<p>silverturtle: this is simply amazing. I am trying to find a matrix you had come up with where you could plug in values to get a feedback on acceptance rate at a college. Do you still have it? Is it posted somewhere?</p>
<p>Also, when you say legacy does that include only children of undergraduates or are graduate alumni kids also considered legacies? I am talking about colleges like Princeton and other HYPS-M.</p>
<p>In 2009 I wrote a chancing tool using Excel. I haven’t been releasing it lately, though, and in fact have been doing my best to suppress its dissemination. You can find it around if you really look.</p>
<p>I knew it wouldn’t be perfect, but I have sensed that it does more harm than good. It tends generally to over-predict chances for highly competitive applicants but can sometimes under-predict for less qualified candidates – a sort of exaggeration on both counts. Last summer, I started work on a more aesthetically pleasing, better calibrated, and more helpfully guiding version. I haven’t released this one yet (mostly because I negligently left it on a computer that I don’t have access to right now), but when I do (I might try to link it with the book project in some way), I’ll certainly make it known on CC so I can get feedback. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mean legacy however the school in question means it. In some cases this means only undergraduate alumni; in others, a broader definition is used. I don’t know about all of HYPSM off the top of my head, though I am confident that Harvard observes the stricter, “Harvard College”-only definition of legacy. Try emailing the colleges to get clarification.</p>
<p>This sort of finer subjective question is hard to answer unless you find a widely experienced, candid admissions officer (a general problem that suggests the difficulties I have found in writing a successful chancing program). Based on the results I’ve analyzed, I have to say that being a first-generation applicant, while helpful in terms of contributing to a contextual picture of a applicant whose success exists despite his or her circumstances, is not in itself particularly significant, so the first mind-quote is probably closer to the reality.</p>
<p>I don’t know of Princeton’s legacy definition; but if being the child of a graduate alumnus qualifies, you would certainly be benefited despite not having a major donor as a parent. (In fact, having a generously donating parent falls under a different category of admissions hook, euphemistically called a developmental admit.) Legacy applicants are accepted at about four times the overall acceptance rate at Princeton, though this is partly attributable to merely correlational factors (i.e., alumni children are generally more qualified anyways).</p>
<p>So Basically my school didn’t allow me to join Calc Club, NHS, etc because I didn’t “qualify” (like for example to be in Calc Club, you have to be in AP Calc). But I just finished reading your guide that said that colleges aren’t fond of people busting EC’s junior year to look good. </p>
<p>Will schools cut me some slack because of it?</p>
<p>There is rarely a salient, specific gap in someone’s extracurricular history: Admissions officers will not notice the absence of your participation in any particular club, such as National Honor Society. They care about what you have done and what this shows about you, your interests, and your potential. </p>
<p>EC’s joined junior year have less indicative value along those lines because they are more likely to be joined to get into college rather than because of genuine interest and initiative independent of college admissions.</p>
<p>However, regarding the lack of qualification you describe: I do wonder what criteria are tripping you up and the context surrounding those issues.</p>
<p>Actually, when I took the SAT, numeral alphabets were a newfangled buzz, though they were gaining currency. My SAT score is in fact conveyed via a combination of force-variable rock thuds. </p>
<p>I took the SAT in January 2010 during my junior year and scored 2400.</p>