectation from Espenshade? You know he said not to bank on those findings? That gets lost in the headlines. Were you part of the long discussion about “informing” the public, that swirled around Fisher? The public has to know how to interpret and what to do with such figures. If CC is any indication, many do not get the picture. They want to be angry. </p>
<p>It’s not all about stats. That doesn’t make admissions impenetrable. It just means kids and families have to dig a bit deeper, understand what the colleges do look for, how they weigh and measure. All we have to do is look at the Chance Me threads, to see what kids think matters. It;s more than that. Again, not a criticism. </p>
<p>
Yes, the public is too dumb to understand, so we best not ask too many questions.</p>
<p>Nope, not so simple or superficial. It’s an entire process. Later, maybe I can find you Espenshade’s comments about how they only looked at a minimal set of data used in admissions decisions, did not sit in on admissions discussions, review LoRs, read essays or short answers, look at ECs, etc. To get some of this, people need to set aside the stats fixation. Try it. Two kids being stats-equal, same high school positions, same hs quality and classes-- could you find ways one is a better choice for College X than the other? Yes. In fact, I guess most parents have a variety of ways they reflect on their kids’ friends, beyond stats, or a variety of criteria they would use, in putting together, say, an academic team. Remember, there is a full application to submit, much more than stats. </p>
<p>
It’s a red herring to frame this as a comparison btwn 2 candidates. The harvard case is a CLASS ACTION lawsuit, where the plaintiff contends that thousands of kids of a certain demographic are being discriminated against by systemically being held to a higher standard than other groups. That’s where seeing a cloud of data rather than just 2 data points would be revealing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody thinks it is all about stats. Some people reasonably suspect it is about quotas and caps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The CSU system just wants the usual basic information (name, address, etc.), applied-to campuses and majors, self-reported courses and grades, and application fees. One set of SAT or ACT scores is usually needed.</p>
<p>Re #138, the only story I recall even vaguely like that had materially different facts. The student was a (extended ) legacy applicant, not a development applicant. Her family was not at all rich. Her ancestor’s name was on the building because he had been an important faculty member at the time, eons ago,Neither he nor his family donated the building. </p>
<p>The student 's article did not reflect any entitlement- rather concern. Moreover at the time she wrote the article she had not received an admissions decision, either way.</p>
<p><a href=“Color Me Red – Cornell Alumni Magazine”>Color Me Red – Cornell Alumni Magazine;
<p>She was in a position to take a rejection from the university harder than most others, that’s true, But it’s clear she recognized that was a distinct possibility.</p>
<p>Just to muddy the water a bit, at my HYP-like school, we currently have several legacies on the varsity team that I played on. Two are clear-cut legacies, and one had close relatives who attended, although not parents. The two traditional legacies are both minority kids and their parents hold advanced professional degrees. One of the players is among the best kids on the team.</p>
<p>So, the point is that the legacies that people are discussing may actually be quite different from the ones that people believe they are discussing. I also had a roommate and a teammate from my years who had children who were admitted and attended. The roommate is a clergyman, and the teammate owns a hardware store…so the image of Daddy Warbucks offspring displacing the 1600 SAT first generation, in my opinion, couldn’t be further from the truth. If anything, the first generation kids (of which I was one), get a much larger thumb on the scale than anyone else does…(although I also had some high scores to throw on the scale back in the day). So did the other first generation admit from my hs whose father was a telephone lineman.</p>
<p>As far as the legacy edging out the other equally qualified applicant, well, that happens. As all of these discussions highlight, there exists a group with academic qualifications equal or greater than the admitted class who were somehow displaced from the admitted group. That’s the job of the admissions committee. And that displaced group is possible 200-300% the size of the admitted students group. To single out legacies as the cohort primarily responsible for that displacement is barking up the wrong tree. That is especially true at HYPS, and the other top 10 or so universities.</p>
<p>Nice! The old thread I misremembered</p>
<p><a href=“One applicant's story - Cornell University ED - #76 by umcp11 - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/806050-one-applicants-story-cornell-university-ed-p6.html</a></p>
<p>The end of the thread indicates the student did not get in and the mother was not too pleased. There is also a post about Cornell identifying the legacies. </p>
<p>Dubya Xig</p>
<p>"The roommate is a clergyman, and the teammate owns a hardware store…so the image of Daddy Warbucks offspring displacing the 1600 SAT first generation, in my opinion, couldn’t be further from the truth. "</p>
<p>It never was, since it’s pretty darn clear that the majority of legacies who are admitted are the merely plain-vanilla legacies, not Daddy Warbucks offspring. People who don’t know any better think that legacy means “rich” or “throws a lot of money at the school.”</p>
<p>And indeed, if someone is a developmental case, the school couldn’t care less whether they are actually a legacy or not. If you’re upping $100 MM for the new science building, who cares if you actually went there or not?</p>
<p>So what is that definition of rich again? </p>
<p>Oh come on, you know the drill. Graduates of elite colleges are more likely to be in the upper echelons, but there’s a huge difference between making $250K a year, and being able to donate a new science building. You know this, though.</p>
<p>BTW, new dorm construction is new dorm construction. People on CC seem generally unaware of the scads of rich people who donate new dorms, new science buildings, etc. at less elite colleges too – they care about them and furthering those legacies just as much as people who go to elite colleges care about theirs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that there can often be many legacies applying for a spot in an HYP class, isn’t is safe to assume that the legacy whose family has donated the most to the university (other factors beings equal or close) going to get the tip? I’m not talking buildings, but I’d bet the candidate X whose alum parent gave a few thousand bucks each year would get a tip over candidate Y whose alum parents gave nothing.</p>
<p>I don’t think that donations give legacies a “tip” against other legacies unless its remarkable. A few thousand a year to HYP is very nice, but unremarkable. </p>
<p>Now just how do you think admissions knows who gave $5000 versus $50? You think adcoms go checking each legacy’s family donation history?</p>
<p>It’s the much, much bigger fish who get their own rep in the Development office. That rep might coddle in certain ways and when the magnitude of the contribution is worth it. .</p>