First let me congratulate OP and the new Bruin. The UCLA brand is very well-regarded in academia. As a public uni it, along with Berkeley, suffers in the popular rankings because of such metric oddities as “alumni giving rate.” But UCLA is by most credible and creditable measures a top university…
With regard to the wider discussion her regarding legacies, I would warn against regarding the Hurwitz study as Gospel. I read the study (O Dear!) and its limitations to this discussion are apparent. The sample set is from 2007–almost a decade old, in an area in which admit rates have dropped substantially and, I daresay, some schools in his 30 school study may have modified their legacy admission policies. We do not know which schools were included in the study (but we do know that some “top tier” schools have substantially dissimilar legacy admit policies such as Stanford and Princeton, and the inclusion or exclusion of some schools could have significantly altered his findings). The study is limited to private institutions. His sample showed that “primary legacies” had higher mean SAT CR and Math scores than non-legacy applicants. There are many moving parts here and it is always perilous to apply generalizations from an old 30 school (names withheld) study to discussions regarding one or two or three so called “tippy top” schools.
I’m trying to discuss the question of whether there’s any evidence that legacies are academically weaker, as some on this thread are saying they are.
“Besides that, anyone with his or her eyes open knows tippy tops want more than (oh, have we said this, over and over?) stats.” I don’t think anyone is disputing this. It doesn’t add to the conversation to stuff a straw man in other people’s mouths and then make a disparaging remark about them.
Whether colleges do or should prefer legacies to students who excel at the harmonica or curling is another topic, also worthy of discussion but there’s even less information available on that.
i don’t believe that - at least in the tippy tops - legacy kids are academically weaker. As I said earlier, there’s only so much room to improve academically for high schoolers (and as others pointed, at a certain points, slight or even more than slight differences in stats don’t matter any more) so it is that “something extra” other than academics that gets one in the super selective. Legacy status is one of those things that qualify for “something extra” (aka hooks) that’s not in non-legacy applicants’ decks of cards. So it IS an advantage but how much of an advantage? It can vary widely - even among the 30 colleges in the research widely referenced in this thread.
@prof99, the limitation in schools selected, you may know, is one of the points Espenshade made when saying not to read too much into his own work, not jump to conclusions.
Mathyone: huh? This “conversation” keeps cycling back to stats, who has what degree of stats higher than others, as if that is some predominant marker of who “should” get in. Harmonica is silly. Not what they look for, no matter how many time CC thinks “standing out” means being different. No straw man.
Again, that is not what I am saying. Please, please stop putting words in my mouth–I’m feeling kind of done with trying to explain this to you. I was responding to some suggestions long ago, before some posters took it upon themselves to derail this thread, that legacies are academically weaker than non-legacy admits.
This is a different issue than who should or should not get in, or than how important academics are or should be in the admission decision. I don’t have strong opinions about whether colleges should prefer legacies, other than to point out that extravagant sports programs are sometimes justified in the name of school spirit and increased alum giving, the same things that legacy preferences are often said to promote. Does it add more to the school to have a greater fraction of students with personal experience of the history of the place, or does it add more to have more of the non-legacy students, who offer, if not harmonica, what–yet another student body president or saxophonist? That’s a subjective decision, feel free to discuss.
Just stop implying that I am some kind of idiot who thinks that these schools care only about SATs.
fwiw: a few of our HS grads who were admitted to Stanford were legacies and also athletic recruits (or is that athletic recruit and legacy?). One was a 4-year starter in football.
Mathyone, I’m not putting words in your mouth but referring to the thread. (Ok, except harmonica.) If anything, like you, I’m also not following the why behind comments they are weaker. Or why so much emphasis on stating they are. This emphasis misses the rest.
From my perspective, something of a lone view here, there is a huge issue among top performing kids and how they actually present themselves in the app/supp. In this legacy conversation, that’s not about the Activities section (privileged/expensive activities) or whether the parents paid to have a pro polish their main essay. It has to do with how a kid can express his interest in the school, what makes his match.
A clear example might be a sibling legacy. You’ve got a sib there or recently, they know the ropes, community, offerings, challenges. The applicant absorbs from him/her. Very different perspective than the kid who looks up an elite on US News, looks at stats of matriculated kids, maybe checks for his major, and not much further.
It doesn’t matter if A has slightly better stats than B, during review or in a later analysis, if A can’t present this other sort of understanding. So I question the thread emphasis on stats.
@lookingforward - just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that the critical mistake many applicants make is not providing a well-thought-through, tailored answer to the “Why X?” question on many (not all) applications? Is your point that once the stats are at a certain level and the rest of the package is attractive, this is what often tips it? And that legacies, being prima facie more familiar with the school, are better-placed to give an effective answer to this question?
“fwiw: a few of our HS grads who were admitted to Stanford were legacies and also athletic recruits (or is that athletic recruit and legacy?). One was a 4-year starter in football”
FWIW, there were 2 legacies from my kids’ school who went to Stanford who were both legacies and athletic recruits (both swimmers, and father had been a swimmer at Stanford as well).
A former poster on this board used to do alumni interviews with Harvard. She was frequently astounded by how little homework kids did for the interviews. They’d tell her things like “I want to major in business.” Uh, no. Harvard has no undergrad business major and if you’d spent five minutes with the website you’d know that.
That said, I’ve said many times that my son told his interviewer Harvard wasn’t his first choice. The interviewer spent a good deal of time trying to sell Harvard to my kid. Havard didn’t seem to care. (And no his application package was tailored for MIT - where he was ultimately rejected BTW - not Harvard.)
In my view, the “fit” factor as demonstrated in interviews and essays is overrated. Every year, we see a few candidates that are supposed to be highly desirable to elite colleges are accepted by multiple (in some cases all 8!) Ivy League schools. To me, it’s nearly impossible for someone to make a convincing case to all of those colleges which are quite different in some ways that they are a performance/nice fit. And, as you know for many tippy tops interviews are optional and the “why us” essay can be such a subjective topic that anyone can “make a case”. In my experience, academics (yes often times demonstrates in stats) is what makes the first cut for most applicants. From there, hooks of various kinds (maybe more than what people are aware) start kicking in and tipping the scale. Then, of course I am not saying the admission is such a “linear” process but I do think given the amount of applications tippy tops receive every year it is not as a “nuisanced” admission process as some here think it is.
With that many apps for so few seats, very easy to cull kids who don’t think, when the college is expecting kids who do.
Deep Blue, it’s not just a Why Us question. In a sense, the whole package (app and supp) is a test of sorts. When you tell a bright kid that, some have an aha moment. The app/supp are not just a frame in which to present those few lines about stats, that short page with activities and then transcript. Similarly, when when a interview generates a report, it’s a look see, no matter how many think it’s just to sell the college, a one-way talk.
Mathmom, I suspect that even though your son said H wasn’t his first choice, many positives came through.
Yes, I also agree that the tailor your application to fit the school thing is rather over emphasized on this site. My second kid may apply to a few schools my first one got into, and I still wouldn’t know how to tell my kid to tailor her application to “fit” those schools or any school I’ve been associated with, other than the obvious. Admittedly, this may be more important for small schools, but those don’t interest my kids. And she also told an interviewer that she didn’t apply early because it wasn’t her first choice. I guess her candor convinced them she was a fit.
Her candor on one point must have been balanced by other details in the interview and app.
It’s not overemphasized to learn what your college targets want, figure how you match. No, the common CC advice is to check the CDS and see where your stats fit, get some hs titles, write a “great” essay, then go for it. And not to take on extra activities because it may be seen as padding. See the difference?
Oh, I see - you’re saying the app/supp/interview should be used to showcase who you are in a way that the school will appreciate, rather than to recite the specific things you’ve done while expressing cliched sentiments. Maybe I just took that for granted, but I guess there must be a lot of kids who don’t get it (and their apps must be painful to read).
@lookingforward I agree that the “integrity” or a consistent theme across the different elements in one’s application will make a better application, but I don’t think it’s necessary for a successful application. i understand that how our views can be shaped by our own experience, but the stories of so many super selective cross admits on media and in real life point to a more ‘crude’ application review process.
The admissions sessions we attended felt largely the same. I never once felt compelled to write notes like aha, they are looking for X, let’s remember to tell them about Y and Z which are relevant to that. If admissions can’t convey a distinctive view of what they are looking for during their hourlong presentation, I rather doubt such information can be gleaned from the website. Maybe it all went over my head.
That’s not to say, though, that you can’t do your research and write a great “why X” essay with specifics that tie into the rest of the picture drawn by your app/supp/interview. This could be easier for legacies who may already be familiar with a school.
I don’t think an info session, one big crowd of kids, there for lot of reasons, many of whom will never apply, can convey what the web site and other info sources can. A savvy, activated kid, wouldn’t just go for what was said there. Nor what’s in the glossy brochures.
My whole attitude is more on the side of trying to find what you can, then trying to process it. See if you have someof the components they want, then try to show it (not just tell.) It’s a lot savvier, even brighter, than being laid back because you decided once your stats are high enough, they throw darts. Or the earlier idea, from another poster, that it’s random, tinged by adcom incompetence and etc.
When you consider the number of collective apps submitted to the most selective schools, the number who ace all of them is low. Some get a number of good admits. But I can’t exclude that they did a good job on their apps. Also don’t forget that, with all the talk about rich parents buying help, it isn’t always on target (or the kids reject what may be the better advice.) There are also some very fine mentor programs for lower SES kids (not all, of course.) And even in among poor high schools, some dedicated teachers.