|
|
|
|
|
|
by whimsicalism
1894 days ago
|
|
|
Why would we exclude legacies altogether? Legacy certainly gives you an advantage, but I think people also discount the fact that if you are the child of an Ivy grad, you are perhaps more likely to go to a top-tier school of your own merits as well. I say that as an obviously biased Harvard legacy, who also got into other Ivies without legacy, had a 1600 SAT, etc. We never donated anything and I never intend to, we were on financial aid, but my dad did happen to go, and I'm sure it did give me an advantage. I am less sure that there is no chance I would have gotten in without it. |
|
|
People think legacies are guaranteed admits, and they are not. Legacies get rejected very often (e.g., ~67% at Harvard).
There are many advantages to having a parent who is an alum:
1. Probably smart.
2. Probably knows something about how to get in via academics and extracurriculars.
3. Might be a gifted athlete who was recruited and knows how to share these gifts with their child.
4. Might understand some of the fundamental rigors of an elite education and shares that with their child regardless of where said child actually attends school (interestingly, an elite kid with great pedigree at a shitty school has a huge advantage in admissions).
Add some or all of these things together, and you get a high school kid who will probably have an above average application and should probably get accepted more often than the general population.
While there are some legacy admits who are accepted on the margin and would not have gotten in without being a legacy, I think the number of these folks is relatively small. The overall legacy applicant pool is very strong.