These schools are downloading apps so they can code and flag all sorts of ways.
But the second look-- I think it’s been worded “at least a 2nd look,” which would cover kids who had issues with the first cut. Those who do get further are getting more looks anyway.
Hope this thread doesn’t turn into another one off track with arguments about who interprets what study what ways.
I think both Hurwitz (from Harvard) and Espenshade (from Princeton) and the anecdata could be right. They were comparing legacy admits to non-legacy admits, but what they didn’t do is compare student A who was a legacy at H, but also applied to P, and student B who was a legacy at P but also applied to H. What we are saying is those students have a leg up, not just because they are legacies, but also because they know how to play the game better. I do think there’s a boost, but I don’t think it’s a five fold boost.
I’ve seen the same thing, the kids who apply to a bunch of those super selective schools nearly always get into more than one or to none of them
In my family of the Harvard legacies, only one other family has gotten kids into H in this generation. Guess what, the parents worked at the Harvard admissions office when they were young and are now college admissions officers at a private school. Their kids are smart and talented. They play an unusual sport (Ultimate) at expert levels and one of them was a clown in a student circus for two summers as well. I’m pretty sure those kids knew how to sell themselves better than average.
Mathmom- the kids may have known how to sell themselves better than average, but presumably the clown didn’t write an essay on “we lost the championship game but I gained so much more than a trophy”, and the unusual sport athlete didn’t write, “I tutored orphans in Honduras and learned that rich or poor, we are all the same”.
Yes, these cousins had a leg up. But every time I run into one of my neighbors who complains “After all, how many valedictorians who are also tennis champs and won awards for volunteering at a animal shelter could Harvard get, that they’d reject my son?” I want to tell her, “probably 2,000 this year, maybe 1,800 last year, maybe 2,500 next year”.
Kids just can’t believe that they are not unique and special because their parents tell them they are unique and special. Which is wonderful. But being a valedictorian doesn’t get you into Harvard. Being a valedictorian who is a tennis champ doesn’t get you into Harvard. Adding your volunteer hours at the animal shelter to your profile- nope, still not getting you into Harvard. And if your essay was about balancing tennis and being a valedictorian- well, my heart goes out to you.
Come to think of it, the legacy boost is indeed not as huge as it appears by the stats (eg 25% vs 5%). The legacy pool shouldn’t be compared with the general pool but rather the subset of applicants with the similar stats as the legacy pool, which generally speaking is above average. It’s no wonder that many of the ultra selective legacy admits are admitted to other ultra selective. With all the achievements some kids have made, legacy or another perceived “hook” could seem trivial.
@panpacific They were compared with applicants with similar stats. The study shows that the legacy advantage was enormous, regardless of the ability of the kid. From the study:
The legacy advantage varies depending on what SAT range an applicant falls in. Below are the percentage-point increases in admissions probability for three different types of legacies.
SATScore AnyLegacy PrimaryLegacy SecondaryLegacy
1600-1600 29.8 43.2 21.0
1550-1590 30.2 49.1 16.1
1500-1540 29.1 47.5 19.0
1450-1490 28.6 50.3 16.4
1400-1440 25.7 44.2 16.6
1350-1390 21.1 41.2 13.3
1300-1340 21.4 41.8 13.5
1250-1290 17.5 33.7 12.3
Edit - Crap, I can’t ever get the spacing to work right trying to get a table here. So there’s the data - sorry it looks weird. At any rate, those advantages are “YUGE”.
It really sucks that the legacies have such good stats. It violates the meme that administration is strong arming the poor little adcoms into accepting those unqualified legacies.
@DoyleB Was that for Harvard? For what years? Didn’t see that before. Worth studying…
There is legacy and then there is legacy. Often people think it is all about $$$, but that’s not the case. Schools look for alumni’s involvements, not just donations. At my kids’ school there is a special folder for special legacies. They get the red carpet treatment (go Big Red). The school won’t admit it, but the very special ones also get the best rooms (with ACs).
A good friend always talked about their kids going to Stanford because he loved his experience there as an UG. We all thought to ourselves, “Yeah, so do thousands other kids.” We were all aware his kids stats - top students, but average in CC’s standard. Both of his kids ended up at Stanford. Hmmm…luck? He was that very special alum.
My kids were lucky where they ended going to college and secondary school. I told them to be involved with their alma maters and make sure to donate every year.
Lol. Awesome strawman about administration strong arming poor little adcoms. Picturing that made my day
An adcom could admit a well qualified legacy just as well as qualified non-legacy, so why wouldn’t they do it for as a favor for some special alumni. I am sure adcoms set aside certain quota for athletes, musicians, race, legacies…Not sure where there is strong arming. Not all athletes get special considerations, similarly not all legacies get special considerations.
“They were comparing legacy admits to non-legacy admits, but what they didn’t do is compare student A who was a legacy at H, but also applied to P, and student B who was a legacy at P but also applied to H.”
Hurwitz did EXACTLY that.
If you are going to go through 290,000 (a YUGE number) application files from 133,000 unique applicants, of course you are going to look at whether the Harvard legacy got into Yale or Princeton as a non-legacy. Since that would be the clearest evidence you could ever get on the subject.
From the link pasted above:
“He was able to do so by focusing on the large number of high-school students (47 percent) who submitted applications to more than one of the colleges in the sample. A given applicant’s characteristics, like the wealth of their family or strength of their high school, wouldn’t vary from college to college. But their legacy status would, and so too might their admissions outcomes.”
“He found that traditional analyses, which control for some of the major quantifiable measures, like SAT scores, but for fewer variables over all, underestimated the legacy advantage.”
Hurwitz controlled for wealth. And for athletes. And SAT scores. And race. And gender. And for differences in the selectivity of the colleges in the sample.
After controlling for all those things, he concluded that the effects of legacy are a bigger deal than previously thought.
Perhaps we should talk about whether to deny climate change or evolution instead? : )
There is a very easy way to settle all this speculation, if schools released applicant as well as admit and denial data for major groups along with their profile similar to how Naviance does it for the general pool. Not holding my breath though. Unless forced by courts, no school will release it, specially the elites.
No data is any better than one’s ability to interpret it. Just look at how a little storm is brewing here over some studies.
If someone doesn’t believe in holistic, thinks it’s sham and cover, I’m not sure what revelations come. Eg, both Brown and Princeton show the number of admits to applicants, by stats. So many seem to be able to think only hierarchically and are stumped by the smallish acceptance %s to the top stats kids.
It helps to have seen apps, interviewed kids, helped kids become informed and strategize, coached an academic team, work with kids, etc. Stats and what seem to be obvious don’t always mean a kid comes across with the fuller attributes the college wants in its community.
I don’t remember if it was blossom or another interviewer who pointed out how some kids can’t even express their interest in the elite they did this for, during the interview. And the elites are in a position where they can cherry pick among the best all around applicants.
Yes. Concealing as much data as they possibly can and then waving their hand and yelling HOLISTIC is the better way to go clearly. That way colleges can shamelessly pursue discriminatory policies that wouldn’t stand scrutiny, or better still deny they even do it, so that some favored groups today will not get upset with them. After all public shaming of these institutions with their own data would be highly inappropriate as long as certain groups’ interests are protected over others. It’s only where these groups interests are not being met do we need to force institutions to release data and be publicly shamed. Selective shaming from the outside and holistic admissions from the inside is the magic formula to maintaining America’s edge in higher education
Don’t we all agree though, that private colleges can admit whomever they want, regardless of criteria?
Even if it is not my kid, and I don’t like that?
Why would there be any shame for them? And how can we know if that leads to “bad” decisions?
For instance, when Yale admitted the well-below-mean GWB, was that a “bad” or “unfair” choice? He became POTUS. (Possibly one of the worst ever, but POTUS nonetheless). So was that a choice they should regret?
For the record, I am asking. 
Very lucky- exactly which groups are you talking about? If you are going to indulge in a rant about discrimination, why have us all guessing?
Because you’re forced at gunpoint to apply to these schools. And the shame in front of your neighbors if your kid doesn’t get in is just life-changing!
Look, if they are so busy admitting Janie Jock and Danny Development and Louisa Legacy and Ursula URM, all of whom can barely add 2+2, isn’t it fabulous that they overlooked your kid? He deserves better than those unqualified classmates. Go find the schools that are admitting the unsung geniuses!
Except no one really wants to do that. This is really about “it’s not fair that I can’t assure myself that I’ll be able to brag at the next suburban party that my kid is going to HYPSM.”
I am afraid not. They are not allowed to discriminate, just like I cannot discriminate when I sell my home even though it is my home. Besides, they are recipients of federal aid dollars and other federal grants. They have no such freedom, because the federal govt can penalize them by withholding funds if the federal govt thinks they are not doing enough on some front. the whole “Sexual assault on campus” is a good example of the power the federal government holds over even the most prestigious and wealthy institutions.
So if the federal government (by which I mean the current administration in power) believes that colleges are not admitting enough “Martians” then they can make it really hard on the colleges. But if the federal government is not interested in how many “Venusians” are admitted, then the colleges don’t have to care either, even though they may be discriminating against Venusians as well.
And in the end since people elect the politicians, voting blocks influence policy decisions. If one group has more power than the other in terms of votes or swaying elections, not catering to their needs would be disastrous for politicians, so they will pretty much get what they want, both on the left and the right,even if the policy is patently stupid, ill-advised and/or harmful to education in the long run
Are non-legacies a protected class? How about non-jocks?
The only way you can make this argument is if you believe that stats determine who the “rightful” admitted is. Don’t tell me - it’s YOUR kid whose rightful place is being usurped.
Are you saying the same laws that govern sales of homes apply to private college admissions??
IANAL, but I thought there was different case law, like the Bakke case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
Gratz v. Bollinger : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
Grutter v. Bollinger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
These laws cover some of the same ground but my understanding is all allowed for race to be considered in admissions to a degree, just that it needed to be on an individual basis . You have no such liberty in your home sale. Real lawyers I encourage you to please clarify if I am wrong!
@VeryLuckyParent , it might be easier to understand if your points were less abstract. Let’s hear your opinion.