<p>Hanna, having worked at Harvard, too, I can tell you about a lot of faculty whose kids were rejected at H, and got into places like Chicago. I suspect the case you cite is an outlier. </p>
<p>In answer to AT, I was at H when my D got into Chicago.</p>
<p>If you think of it in business terms, and that’s what college admissions is, a business. it makes little sense to have a broad policy of admissions advantages to faculty or staff: 1. it hurts revenue greatly; 2. It is no help in terms of social goals, as opposed to URM recruitiing, for example; 3. it is no help in fundraising, in contrast to alumni tips, as faculty just don’t make enough to be significant targets, and aren’t great targets for annual fund appeals.</p>
<p>aspiring_1010 thinks the attitude towards alums is changing. but consider this: Does it make sense to give a SECRET tip to alum kids in admissions? I don’t think so. In fact, it makes more sense to announce a tip but not give much. Research has shown that alumni donations tend to peak during their kids’ HS years and drop off if the kids are not legacies. Knowing this, the only practice that makes sense is an announced policy.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that lots of exceptions, like Hanna’s example, exist. Schools will do a lot to please their star faculty, after all. But my sense, after knowing quite a few results from admissions, as well as school policies, is that being the child of a faculty member (or staff) means little in the admissions arena.</p>
<p>What does matter is that faculty members, as pointed out in one of GG’s links, “are highly educated, and studies show that gives a boost to children in achievement,” And the kids are often, especially at places like Harvard, legacies, as a lot of Harvard faculty went to Harvard.</p>
<p>Little known fact: Harvard is the only (to my knowledge) major private university that does not have a tuition remission program for faculty kids. Faculty kids pay full price, or whatever the fin aid office dictates.</p>