Reflections of an elite legacy parent

Parents Forum
281

Based on a number of years observing college admissions from certain elite private schools, if you are a full payer at such a school, have excellent grades and scores, interesting ECs (not necessarily to the level of a hook like being a recruited athlete), are a legacy at an elite college, that college has a history of admitting a few kids from your school most years, your family has been generous (meaningfully so, if not necessarily at the level of a “development admit”) to the legacy college or otherwise highly involved there, you apply early to it and there aren’t too many other legacies of the same college applying at the same time from your school, what I’ve seen would suggest that you’ve got a very good chance (although no guarantee) of being admitted - certainly far, far better than the average applicant. Is the legacy preference meaningful here? I don’t think anyone could credibly argue that it isn’t. The point, though, is that it’s one critical piece of an otherwise clearly attractive package.

It seems to me, though, that the value of the legacy is highly dependent on the context in which it appears. In the above example, given everything else and the fact that the candidate is a “connected legacy”, I think it’s very important and may be dispositive. On the other hand, for a legacy applicant with the same stats and ECs at a large public high school that has a not-especially-close relationship with the legacy college, whose family is lower-middle-class, doesn’t donate significantly and isn’t otherwise involved, I think the legacy is at best a feather on the scale. The card is most valuable to a skilled player who’s already holding a good hand.

What this means, though, is that one can’t make one-size-fits-all statements about the value of the legacy preference, in particular because it’s impossible to determine how much the legacy itself (as distinct from the rest of her application, the advantages of her elite private school, the generosity of her family and the fact that she’s a full payer) contributed to Applicant #1’s outcome.

282

YK something, Marian? Enough with the self put-down. Cornell is plenty elite for anyone’s purposes. It’s only the pretentious who slice and dice the nation’s elite schools into meaningless tiers.

283

Arcidiacono says "Legacies likely come into college more prepared due to their advantaged backgrounds. " but I can’t find where he provides evidence for this. Is this actually the case at Duke? The Harvard freshman survey indicated that at least by SAT scores Harvard legacies at Harvard are more prepared, but Arcidiacono just asserts this. Obviously, giving a high admissions weight to legacies would result in a legacy population that is academically weaker than average.

284

In the broader context, I really don’t see how you project that. And top scores, top grades, aren’t what makes a successful college experience. The fact an elite can cherry pick doesn’t mean stats are the primary driver. You build a class you’re satisfied with, that meets various institutional needs and will thrive as a community… Not with the goal they’ll all hit 4.0. Quantitative focus misses so much.

285

Well, I think Arcidiacono might not agree with you. He suggests that weaker preparation derails the plans of many students to major in STEM and is one of the main reasons why students change majors. Maybe the students are eventually happy with the outcome, maybe not, but I don’t consider being forced out of a desired major because of sub-par grades when the odds were stacked against you to be a successful college experience.

"those whose major is in the humanities or social sciences have on average lower SAT scores than those whose major is in the natural sciences, engineering, or economics. Indeed, those who begin their studies in natural science, engineering, or economics and then switch to humanities or social science have SAT scores that are on average almost 60 points lower than those who persist in natural sciences, engineering, or economics.

286

I don’t consider finding a major you like better than STEM to be a bad thing. Normal people think the exploration in college is a good thing.

287

Mathyone, you’re pointing at quantitative again. And assuming there’s something wrong with changing majors.

288

Malcolm Gladwell in his book David and Goliath has a fascinating analysis of a related phenomenon of why some students change majors, with lots of numbers. I think he calls it ** relative deprivation** where students with interests in STEM who could have fared better in “less competitive and prestigious schools” get squished in “the elites” and abandon their dreams, because “they feel” inadequate compared to their class mates and it crushes their self-confidence.

It is interesting that he advocates that for some students, they might be better off if they did not pick the most prestigious school they could get into, and instead think hard about going to a “lower tier” school, because they might land up being more successful and major in what they are interested in.

This is quite controversial of course.

289

Of course it’s controversial. Humanities aren’t some lower tier of study, despite all the STEMmies’ self-serving attempts to prove otherwise.

290

Not that controversial. Premeds are often advised to attend less selective schools to make it easier to get high grades required for med school.

I am not “assuming there’s something wrong with changing majors”. In my mind, there’s a big difference between changing interests and getting pushed out of something you want to do, regardless of whether you later decide it was for the best or at least manage to be happy with your second choice. Arcidiacono is “pointing at quantitative” as an explanation for this.

Getting back to the actual topic of this thread, I was surprised by Arcidiacono’s assertion that at Duke, legacies are academically weak. It seems counter to the data from the Harvard freshman survey. I discuss this because in my opinion, a preference for legacies is much less defensible if academic standards are indeed being lowered for a privileged group of students.

291

Don’t you think it’s possible that at some schools legacy applicants are stronger, at some they are equal, and at some they are weaker? To some extent that might also reflect the parents’ belief about what the legacy bump does - does it raise the dead or serve as a feather - and therefore do they counsel all their kids to apply, or just their super-strong kids.

Likewise, don’t you think it’s possible that colleges have different tolerances for “how low they’ll go” to take a development candidate? Anecdata only - I know a Duke alum, on the board of trustees, a major fundraiser, who got both her kids in. One was Duke material; one was nowhere near and it was clearly a courtesy move. That’s not development per se, but close.

292

@lookingforward Academic eliteness often presented in a “Quantitative focus” way is how elite colleges present their eliteness to the public. On admissions sites and in the info sessions,the importance of academic qualification is always presented as first and foremost. And how is the academic qualification of a high schooler measured? Course rigor, grades, standardized tests, achievements in co-curricular activities… i am not saying that elite colleges shouldn’t be doing what they are doing now, which is to accept whoever they feel will fit in their community and serve their interests most. What I am saying is that their message to the public is vague when it doesn’t have to be, and to “lay men” it could be misleading.

293

PP have your looked at Harvard’s “what we look for?” And similar for other elites?
W eall agree ids need to meet an academic bar; after all it’s a challenging college experience. Bon’t mistake reporting stats of enrolled kids for some primary objective in whom the admit.

294

Very true, but vagueness allows them to cherry pick the students shamelessly, by applying different standards to different pools of students. Then they aggregate the data add a few finishing flourishes and Voila!! They are ready to rinse and repeat.

In some ways, elite college admissions are like “Animal slaughter houses”. The process is ugly and if it were captured on video would turn off a lot of people, maybe even repulse them, so nobody is really allowed to see the guts of the operations. In fact there is a lot of misdirection to prevent people from really seeing the whole sordid story. Only the end product is packaged nicely and presented in a beautiful medium while all the blood letting is quietly concealed behind the walls.

Would be great to see a “hidden camera expose” of the admissions meetings at some of the elites :slight_smile: 60 minutes are you reading this? Come-on, infiltrate one of these colleges will ya?

295

Most people would say that private schools can do whatever they want. For public schools, there may be an explicit or implied mission to make college education accessible to all (at least within the state), so that legacy preference may be seen as inappropriate due to it preferring the scions of the existing elite over helping the first generation and other disadvantaged students move up. Of course, the state governments should be funding the public schools adequately to make such a mission doable.

296

We’ve discussed Arcidiacono, Hurwitz, Espenshade in past threads. And Gladwell.

I wouldn’t begin to compare what kids study in hs- and so, what they “like” or find strengths in, when they apply- to the buffet of academic choices and directions in college. It’s not uncommon for kids,eg, to want to be doctors, want to cure cancer or work on prosthetics, etc, because that’s what they know/have seen/can think of. Unless expoosed, they don;t know the other fields, other forms of healthy delivery, management or advocacy. Same with CS or CE, they want to be Gates.

I said, if the college asks about possible majors, they can vet the record and understanding. That’s not to “hold” a kid to it. It’s about prep for what he does state and a check on his thinking.

And I say-and have reason to stand behind it- that too many kids don’t look for “the message.”

297

@ucbalumnus , I agree with what you said. It seems most of this discussion is about elite privates. It would make sense to me that a publicly funded university would need more egalitarian criteria since that makes every in-state a “development admit”! :wink:

If there were more/better of those maybe these other issues wouldn’t be so inflammatory.

298

VLP, I have no idea where you come up with statements about how they operate when you admitted you don’t know.

Is this meant to elicit a response from some of us?

299

I think you answered your own question back on post 207. The Harvard data is based on self-reporting; the Arcidiacono study was peer reviewed and published. There is a huge difference in the standard of vigour required.

300

The single biggest reason for us, was that the elites, with their terrific FA, offered a far more affordable option than anywhere else. My S graduated from Columbia in May with no loans, and just started working, earning more to start than DH has ever earned even after 30 years. But more important to me is that he was happy there and is happy now.

D is at Stanford, where she will be able to attend with no loans, and loves it there. Don’t underestimate the value of the resources that these elites have, in their programs, in bringing in speakers, events, faculty and alumni connections, etc. To many of us non-legacy families, this was astounding. I don’t think this meant we simply chased prestige or ranking.

My pups were among the true deserving geniuses that got accepted at these elite schools. They were accepted at some and rejected at other elites. They understood the crapshoot nature of this process. When the rejections came they were hurt, but overall still glad they had applied to others that accepted them.

If you’re asking why we were so intent on sending them to one of these schools, it was to quote the movie line, to follow the money. Why are so many other schools, where I agree my pups could also have gotten a fine education, still so expensive? My pups had the stats to get full-tuition or significant merit at several schools, but the net difference over 4 years would have been over $60K, which to us is real money.

I believe some of the deserving geniuses who don’t wind up at the super-elites do end up at their Flagship State, and they end up taking loans and paying that extra $60K or more.

The super elites, as a group, offer unmatched financial aid. For families that earn more than we do (<100K), the difference is often still significant up to $200K or so, depending on savings, etc. It is only for (what I would call) the very wealthy who earn >$200K that the elites start becoming too costly compared to merit options. But many of these families do send their deserving geniuses to these schools - and I am glad some of them do, as it has enhanced my pups perspectives. But as for legacy, once the kids are there, I understand some (including one of DS’s close friends) don’t necessarily want to admit to it - what good does it do to spread that information, when others may judge them as inferior in some way compared to the other “true deserving geniuses”.

I cannot speak for families who can afford to be full pay, or for those where the money doesn’t make a difference. But there are far too few truly affordable options compared to the number of deserving kids.