<p>Personally, I’ve heard more parents complaining that their children <em>didn’t</em> get into their alma maters, and saying things like “That’s the last time I’ll contribute to <em>them</em>” than 1st-hand reports about undeserved “legacies” getting in – of course, that’s meaningless, since it’s all just hearsay, and my limited circle.</p>
<p>But similarly, the most vocal complaints about “legacy” admissions seem to come from people who don’t know any specifics, either, just oft-repeated “Urban Legens”, heard from “a friend of a friend said that 98% of Harvard admissions were legacies, and that’s not fair!”</p>
<p>I’ve really come to believe that most complaints are simply a more socially acceptable way of justifying why little “Sylvester Muffington, III” didn’t get into Harvard than blaming it on URM preferences, or Sylvester’s lack of a cross-over dribble, or that little Syl was just not superlative enough to outshine the 10 other applicants for the seat he was competing for.</p>
<p>Gaining admission into an Ivy is never, ever easy, and never, ever “fair”. But I’d guess “legacy” status is one of the lowest evaluated factors there could be, and almost certainly wouldn’t tip the scales for an unqualified applicant, or at least, for a very, very few. </p>
<p>You’d likely have far more unqualified people getting admitted because they’re the children of, or are celebrities themselves, are the children of famous politicians, are athletes, have a fraudulent back-story, or are members of terrorist organizations than those gaining admission solely because of legacy status. </p>
<p>To me, it’s more about class envy than any objective reality, and much ado about very, very little.</p>
<p>IMO, of course.</p>