My (and my wife’s) undergraduate university only considers children of college alumni as legacies. But both of the universities where we got our law degrees at least formally purported to treat our child who applied to them as legacies. In addition, my childless sister who is a reasonably substantial donor to her undergraduate university requested (and was assured in writing, not that it mattered) that my child be considered her child for legacy admissions purposes. She does not have children or plan to have them, and he was her only close relative who would ever be applying there.
Back in the day, before things got so precise, everyone thought I would be treated as a legacy at the university from which my grandmother and all three of her brothers had gotten their undergraduate degrees, where both my parents had gone to law school (but only my father graduated), and where I had 17 other uncles, aunts, or cousins with whom I had a substantial relationship who had gotten undergraduate degrees there, and some graduate degrees, and in one case was a faculty member. Today, none of that would matter; back then, my school’s counselor said that made it my safety school.
Re: graduating. I don’t think my mother ever got solicited for donations or reunion attendance at the law school from which she dropped out. But my wife gets alumni mailings all the time from another professional school at the same university where she had been accepted and sent in a small deposit, but then changed her mind and decided not to attend at all. The private school that both my children attended from kindergarten through, respectively, 10th and 8th grade clearly considers the child who left after 10th grade an alum, but not the one who left after 8th grade.
A parent with an undergrad degree always is a legacy. Sometimes a parent with a grad/professional degree is also a legacy. Sometimes a grandparent with a degree also counts.
At Harvard, only children of Harvard/Radcliffe undergrads are legacies.
At Penn, you are a legacy if you have a parent or grandparent with a degree from any of Penn’s undergraduate or graduate schools. But “if you want to get in you really really should” apply ED.
No, it’s not that you have to apply ED. It is that the boost is strongest if you apply ED so it behooves you to do so. It is not as though it’s completely tossed away if you apply RD, or that no legacies ever get in RD. (Indeed, I know a Penn legacy who got in RD.)
While the common definition of legacy for college admissions is if the applicant has parents or sometimes grandparents or relatives who attended the same institution, my understanding from my public magnet GC even 2 decades ago is that one only really gets a “legacy tip” if one’s parents/family not only attended the institution, but also made substantial donations* and/or is a well-connected well reputed individual(think politicians, royalty/aristocracy from abroad, actors/actresses, topflight scholars/scientists who made notable contributions to the field, etc).
If one’s “legacy parents” don’t have those factors or the inclination to make donations at that level even if they have the means, the “legacy” applicant isn’t likely to be treated very differently from a non-legacy applicant without a “hook”.
Incidentally, I personally know a college classmate who was admitted to an Ivy as a “legacy” because his grandparent was not only a noted alumna, but also donated millions of dollars to the institution over the decades before he applied. Without that legacy tip, there was no way he’d have been admitted to that Ivy with his HS stats even back in the late '80s/early '90s.
On the flipside, I know plenty of elite college grad parents who were surprised to find from their HS/boarding school college counselors that if they didn’t donate a huge amount to the institution and/or don’t have the connections/fame/notable contributions to make the alma mater proud, the “legacy tip” their kids are likely to get will be practically nil.
At least tens or hundreds of thousands/year or a multi-million dollar donation for a building at the very least.
Yes, we’ve already gone over this before. Asked and answered. The “plain vanilla legacy” who isn’t donating or who is donating very modest amounts doesn’t count for very much at all. And if you’re donating big-time and/or have a celebrity factor, it doesn’t matter if you are actually an alumni or not.
No, you don’t have to donate. Or not all top schools would expect you to.
Cobrat may be mixing legacy and the development tip. Or the tips 20 years ago.
Tossing this in, from the UChi admissions tumblr:
"On legacy students: Legacy status is something that we can consider, but in a holistic admissions process, it is one of many many factors that will be a part of our decision-making process– and would not be something that could overcome an otherwise lackluster application. “Fit” for our school is really important to us; it may be the case that even though we were the perfect place for Grandma Harriet, Grandson Jimmy may really fit better at a different school (or could be a fabulous addition to our class!) It all depends on how the information fits in in the greater context of your application. The advantage a legacy student has is that someone you know knows our school very well, so we’re hoping that you’ll use this knowledge to consider why you’ll be a good fit for UChicago, and to let us know that through your essays and intellectual engagement. "
“The “plain vanilla legacy” who isn’t donating or who is donating very modest amounts doesn’t count for very much at all.”
The data says that a plain vanilla legacy moves your chances of admissions from the 10% ballpark to the 30% ballpark. At Brown, for example, that translates to the difference between having a 34 ACT (11% admit rate) and a 36 ACT (28% admit rate).
Statistically, that’s quite big. A firm thumb on the scale.
But if you want to, you can characterize that as a huge brick (it triples your chances!!) or a tiny feather (still have a 70% rejection chance).
Agree that major donors don’t need to be alumni. Duke, for example, has famously poached kids and donations away from Yale alumni (Bass, Wrigley, Mars families).
I didn’t say you always have to donate to get a legacy tip. But if you don’t you need something else notable to compensate…such as being a scholar who made a noteworthy contribution to one’s academic field, noteworthy author, reputable celebrity, notable politician, etc.
And the same goes for developmental admits. For instance, my father was friends with a notable Chinese author who wasn’t wealthy at the time, but whose renown was such once an influential dean at an Ivy knew the author’s son was applying, successfully exerted his influence in getting him admitted despite an extremely mediocre HS academic record. In his case, his renown as a giant in the modern Chinese literary world was enough to get his son the “developmental tip” despite the father not making substantial donations to the institution in question.
“But if you don’t you need something else notable to compensate…such as being a scholar who made a noteworthy contribution to one’s academic field, noteworthy author, reputable celebrity, notable politician, etc.”
Nope. That’s not right.
The studies show that the garden variety legacy boosts your chance from about 10% to 30%. Garden variety means your typical upper middle class doctor, lawyer, banker living in the suburbs and doing the usual stuff – modest donations, going to reunions, maybe interviewing alumni.
10 to 30% is no guaranty. It’s not 10 to 60% or 10 to 100%. Seems to be worth about two points added to your ACT score. No more than that, but also not less than that.
If you are a suburban 34 ACT garden variety legacy kid in the pool with many thousands of similarly well-qualified suburban 34 ACT non-legacy applicants, it makes a lot of difference. But If you are a 30 ACT kid, garden variety legacy probably won’t cut it.
I think the 10-30% statistic is misleading although my definition of "garden variety’ and yours may differ.
I interviewed for Brown (for many, many years, under different presidents with different strategic agendas). I don’t think the data you are using is specific enough for you to tease out the “garden variety legacy” who was an Intel semi-finalist that year (it happens) or the “garden variety legacy” who had already debuted on Broadway (it DID happen- ordinary parents but an extraordinary kid), or- by comparison- the “garden variety legacy” whose mom is a social worker, dad is a pastor. Or dad is a high school chemistry teacher and mom is a librarian.
My bet is that your upper middle class doctor and banker couple have been giving MUCH more than modest donations and have been doing so for many years, not just the last three. And the fact that their giving capacity is significantly greater than that of the pastor’s kid is kind of hard to ignore, even if the parents aren’t billionaires (the doctor married to the banker is likely to sit securely in the 1%).
I think the true garden variety legacy at Brown is looking at that 10% number. When a “gifted” in some way- artistically, scientifically, etc. “garden variety legacy” shows up, THAT’s whose getting in.
Trust me- I heard the grumblings at my last reunion! I don’t know how much money my classmates make, but I know what they’ve given (or at least which category they’ve given to); I know who has endowed a chair vs. who increased their class gift to $500 as a sign of their love to the institution; I know what they do for a living which gives me at least a proxy for just how “garden variety” they are. Your doctor example (cardio-thoracic surgeon perhaps?) married to a banker (private wealth manager at UBS?) could be making $2 million a year without sweating. How that is “typical” or garden variety is a mystery to me.
I have classmates like that. They are anything but typical. And it is hard not to notice that their kids are benefiting from the legacy advantage more than their middle class peers. Which is totally fine by me- Brown has increased its commitment to first Gen students significantly, and is doing incredible things with its fundraising dollars- which have to come from someone. But to every other legacy- at Brown- I say- 10% kiddo. Deal with it.
At these type of schools, I’m thinking that a “garden variety” legacy is someone who is a good school citizen but nothing more. Donations of $1-10k a year. But most importantly, someone who makes enough that are likely to be full pay. That probably equates to a 0.5 to 2 per center, but not a master of the universe.
My view is that garden variety legacy admissions are, from the school’s financial perspective, much more about full pay dollars than donation dollars. $250k per kid is way way more than almost any alum is ever going to give. And, as noted in the comments above, denying an alum’s kid is a good way to decrease donations.
Where that “garden variety 30-36 ACT” middle or upper middle class white legacy kid lives plays a factor too in the admissions bump a kid might get, I imagine. Most private colleges seem to be almost begging for kids to apply from states like North Dakota. Guessing a garden variety legacy might get an above-average bump from an under-represented state or country. Although I don’t know about the HYPS group, as we did not attend info sessions at those schools.
I don’t consider someone who endows a chair to be a garden variety alum for sure.
I know it’s very difficult to “tease out” one preferential treatment or hook from others, but you are sorta losing the point of this discussion when you start talking about all others hooks and how the combination of more will be more helpful. Of course it is. The truth is that legacy can and many do have other hooks. Obviously the more other hooks you have and the rarer those hooks or the combination of them are in this year’s applicant pool, the better chances you have. However, to make sense of the higher admit rate of legacy applications (if significant, eg double or triple the general pool admit rate), you have to consider the hypothetical cases of “when all else being equal” and if legacy tips the scale to ones favorite. The answer should be yes in general even though many don’t “feel” it as in most elite colleges, more than half of legacy applicants are still shut out.
Pan- I agree with you. But these legacy discussions end up being so simplistic precisely because of the “noise” in the applicant pool. Kid lives in Chappaqua NY and is aiming for an “elite” college on the East Coast. Unless there IS another hook, legacy alone (absent a strong track record of donations and involvement) isn’t going to move the needle. Why? Because the likelihood that a classmate is going to have a better “package” even without the legacy factor is extremely high. Substitute Winnetka or Atherton or Belmont MA to jive with the geographic reality of where you live.
The noise IS the story from what I have observed- at least at Brown.
MomTwo – my friends who live in the Bo-Wash corridor frequently tell me how lucky my kids are to be applying from the “boonies” of suburban Denver. I respond by telling them that their kids (unlike mine) will be shoo-ins at Stanford, which is (by far) the ne plus ultra school out west.
“good school citizen but nothing more” may not even get a legacy all that far. You have to go back to the higher expectations of a tippy top. Look at the Chicago quote. The school I know best isn’t afraid to say, not our cup of tea. It also doesn’t look for your $1k-10k record of giving. It looks for what the applicant knows, how you fit, how you express that. Or not. And fit is more than stats. And much more than pres of stu govt, won some award, claims to be an entrelreneur, juggles unicorns.
Discretionary admits (biggest donors) are usually flagged by development, for early discussion. If they won’t pass muster, they’re diplomatically discouraged. Others can be added later, but there’s no special pull for being, say, an actor or politician kid, without the stuff. Big donor and other discretionary represent less than 1% of admits. Nothing to fear. Jme.
There are lots of factors. Bottom line, better to know the school, why you’re applying, why you’re a feasible candidate, than just take the WTH attitude.
This reflects my own personal bias, but let’s say we have the doctor and the banker making $2 mm a year. Let’s also assume they have 2 kids and let’s assume they started getting up to $2 mm relatively recently (eg the doctor didn’t finish residency and waltz into this).
$2 mm is nothing to sneeze at, but after taxes not quite so grand, so call it $1 mm by the time all is said and done. Now put them on the hook for $500,000 full pay for the 2 kids, and maybe another $500,000 if kids want to go to law or med school.
Anyway, the current estate tax allowance is approx $11 mm. I would think said parents would be focusing on building their estate so they can leave $5.5 mm to each kid before they’d be dropping six figures annually to Elite U.
Not to say any violins need to be played for our couple here, who are clearly in a great position, but that seems kind of an end run around the main goal of ensuring kids’ financial security - donations to Elite U in hopes it will get kids in, versus have that actually in the estate regardless of where kid goes. (And let’s also assume kids have reasonable chances on their own merit - we are not raising the dead here.)
At least that’s my way of thinking. I’m not touching significant charitable donations to Elite U (or anywhere else) til the estate allowance is maxed.
“But if you want to, you can characterize that as a huge brick (it triples your chances!!) or a tiny feather (still have a 70% rejection chance).”
There’s no way I can’t see a decrease from 90% chance of rejection to 70% chance as anything but a feather. I still ain’t booking my tickets for Christmas break at this point.
You’re planning an outdoor wedding. Do you feel “better” if the forecast calls for a 70% chance of rain vs 90%? I sure don’t. Either way you’re screwed.