So there seems to be some confusion about this number. During the study period, approximately 14% of Harvard admits were legacies as Harvard defined them for special admissions purposes. A slightly higher percentage are matriculants because legacies yield at higher rates, but I believe that was a little over 16%. The larger numbers seem to be coming from surveys indicating an additional percentage have some other familial tie to Harvard, but not one that Harvard credited for special admissions purposes.
And then some of those legacies had high numbers themselves. Harvard in fact has claimed legacies have a higher median test score than other admitted students. The experts in the lawsuit nonetheless agreed high number legacies were admitted at higher rates than their other attributes could explain, although there was some dispute about exactly how much higher.
But the specific scenario I gave of a lower ACT legacy getting admitted over a higher ACT non-legacy was not necessarily common. It was more like if you looked at the pool of people with 34 ACTs, 34 ACT legacies were being admitted at a higher rate than 34 ACT non-legacies. At the margins, this is going to result in some cases like what I described, but not necessarily a lot.
That said, yes, I was channeling the sometimes almost dismissive attitude Harvard and the like took toward the credentials of legacies versus non-legacies.
I don’t know. But I believe the argument is more that the fourth-generation legacy who hits it big is more likely to give big to the family college. To be clear, though, the claim seemed to be any generation was more likely to give big.
So, if generations 2 and 3 were still alive when generation 4 was admitted, then any of generations 2, 3, or 4 could potentially be more likely to give a big gift at some point after the admission of 4.