next »

[turnip123]

I went someplace that subdivided like that for a while, but they said it was pretty common for a student to complete the requirements for a minor outside of the college and just note that in their cover letter.

This is a good point.  Even if it's a bit of a fudge, it would not be likely to cause a recent college grad any problems when they applied for jobs.

[collegekidsmom]

Of course, there are many categories of students that have lower SAT scores. I know a lot of college kids that have been admitted for so many reasons-debate, water polo, living in one of the geographically desirable states(like North Dakota), crew experience, etc. I think that legacy admissions, when most other criteria are met by the student seeking a place in the class can be justified. There are certain families that are very loyal to a school-always making donations just because they care about the place, working as alumni representatives, bringing their kids to all the homecoming days. So I can imagine how devastating it is to have their children denied admission unless they are just poor candidates. These days, with tens of thousands of highly qualified applicants vying for the same few schools, I think probably some of the legacy stuff can be justified. Every applicant presents a unique set of qualifications, and legacy status is just one piece of the package, but I think these people should deserve some consideration. These students can be very motivated, proud of the school, and are probably likely to stay.

[newgradsr]

I am a legacy student from my alma mater, and a minority in both race and gender. My grandfather was one of the first of his racial group to graduate from my very prestigious university in the 1930s.

For a while, this haunted me--as I thought there were two reasons for my admission--my minority status and my legacy status. I had serious self-esteem issues.

I never considered the possibility that the university might have thought of other things when reading my application. For one thing, I was a bit of an unusual mix--I had very low SAT scores, but almost everyone from my high school scored low--and I also had two siblings who attended the same high school with low SAT scores, but were top of their classes and ended up attending Ivy institutions where they were awarded prestigious fellowships/etc during their undergraduate education...I mentioned these things on the family info/history section. Looking back, I'm sure that the history of higher education in my family (parents who went beyond college some 40-50 years ago) and my enthusiastic interest in the school, (two interviews) made a huge difference.

I was also incredibly into research in my senior year, and participated/headed various international projects.

Long story short, on paper I don't think I would have looked very good if I was just judged by stats alone--but I do think that a history of serious interest/participation in higher education, and incredible enthusiasm/knowledge of research at the school played a part. I'm sure my minority status was also considered--but in the end I don't think those things really mattered as much as my other qualities.

I did fantastically well--no one could have looked at my record once I graduated and thought, "man that person was only there because of x or y".

I don't think we'll really be able to say definitively that a legacy isn't deserving of the opportunities that they get. I mean, sure, it's not fair--but life isn't fair....but I guess that's easy for me to say, as I am potentially a beneficiary of this unfair standard.

[jerkedaround]

REALLY.  You think that legacy students parents pay for their kids to go to school?  I think it is more likely that they make some kind of endowment gift in exchange for education.  That's why universities like to string graduate students along and collect as much federal loan money as they can. 

[collegekidsmom]

Legacies pay like everyone else-that is they get financial assistance based on need, or they get merit money, athletic scholarships, or whatever else they qualify for. I don't know any legacies that aren't paying whatever they would normally pay. The issue is admission-whether legacies should be given special privilege. Of course, every school has its own policies about legacies. Private secondary schools also have legacies apply, and I know they pay too but are often given admission privileges.

I know my kids would be paying at my alma mater, but not paying at the uni I presently work at. That would be free.

[inthelab]

REALLY.  You think that legacy students parents pay for their kids to go to school?  I think it is more likely that they make some kind of endowment gift in exchange for education.  That's why universities like to string graduate students along and collect as much federal loan money as they can. 

ROTFLMAO.
My kid will start at my alma mater in a week, and we are paying up the wazoo.  you think we 2 academics can endow anything?

[litcrittr82]

Of course, there are many categories of students that have lower SAT scores. I know a lot of college kids that have been admitted for so many reasons-debate, water polo, living in one of the geographically desirable states(like North Dakota), crew experience, etc. I think that legacy admissions, when most other criteria are met by the student seeking a place in the class can be justified. There are certain families that are very loyal to a school-always making donations just because they care about the place, working as alumni representatives, bringing their kids to all the homecoming days. So I can imagine how devastating it is to have their children denied admission unless they are just poor candidates. These days, with tens of thousands of highly qualified applicants vying for the same few schools, I think probably some of the legacy stuff can be justified. Every applicant presents a unique set of qualifications, and legacy status is just one piece of the package, but I think these people should deserve some consideration. These students can be very motivated, proud of the school, and are probably likely to stay.

In my view, in circumstances in which admissions criteria are relaxed for certain students, there should be a compelling reason, usually in the form of a strength or benefit that the *student*--not the student's parents or siblings--brings to the school, or a set of mitigating factors that would justify or offset the student's shortcomings as an applicant.  If a school accepted a minority or low-income student with low SATs (relative to the school profile) from a school district that underperforms, or a nontraditional or disadvantaged cultural background, I would understand.  If a school accepted an Olympic athlete or a high school All American, I would understand (I wouldn't love it; but that student brings something special to the school).  If a school admitted an outstanding pianist or a precocious artist, I would certainly understand.  Like it or not, at the very least athletes, extracurricular standouts, and low-income and underrepresented students bring something to the table in and of themselves and their own accomplishments and/or perserverence through circumstantial difficulty. 

If a school admitted a legacy, on the other hand, with a subpar academic and extracurricular profile, I would find no justification whatsoever for admission.  Heritage brings nothing beneficial to the table *from the student.*  Likewise, it carries with it no disadvantage to mitigate.  If parents are devastated because their alma mater, to whom they give financial and moral support year after year, rejects their child(ren), such is life.  Their support of the alma mater does not give them the right not to be disappointed or devastated, just as it does not give their children the right to be admitted undeservingly.

[litcrittr82]

Also, if parents really are giving back to the alma mater out of love of their experience there and a close connection with the school, and a desire to see the school flourish (questionable in many cases I'm sure), a rejection letter for their kid would be a sore spot, but it shouldn't negate all the good reasons to donate that existed before the kid applied.

[collegekidsmom]

In my family, all the kids that applied to my parents alma mater(both attended the same school) were summarily rejected. So, I understand that. I actually think those decisions were appropriate considering what the school wanted at that time.

I think the issue is most sensitive at the most competitive schools where so many "equally" qualified students are applying, and these students are not subpar at all-just maybe slightly below the top applicants. For instance, applying at an Ivy from a great high school with a great GPA, perfect test scores, etc. still often doesn't get you admission. The addition of a long legacy status in this case could push you a little higher in the rankings of applicants. Schools that are getting many more thousands of qualified applicants than they can admit are struggling to find something that sets one qualified student apart from all the other qualified students. If you get 15000 applications for 1000 places, and most of the applicants are good ones, you need some idea of what else matters. Schools have a long list of these other characteristics.

For instance, if you have perfect SAT scores, an excellent high school record from a top school, all kinds of extracurriculars with leadership, service-you are likely not to be accepted at a top school these days. Having legacy status I think should be just another thing you could put out there that might distinguish you a little bit from someone else. I would not advocate students being able to buy themselves a place in a competitive school just because their parents bought a science building or something.
Just because your parents went to a school, and you are lacking grades or scores, and think that the legacy status should get you admission -is another matter.