Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Ivy League Schools ... Is there a method to getting admitted ? (Beyond Good Grades and Test Scores)


Brought to you by: Lone Star Ed Consulting , CEO Lauren Kahn, MA    512-294-6608
 Lauren@lonestaredconsulting.com                                                    

Lauren Kahn is an educational consultant located in Austin, TX and helps families find colleges and school placements for students throughout the country.



Written by: Lynell, a former college counselor

Who is gaining preferred admission status to the Ivy League Schools and the other elite schools?

So by now you’ve figured out that Ivy League schools are admitting some infinitesimally small percentage of students Ivy Doorwho apply.  These students are truly the needle in the haystack of college-bound applicants.  Who are they? And what exactly have they done to get in the front door of the hallowed halls of this nation’s most selective colleges?
First, a definition-There are 8 Ivy League Schools (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton and Yale).  It is not their selectivity or prestige that initially brought this group together as the “Ivy” League.  It was football.  That’s right, the Ivy League was an early athletic conference that has, in fact, evolved into a collection of this country’s most selective colleges and universities.
There are schools that are as difficult (or almost as difficult) to get into as the Ivy League schools, but we cannot neatly amass them into one plant-like athletic conference the way we can with the Ivies.  This “Ivy-esque” group includes schools like (but not limited to) Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, MIT, Rice, Johns Hopkins, University of Chicago, Williams, Swarthmore, Middlebury and Amherst, just to name a few.  In some cases, some of the schools who are not part of the original athletic conference, admit fewer students than those who were in the founding group.
In this country, however, there is a fixation on attending the eight institutions in the Ivy League, but that’s much easier said than done.  Consider these stats: Brown University received almost 29,000 applications for about 2,600 spots for an admit rate of 9.2%.  Cornell University received over 40,000 applications for just over 6,000 offers of admission.  Dartmouth admitted 10% of their 22,500 applicants, included in that 10% are 39.4% who are valedictorians of their high school classes. Harvard sent out 2,029 offers of admission.  That’s 5.8 percent of the 35,023 who applied. Princeton said it had offered admission to 7.3 percent of almost 26,500 applicants, and Columbia accepted 6.89 percent of the more than 33,500 students who applied. University of Pennsylvania admitted 3,785 students, for an admit rate of 12.1 percent while Yale’s acceptance rate was 6.7%.
So, who are they admitting?  Who aren’t they admitting, and what does it mean for your chances of getting in?  It goes without saying that EVERY applicant must meet certain academic standards.  While schools may be a little more flexible about those standards for certain populations of applicants, they are not taking students that are terribly far off from their averages and standards.  They are not taking an athlete who will be a success on the field but who has very limited ability to succeed in the classroom.  These schools have the luxury of choosing students who can do both.  So, beyond academic success, schools will look hard at students who help them fulfill certain institutional priorities. These priorities often include:
-alumni children (though it’s harder than ever to get these spots)
-recruited athletes
-under-represented minorities
-first generation college students
-students with other special talents (oboe player, dancer, entrepreneur, etc.)
Consider the information Brown University lists on their website.  Brown received applications from all 50 states, with California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas as the most common.  They also had applicants from 145 foreign countries (the most ever).  The majority of all applicants intend to study social sciences (29%), life or medical sciences (27%), or physical sciences (25%), with biology, engineering, international relations, economics, biochemistry, and molecular biology as the most popular intended concentrations. Realize that if you are a member of one of these pools, you are competing against even more people than say, if you were an applied mathematics major from Iowa or North Dakota.
This year’s applicant pool is the University’s most ethnically diverse, with 38 percent of applications submitted by students of color (African American, Latino, Native American or Asian).
These students are all important to the institution, and the college admissions office will consider more than just grades and test scores when admitting a class.  A child from a war-torn African country with lower standardized test scores may be selected over other candidates because of the diverse perspective he brings to campus.  A talented ice hockey goalie keeps alumni engaged and involved, helps rally student spirit which in turn makes students happy and all of these help the overall institutional success.
Harvard’s mid-50th percentile for SAT scores is 1410-1590 (Critical Reading and Math) out of a possible 1600.  While 25% of enrolled freshmen have scores below and above this average, there are also loads of applicants with scores within this range who are not admitted.  The majority of these students are probably perfectly capable of doing the work at Harvard, but there simply is not enough space to admit every qualified applicant.
For every 100 spots, Harvard admits only six prospective freshmen(well, 5.6 really). Let’s say that upon initial review, 80 percent of applicants have standardized test scores and coursework rigorous enough to keep them in the running, yet 74 of them will get letters denying them admission.  First, Harvard will look at the “buckets” that need students in them.  Has the swim team filled all of its spots?  Does the Department of Celtic Languages and Literature still have spots to fill?  But when it comes to the more common majors, biology, international relations and the like, who does Harvard (et al) decide to take when they have a pool of applicants who are all academically qualified?  Harvard then looks beyond grades and scores to see what else these students have to offer, and it’s here you realize the incredible talent and uniqueness of the students with whom you are competing for spots.  These students have often been active politically on the national level.  They have made a scientific discovery.  They have started a business, played music professionally or started an international non-profit.  They are Native Americans mentoring their fellow tribe members to go to college.  They are the national or international presidents of youth groups (these are all true).
For students who fall within the statistical averages of the Ivy League, but who still don’t gain acceptance, you didn’t get denied because of something you did wrong or because of something you were missing.  Instead, there was someone else who helped fill an institutional priority or who has done something so unique and so extraordinary that they were almost unrivaled.
Consider these students who did not receive a place at any of the Ivy League schools to which they applied. “J” is from a good suburban school district.  She has taken numerous AP classes including 4 her senior year in high school.  She has received 5’s on all of her AP exams.  She is ranked first in her class and has test scores well within the averages at the Ivy’s.  She is a two sport varsity athlete with substantial volunteer work and leadership.  She got denied or waitlisted at every Ivy to which she applied.
“C” is also from a good suburban high school.  He has taken the most rigorous classes that his school has to offer and has earned A’s in all of them.  His standardized test scores are very strong.  He is a varsity athlete and has started his own non-profit which has collected used sporting goods equipment for kids who cannot afford their own.  He is involved in many clubs and holds several leadership positions. He applied to 3 Ivy League schools and did not receive an offer of admission from any of them.
What should you do with this information? Realize that the odds of getting into any of this country’s most selective colleges are quite remote.  Try it, you don’t have a lot to lose, but be realistic.  You should also know that none of the Ivy League schools give out academic merit scholarships.  When every student is so well qualified, it becomes incredibly difficult who deserves merit money and who does not.  As a result, the Ivies give out money ONLY based on financial need and NOT on merit.  For some people, this may be a factor in your college search.  The good news about the Ivies being so selective is that it makes that next tier of schools better.  There are so many bright, capable, intellectually curious students who won’t be ivy bound that they enrich other institutions.

Go back to the beginning of the article
______________________________________________________________________________

I believe there are several schools that are ideal for each candidate and it is what you make of your college experience. In order to give yourself the optimum number of choices for college, have several people that you revere, review your college applications.  College consultants help students stay on track with their college applications and find colleges that match their interests and strengths.

Lone Star Ed Consulting offers essay and resume editing services, college selection assistance, and can provide rush services for a fee.  Please download my registration form or email me at Lauren@lonestaredconsulting.com if you are interested in learning more about my educational consulting services.


Bookmark and Share  Twitter: @lonestared Website: www.lonestaredconsulting.com

The information was provided by Lauren Kahn, CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting. If you would like more information about Lone Star Ed Consulting's college planning services, please e-mail Lauren Kahn or call her at 512-294-6608. You can also view LSEDC's brochure here.


Friday, March 29, 2013

"Admission" - The Movie (The Harsh Truth)

Introduction by: Lone Star Ed Consulting , CEO Lauren Kahn, MA    512-294-6608
 Lauren@lonestaredconsulting.com                                                    

Lauren Kahn is an educational consultant located in Austin, TX and helps families find colleges and school placements for students throughout the country.





Every spring, high school seniors anxiously await letters of college admission that will affirm and encourage their potential. In the movie, "Admission", which takes place at Princeton University, admissions officer Portia Nathan (Tina Fey) is a gatekeeper evaluating thousands of applicants. 
The movie touched me as a former admissions recruiter that spent nearly four travel seasons and umpteen days on the road traveling to find and collect the perfect class of students. Is there a formula to get in for every school? No, but are there the "shoulds" and "should not" things to put on resumes, recommendations, and the common application. There is the unwritten code. In addition, there are definitely protocols to follow for the alumni interview and cliche topics to avoid for admissions essays. 

As an admissions officer, I was never allowed to divulge the absolute truth about how we evaluated students in admissions. As a college consultant, I can help you navigate the daunting and sometimes unfair process of applying and gaining acceptance to college.

Friday, March 15, 2013

TCU and SMU Add Early Decision to Application Options for Fall 2014


Brought to you by: Lone Star Ed Consulting , CEO Lauren Kahn, MA    512-294-6608
 Lauren@lonestaredconsulting.com                                                    
 

Lauren Kahn is an educational consultant located in Austin, TX and helps families find colleges and school placements for students throughout the country.




TCU
It was bound to happen sooner or later. TCU has now added a binding early decision option and SMU has added a second early decision deadline. These universities want to know who is choosing them first and this binding option allows them to increase their confirmed yield rate for their incoming first year classes. Most likely, students will be somewhat rewarded for making that choice and will have an advantage in the admissions process if they apply early decision by the November 1st deadline.

Nancy Greisemer reports:

All too often colleges
fail to publicize
or otherwise let counselors know when they’re moving
deadlines, changing requirements or otherwise making adjustments that have a huge
impact on applicants and those who advise them.

They simply change a few words on the webpage and expect the
world to notice.

But several Texas universities are letting everyone
know—well in advance—that they have some new policies for students applying
this fall.  And here they are:

SMU and TCU add
Early Decision
Beginning fall of 2013, Southern Methodist University (SMU)
and Texas Christian University (TCU) will offer a binding Early Decision (ED)
option to their respective application processes.  According to their joint press release, SMU
and TCU will also continue to offer an Early Action (EA) option, which will
remain non-binding.  Both schools have
set November 1, 2013, as the deadline for all early admission applications—ED
as well as EA.  SMU, however, will offer
students a second-round binding application option (ED II).  This allows students who identify SMU as
their first choice later in the process to indicate their commitment to attend
SMU if offered admission.

SMU's list of deadlines for Fall 2014 (1st Year Students)
Decide which application deadline is right for you
SMU POOL
  • Early Decision I: November 1
  • Early Action: November 1
  • Early Decision II: January 15
  • Regular Decision: January 15

Texas A&M sets
New Application Deadline
The new deadline for students applying for admission for the
Fall 2014 semester and forward is December 1, 2013.  This new admission deadline aligns itself
with the scholarship application deadline at A&M and coincides with that of
the University of Texas.  Students can
apply for scholarships and admission online at www.applytexas.org.  ApplyTexas opens August 1.

TCU superscores
the ACT
TCU joins a lengthening list of colleges and universities superscoring
the ACT
(most colleges automatically superscore the SAT).  To superscore the ACT, colleges recompute the
“composite” score by selecting the highest subscores from different test dates to
come up with a new higher composite or superscore.  Since students are increasingly turning
to the ACT
as their test of choice, and 20 percent of the states in the
nation require it for student assessments, more students have multiple test
results that could benefit from superscore policies.

(Lauren Kahn, educational consultant from Austin, TX, is particularly excited about the superscoring option, because students can really waiver in scores between sections and this gives them the best possible composite score).

ApplyTexas
announces New Essay Topics
Like the
Common Application
(CA), ApplyTexas is changing essay topics for the
2013-14 application season.
Unfortunately, there’s little in the way of overlap with the five
prompts recently announced by the CA
.
ApplyTexas essay choices will be:


  • Essay A:
    Describe a setting in which you have collaborated or interacted with
    people whose experiences and/or beliefs differ from yours.  Address your
    initial feelings, and how those feelings were or were not changed by this
    experience.
  •  Essay B:
    Describe a circumstance, obstacle or conflict in your life, and the
    skills and resources you used to resolve it.  Did it change you?  If
    so, how?


  • Essay C:
    Considering your lifetime goals, discuss how your current and future
    academic and extra-curricular activities might help you achieve your goals.

This article was originally posted on the blog College Explorations by Nancy Greisemer

I believe there are several schools that are ideal for each candidate and it is what you make of your college experience. In order to give yourself the optimum number of choices for college, have several people that you revere, review your college applications. 

Lone Star Ed Consulting offers essay and resume editing services, college selection assistance, and can provide rush services for a fee.  Please download my registration form or email me at Lauren@lonestaredconsulting.com if you are interested in learning more about my educational consulting services.


Bookmark and Share  Twitter: @lonestared Website: www.lonestaredconsulting.com

The information was provided by Lauren Kahn, CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting. If you would like more information about Lone Star Ed Consulting's college planning services, please e-mail Lauren Kahn or call her at 512-294-6608. You can also view LSEDC's brochure here.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

The Common Application has a New Look


Brought to you by: Lone Star Ed Consulting , CEO Lauren Kahn, MA    512-294-6608
 Lauren@lonestaredconsulting.com                                                    
 

Lauren Kahn is an educational consultant located in Austin, TX and helps families find colleges and school placements for students throughout the country.




As we enter the season of college acceptances from the regular decision pool, not far behind is the rush of juniors who realize it is time to concentrate on their upcoming college application process.

In Texas, we have the ApplyTexas process which most Texas residents complete in order to gain acceptance to Texas  A&M, Texas State, and / or the University of Texas system, among others. In addition, we also have what most people refer to as the foundation application, the Common App. It is a generic application filled out online by students that more than 300 universities accept. Recommenders are also very familiar with it as well. Of course, there are the supplements that must be submitted in addition.

The Common Application has taken on many makeovers over the years, but this time it will actually be so simple that even those that are inept with technology can figure it out. Although the new updates won't take effect until August 1st, we can take a sneak peek now.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Coursework Matters: The Impact on your SAT Scores


Brought to you by: Lone Star Ed Consulting , CEO Lauren Kahn, MA 512-294-6608

Lauren Kahn is an educational consultant located in Austin, TX and helps families find colleges and school placements for students throughout the country.



From: College Board.com
If anyone doubts the validity of the importance of high school performance for long term academic success, here is the proof on this topic below. It has also been confirmed there is a strong correlation between completion of a core high school curriculum with higher SAT scores. Although the findings from College Board’s 2012 SAT Report on College and Career Readiness are not surprising, it is important to share this news to all. Do not dismiss the importance of completing the recommended high school plan, in favor of more time for athletics or electives.

As an educational consultant, I want to emphasize the importance of taking college prep classes early on in high school and the continuation of a rigorous curriculum all the way through senior year. You will be better prepared for standardized tests required for the college admissions process and will be a better student in college. Study skills can be taught, but need to be acquired early on to become habitual. AP classes and dual credit classes are a great idea for high school students that are college bound ready.

By: Kathryn Juric            Special Contributor  from the Austin-Statesman                          

When it comes to education policy in the United States today, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: coursework matters.As states move to implement the Common Core State Standards, the positive impact core course work and advanced study can have on college readiness is already evident in the SAT performance of recent high school graduates throughout Texas and the nation.

According to The College Board’s 2012 SAT Report on College and Career Readiness, which was released this month, students who completed a core curriculum in high school did significantly better on the SAT than those who did not. A core curriculum is defined as four or more years of English, and at least three or more years of math, science, and social science or history.

Central to the report is the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark, which measures the academic preparedness of groups of students for higher education and beyond. Achieving the benchmark score of 1550 on the SAT is linked to a 65 percent likelihood of earning a B-minus average or higher during their freshman year of college, which in turn is linked to a strong likelihood of staying in – and graduating from – college within six years.


This year, 43 percent of all SAT takers achieved the benchmark, suggesting that more needs to be done to improve college readiness, even among college-bound students. The numbers are different however for those enrolled in a core curriculum. Forty-nine percent of SAT takers who completed a core curriculum achieved the benchmark, compared to only 30 percent of those who did not – nearly a 20-point improvement.

A similar result can be seen in the mean scores of Texas’s SAT takers, where the 76 percent who completed a core curriculum earned an average SAT score of 1,494 – a staggering 138 points higher than the average SAT score of Texas students who did not complete core course work.
Beyond underscoring the need for all college-bound students to complete core course work, the report also illustrates the positive impact that access to honors/Advanced Placement courses can have on college readiness. For example, honors/AP math students in Texas scored 212 points higher, on average, on the SAT.



But the only way to track what percentage of college-bound students is meeting the benchmark is to ensure they take the SAT in the first place, which is why The College Board has made a continuing effort to increase SAT participation, particularly among underserved minorities and low-income students. We have also intensified our efforts to expand access to and success in AP courses across the state.

In Texas, 28 percent of SAT-takers in the class of 2012 took the test for free through the SAT Fee-Waiver Service. Nationwide, the College Board dedicated more than $44 million to SAT fee-waivers and related services this past school year.

Our collective effort to democratize access to higher education is paying dividends. More than 1.66 million students from the class of 2012 took the SAT, 45 percent of whom were minority students and 36 percent of whom are the first in their families to attend college. In Texas, 59 percent of the state’s nearly 173,000 SAT takers were minority students and 44 percent reported being first-generation college-goers.

Standardized educational assessments may not be exciting or glamorous, but when they are valid and well-designed, they can tell us a lot about the state of education – how well we are preparing our children for postsecondary success and what we can do better.

As the new SAT report shows, increasing core curriculum completion rates and expanding access to advanced course work to qualified students of all backgrounds is the key to increasing college readiness and completion – not just in Texas, but across the nation.

This article was published originally by the Austin Statesman.
 
I believe there are several schools that are ideal for each candidate and it is what you make of your college experience. In order to give yourself the optimum number of choices for college, have several people that you revere, review your college applications. 

Lone Star Ed Consulting offers essay and resume editing services and can provide rush services for a fee. 




Bookmark and Share  

The information was provided by Lauren Kahn, CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting. If you would like more information about Lone Star Ed Consulting's college planning services, please e-mail Lauren Kahn or call her at 512-294-6608. You can also view LSEDC's brochure here.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Housing Crisis Influences College Choices


Housing Wealth Impacts Where You Go to College  By: Lisa Scherzer 
Brought to you by: Lone Star Ed Consulting , CEO Lauren Kahn, MA  512-294-6608

Lauren Kahn is an educational consultant located in Austin, TX and helps families find colleges and school placements for students throughout the country. 

image from: directbanc.com
At the height of the housing boom in the early 2000s, it was natural for homeowners to feel wealthier than they were. Inflated property values translated into a so-called wealth effect: Confident the value of their homes would climb ever higher and bolstered by the cash obtained by easy refinancing, owners spent freely.
A new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research looks into what role this housing wealth — a household's overall finances — played in homeowners' decision-making when it comes to sending their children to college.
The study -- "The Effect of Housing Wealth on College Choice: Evidence From the Housing Boom" and co-authored by Professors Michael Lovenheim and C. Lockwood Reynolds --  found homeowners that experienced a windfall from the housing boom were more likely to send their children to college, to send them to four-year public institutions instead of two-year institutions and to send them to state "flagship" institutions — which are better resourced, have higher faculty-student ratios and SAT scores and are also more expensive to attend -- rather than nonflagship public institutions.

Monday, January 2, 2012

College Admissions: SAT Scores, Cheating, and Ethics

Written by: Lauren Kahn, Educational Consultant / CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting, LLC
512-294-6608  Lonestaredconsulting@gmail.com


SAT Answer Sheet
From: longIslandPress.com


SAT and ACT scores are crucial in the college admissions game and pretty much everyone in high school and in the higher education industry is aware of this. However, committing identity fraud to achieve high scores is not the way to win an admit letter. As an educational consultant with sound ethics, I am a proponent of finding schools that match student's abilities with their performance. I want to report on this matter, because I think the pressure to provide high test scores in the college admissions process is mounting, due to admissions stakes increasing and public school grade inflation. The consequences to identity fraud and cheating are real and sometimes can impact you long-term. Think before you act.


CBS Allison Stewart Reports on the January 1st 60 Minutes Show "The Perfect Score: Cheating on the SAT"

Saturday, August 6, 2011

College Payoff: Education, Occupation, and Lifetime Earnings

How much money people make has a lot to do with how educated they are, but sometimes less-educated people earn more.

This spring, Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce injected some nuance into the debate over what a college degree is worth when it released a report showing how what people study in college affects their earnings. That report, based on the center's analysis of a trove of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau, compared workers whose highest degree was a bachelor's. Now the center is following up with a new report that works to untangle the relationship between earnings and education more broadly.

The new report, "The College Payoff: Education, Occupation, Lifetime Earnings," released Thursday, is also based on data from the bureau's American Community Survey. In this case, the researchers calculated a lifetime-earnings figure for full-time, full-year workers with various levels of education, from less than high school to doctoral and professional degrees.

Unsurprisingly, they found that median lifetime earnings rise with education level: The typical worker with less than a high-school diploma earns $973,000 over a career, in 2009 dollars, while a worker with a professional degree (mainly in law or medicine) earns $3.6-million. But that is not the whole story. "There was a time when the differences by education level were really much more powerful," says Anthony P. Carnevale, director of the center and lead author of the report. Education level still matters. But what really intrigued the researchers was the diversity of experiences underneath that general pattern.

For example, while the median lifetime earnings of bachelor's degree holders (about $2.3-million) are higher than those of associate-degree holders (about $1.7-million), 28.2 percent of those whose highest degree is an associate earn as much as or more than does the typical bachelor's holder (see interactive chart).


Friday, December 24, 2010

Early Decision / Early Action Results are In .... Deferment, Acceptance, and Rejection

Share
Commentary by Lauren Kahn, Educational Consultant / CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting, LLC
512-294-6608  Lonestaredconsulting@gmail.com

By Caralee Adams from Ed Week written on December 19th, 2010

"Early Decision Up, Yet Still Small Part of Admissions Pie"

Lunch rooms, hallways and Facebook are abuzz with news of who got in where as colleges begin to send out early decision and early action notices this month. Perhaps I'm hearing about it more because I have a high school student or is this the new pathway into college?

First, to clarify the terms:

Early decision is when a student applies to his first-choice school and, if accepted, the decision is binding.

Early action is similar to early decision, but the student doesn't have to commit immediately. She can still apply to other colleges and wait to make a decision until spring.

(Lauren Kahn says that if you have any hesitancy about your first choice, go with early action and do not sign up for the early decision option. The elite universities do share information in secretive ways about their accepted students. If a student that has been accepted early decision backs out for non-financial driven reasons, they could be penalized in the regular decision pool with other universities.)

About 18 percent of colleges offer early decision and 24 percent have early action plans, according to the 2010 State of Admissions Report by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). These plans are more common at private colleges.

(Harvard, Princeton, and University of Virginia eliminated the early decision option from their application process in 2007, announcing it in the fall of 2006. A commenter from the Huffington Post writes, "Students need several backup schools in order to evaluate their financial aid packages across a wide range of schools. Yes, Harvard, Amherst, and a couple other schools have widely hailed scholarshi­p programs for poor students. It is middle income students - family income between $60,000 - $100,000 that are facing the highest stress and uncertaint­y.”

For students who have their hearts set on a school, it can boost their chance of getting in over the regular admission process. Colleges with early decision policies reported a higher acceptance rate for their early decision applicants as compared to all applicants (70 percent versus 55 percent), and the gap between the acceptance rates has grown in recent years.

Students are catching on. For the third year in a row, about half (47 percent) of colleges reported increases in the number of early decision applications and nearly three-quarters (74 percent) had an increase in early action applications.

(For University of Pennsylvania, applying early decision is actively encouraged amongst Penn Alumni as a strategy to boost their chances for admission) See below these startling statitistics.

Penn’s approximate admit rates over the last five years:



The admit rate for legacy applicants in the early decision pool is between 38 - 42%, while the non-legacy admit rate for students applying early decision is between 28-42%.

Here is what may shock you: The regular admit rate for students that are legacy and non-legacy is between 13-15%. For the full-cycle the admit rate is 32% - 34% for students that are legacy and 16% - 18% for non-legacy. See the complete memo from Penn Alumni here.  

While legacies are admitted at a slightly higher rate, particularly during the Early Decision round, the Alumni Office is very sensitive to the fact that nearly two-thirds of legacy applicants are not admitted to Penn each year. (If you would like to review the most current statistics for University of Pennsylvania, we encourage you to visit the Admissions Incoming Class Profile: www.admissions.upenn.edu/profile.) Colleges are finding it's (EA and ED) a helpful tool, as well to gauge who is most interested in their school. About 65 percent of colleges report admitting more students under these plans in 2009, and 43 percent in 2008 also reported an increase.

Still, early decision applicants represent only a small portion of the total applicant pool at colleges that have these policies. Only 7 percent of all applications for fall 2009 admission to early decision colleges were received through early decision, the NACAC report showed.


So, it's somewhat of a gutsy move to go early decision—a little less so for early action. Both scenarios require students to be focused and get their act together early in their senior year. Those lucky ones who now know where they are headed next fall can enjoy the holidays—hopefully with no second thoughts about their commitment—while many of their classmates will spend winter break filling out more applications and agonizing in the coming months about their future.

Well, here are the EA/ ED results in thus far compiled from IvyEyesEditing.com:

MIT: On Thursday, the first 772 students were invited to join the Class of 2015. MIT received 6,405 early action applicants, and those accepted have until May to commit. (Admissions Web site)

Yale: On Wednesday officials announced they had invited 761 students to join the Class of 2015. The school had 5,257 early applicants, denied admission to 1,497 and deferred 2,952 students to the regular decision round. The early action program is non-binding. (Yale Daily News article)

Johns Hopkins: On Wednesday morning, admission officials mailed acceptance letters to 518 students who were selected from a pool of 1,330 early-decision applications. Then, starting at 6 p.m. they hit send on an e-mail alert to all of the applicants. Those accepted are expected to pull all other applications and attend Hopkins. (Hopkins Insider live blog)

Georgetown: Officials announced Wednesday they had accepted 1,120 students from a pool of 6,654 early applicants. The early-action program is non-binding, and students have until May 1 to commit. (Press release)

Duke: On Tuesday evening, officials e-mailed 645 students and welcomed them to the Class of 2015. More than 2,200 students applied to the early decision program this year, and those accepted are expected to enroll. (Duke Chronicle article)

Dartmouth: This week officials announced they had accepted 444 students from a pool of 1,759 early-decision applicants. The deadline for admitted students to declare their intent to enroll is later this month. (Press release)

University of Pennsylvania: Early applicants sat at their computers Friday afternoon waiting to check the admissions website at 3 p.m. Out of a pool of 4,571, the university accepted about 1,195 students. The offer is binding and students are only allowed to apply early to one school. (Daily Penn article)

Stanford: Friday afternoon officials e-mailed more than 5,900 early applicants — 754 were accepted, and about 500 were deferred. Students have until May 1 to accept. (Stanford Daily article)

University of Notre Dame: They accepted 1940 students out of the 5300 applications they received. They accepted approximately 36% of those that applied EA for the graduating class of 2011. They had an increase of 21.4% in applications for early action.

Chart Below from NY Time Choice Blog:





More from the NY Times Choice Blog:

New York University said it had received 3,125 applications by the Nov. 1 deadline for its binding, early decision program. While that is about as many as last year at this time, the figures are not comparable; this year, as opposed to last, the university is enabling students to apply during a second round of early decision, with a deadline of Jan. 1.

Among colleges with nonbinding early-action programs — in which those accepted can wait until spring to make their decisions — early applications to the University of Chicago are up 18.5 percent; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, about 15 percent; Georgetown, nearly 9 percent; and Boston College, 7 percent.

Lauren Kahn notes: Don't panic if you applied early action or early decision, and received a deferrment or rejection from one of these elite schools above. There is time to regroup and apply to several other schools that could be a great college match for you over this winter break. (January 1st and January 15th are the most common deadlines for regular decision applications.) I do not believe in the soulmate concept for college. I believe there are several schools that are ideal for each candidate and it is what you make of your college experience. In order to give yourself the optimum number of choices for college, have several people that you revere, review your college applications.

Lone Star Ed Consulting offers essay and resume editing services and can provide rush services for a fee. 

Categories:



Bookmark and Share  

The information was provided by Lauren Kahn, CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting. If you would like more information about Lone Star Ed Consulting's college planning services, please e-mail Lauren Kahn or call her at 512-294-6608. You can also view LSEDC's brochure here.

Monday, September 27, 2010

The Myths and Truths on the Legacy Factor in College Admissions

10 Myths About Legacy Preferences in College Admissions (some are half-truths in my opinion)

Brought to you by Lauren Kahn, Educational Consultant, from Lone Star Ed Consulting
Originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education


 By Richard D. Kahlenberg

Legacy preferences, which provide a leg up in college admissions to applicants who are the offspring of alumni, are employed at almost three-quarters of selective research universities and virtually all elite liberal-arts colleges. Yet legacy preferences have received relatively little public attention, especially when compared with race-based affirmative-action programs, which have given rise to hundreds of books and law-review articles, numerous court decisions, and several state initiatives to ban the practice.
The secrecy surrounding legacy preferences has perpetuated a number of myths, including the following:
1. Legacy preferences are just a "tie breaker" in close calls. MYTH

While some colleges and universities try to play down the impact of legacy preferences, calling them "tie breakers," research from Princeton's Thomas Espenshade suggests that their weight is significant, on the order of adding 160 SAT points to a candidate's record (on a scale of 400-1600). Likewise, William Bowen, of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and colleagues found that, within a given SAT-score range, being a legacy increased one's chances of admission to a selective institution by 19.7 percentage points. That is to say, a given student whose academic record gave her a 40-percent chance of admissions would have nearly a 60-percent chance if she were a legacy.

The children of alumni generally make up 10 to 25 percent of the student body at selective institutions. The proportion varies little from year to year, suggesting "an informal quota system," says the former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden. By contrast, at the California Institute of Technology, which does not use legacy preferences, only 1.5 percent of students are children of alumni.

2. Legacy preferences have an honorable history of fostering loyalty at America's great institutions of higher learning. MYTH

In fact, as Peter Schmidt, of The Chronicle, notes, legacies originated following World War I as a reaction to an influx of immigrant students, particularly Jews, into America's selective colleges. As Jews often outcompeted traditional constituencies on standard meritocratic criteria, universities adopted Jewish quotas. When explicit quotas became hard to defend, the universities began to use more-indirect means to limit Jewish enrollment, including considerations of "character," geographic diversity, and legacy status.

3. Legacy preferences are a necessary evil to support the financial vitality of colleges and universities—including the ability to provide scholarships for low-income and working-class students. HALF TRUTH

While universities claim that legacy preferences are necessary to improve fund raising, there is little empirical evidence to support the contention. In fact, several colleges and universities that do not employ legacy preferences nevertheless do well financially. As Golden notes, Caltech raised $71-million in alumni donations in 2008, almost as much as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($77-million), even though MIT, which does provide legacy preferences, is five times the size and has many more alumni to tap. Berea College, in Kentucky, favors low-income students, not alumni, yet has a larger endowment than Middlebury, Oberlin, Vassar, and Bowdoin. And Cooper Union, in New York City, does not provide legacy preference but has an endowment larger than that of Bucknell, Haverford, and Davidson.

Moreover, a study included in our new book, Affirmative Action for the Rich, finds no evidence that alumni preferences increase giving. Chad Coffman, of Winnemac Consulting, and his co-authors examined alumni giving from 1998 to 2007 at the top 100 national universities (as ranked by U.S. News & World Report) to test the relationship between giving and the existence of alumni preferences in admissions. They found that institutions with preferences for children of alumni did have higher annual giving per alumnus ($317 versus $201), but that the advantage resulted because the alumni in colleges with alumni preferences tended to be wealthier. Controlling for the wealth of alumni, they found "no evidence that legacy-preference policies themselves exert an influence on giving behavior." After controls, alumni of legacy-granting institutions gave only $15.39 more per year, on average, but even that slight advantage was uncertain from a statistical perspective. Coffman and his colleagues conclude: "After inclusion of appropriate controls, including wealth, there is no statistically significant evidence of a causal relationship between legacy-preference policies and total alumni giving at top universities."

The researchers also examined giving at seven institutions that dropped legacy preferences during the period of the study. They found "no short-term measurable reduction in alumni giving as a result of abolishing legacy preferences." For example, after Texas A&M eliminated the use of legacy preferences, in 2004, donations took a small hit, but then they increased substantially from 2005 to 2007.

Nor can legacy preferences be said to be necessary for colleges to maintain high standards of excellence. It is intriguing to note that, among the top 10 universities in the world in 2008, according to the widely cited Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings, are four (Caltech, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Oxford, and the University of Cambridge) that do not employ legacy preferences.

4. After a generation of affirmative action, legacy preferences are finally beginning to help families of color. Pulling the rug out now would hurt minority students.

In fact, legacy preferences continue to disproportionately hurt students of color. John Brittain, a former chief counsel at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and the attorney Eric Bloom note that underrepresented minorities make up 12.5 percent of the applicant pool at selective colleges and universities but only 6.7 percent of the legacy-applicant pool. At Texas A&M, 321 of the legacy admits in 2002 were white, while only three were black and 25 Hispanic. At Harvard, only 7.6 percent of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8 percent of all students. At the University of Virginia, 91 percent of early-decision legacy admits in 2002 were white, 1.6 percent black, and 0.5 percent Hispanic.
Moreover, this disparate impact is likely to extend far into the future. In 2008, African-Americans and Latinos made up more than 30 percent of the traditional college-aged population but little more than 10 percent of the enrollees at the U.S. News's top 50 national universities.

5. An attack on legacy preferences could indirectly hurt affirmative-action policies by suggesting that "merit" is the only permissible basis for admissions. MYTH

The elimination of legacy preferences would not threaten the future of affirmative action, because the justifications are entirely different. Affirmative-action policies to date have survived strict scrutiny because they enhance educational diversity. (For some members of the Supreme Court, though not a majority, affirmative action also has been justified as a remedy for centuries of brutal discrimination.) Legacy preferences, by contrast, have no such justification.

Because they disproportionately benefit whites, legacy preferences reduce, rather than enhance, racial and ethnic diversity in higher education. And rather than being a remedy for discrimination, they were born of discrimination. Affirmative action engenders enormous controversy because it pits two great principles against each other—the antidiscrimination principle, which says we should not classify people by ancestry, and the anti-subordination principle, which says we must make efforts to stamp out illegitimate hierarchies. Legacy preferences, by contrast, advance neither principle: They explicitly classify individuals by bloodline and do so in a way that compounds existing hierarchy.

6. Legacy preferences may be unfair, but they are not illegal. Unlike discrimination based on race, which is forbidden under the 14th Amendment, it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on legacy status, as the courts have held.

Remarkably, legacy preferences have been litigated only once in federal court, by an applicant to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill named Jane Cheryl Rosenstock, in the 1970s. A New York resident whose application was rejected, she claimed that her constitutional rights were violated by a variety of preferences, including those for in-state applicants, minorities, low-income students, athletes, and legacies. Rosenstock was not a particularly compelling candidate—her combined SAT score was about 850 on a 1600-point scale, substantially lower than most out-of-state applicants—and she was also a weak litigant. She never argued that, because legacy preferences are hereditary, they presented a "suspect" classification that should be judged by the "strict scrutiny" standard under the amendment's equal-protection clause.

The district-court judge in the case, Rosenstock v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, held that it was rational to believe that alumni preferences translate into additional revenue to universities, although absolutely no evidence was provided for that contention. The decision was never appealed. As Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit notes, the 1976 opinion upholding legacy preferences in Rosenstock addressed the issue "in a scant five sentences" and is "neither binding nor persuasive to future courts."

A generation later, two new legal theories are available to challenge legacy preferences. First, Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, lays out the case that legacy preferences at public universities violate a little-litigated constitutional provision that "no state shall ... grant any Title of Nobility." Examining the early history of the country, Larson makes a compelling case that this prohibition should not be interpreted narrowly as simply prohibiting the naming of individuals as dukes or earls, but more broadly, to prohibit "government-sponsored hereditary privileges"—including legacy preferences at public universities. Reviewing debates in the Revolutionary era, he concludes: "Legacy preferences at exclusive public universities were precisely the type of hereditary privilege that the Revolutionary generation sought to destroy forever." The founders, Larson writes, would have resisted "with every fiber of their being" the idea of state-supported-university admissions based even in part on ancestry.

Second, the attorneys Steve Shadowen and Sozi Tulante argue that legacy preferences are a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause. While the amendment was aimed primarily at stamping out discrimination against black Americans, it also extends more broadly to what Justice Potter Stewart called "preference based on lineage." Individuals are to be judged on their own merits, not by what their parents do, which is why the courts have applied heightened scrutiny to laws that punish children born out of wedlock, or whose parents came to this country illegally.

Shadowen and Tulante argue that legacy preferences at private universities, too, are illegal, under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Unlike Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination only on the basis of "race, color, or national origin," the 1866 law prohibits discrimination on the basis of both "race" and "ancestry."

7. Legacy preferences—like affirmative action, geographic preferences, and athletics preferences—are protected by academic freedom, especially at private universities and colleges.

It is true that the courts have recognized that colleges and universities should be given leeway in admissions in order to promote academic freedom. But that freedom is not unlimited, even at private institutions. As Peter Schmidt notes, the Supreme Court held, in Runyon v. McCrary (1976), that private schools could not engage in racial discrimination in admissions. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), it struck down the use of racial quotas. And in the 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger decision, the court invalidated a policy that awarded bonus points to minority students. Ancestry discrimination—providing a leg up in admissions based not on merit but on whether a student's parents or grandparents attended a particular university or college—likewise falls outside the protected zone of academic freedom.

8. Legacy preferences have been around a long time and are unlikely to ever go away, because powerful political forces support them.

In fact, legacy preferences are not only legally vulnerable; they are politically vulnerable as well. Polls find that Americans oppose legacy preferences by 75 percent to 23 percent, and in the past decade or so, 16 leading institutions have abandoned them. As affirmative-action programs come under increasing attack, legacy preferences become even harder to justify politically.

Moreover, as a matter of tax law, legacy preferences are fundamentally unstable. Assuming it is true that they entice alumni to provide larger donations than they otherwise would—a claim that has not been empirically proven—then IRS regulations raise questions about whether those donations should be tax deductible. If universities and colleges are conferring a monetary benefit in exchange for donations, then the arrangement, writes the journalist Peter Sacks, "shatters the first principle underlying the charitable deduction, that donations to nonprofit organizations not 'enrich the giver.'" The IRS regulations place universities in a legal Catch-22: Either donations are not linked to legacy preferences, in which case the fundamental rationale for ancestry discrimination is flawed; or giving is linked to legacy preferences, in which case donations should not be tax deductible.

9. Legacy preferences don't keep nonlegacy applicants out of college entirely. They just reduce the chances of going to a particular selective college, so the stakes are low.

True, legacy preferences don't bar students from attending college at all. But the benefits of attending a selective institution are substantial. For one thing, wealthy selective colleges tend to spend a great deal more on students' education. Research finds that the least-selective colleges spend about $12,000 per student annually, compared with $92,000 per student at the most-selective ones. In addition, wealthy selective institutions provide much greater subsidies for families. At the wealthiest 10 percent of institutions, students pay, on average, just 20 cents in fees for every dollar the college spends on them, while at the poorest 10 percent of institutions, students pay 78 cents for every dollar spent on them. Furthermore, selective colleges are better than less-selective institutions at graduating equally qualified students. And future earnings are, on average, 45 percent higher for students who graduated from more-selective institutions than for those from less-selective ones, and the difference in earnings ends up being widest among low-income students. Finally, according to research by the political scientist Thomas Dye, 54 percent of America's corporate leaders and 42 percent of governmental leaders are graduates of just 12 institutions. For all those reasons, legacy preferences matter.
10. Everyone does it.

Legacies are just an inherent reality in higher education throughout the world.
In fact, as Daniel Golden writes, legacy preferences are "virtually unknown in the rest of the world"; they are "an almost exclusively American custom." The irony, of course, is that while legacies are uniquely American, they are also deeply un-American, as Michael Lind, of the New America Foundation, has argued.
Thomas Jefferson famously sought to promote in America a "natural aristocracy" based on "virtue and talent," rather than an "artificial aristocracy" based on wealth. "By reserving places on campus for members of the pseudo-aristocracy of 'wealth and birth,'" Lind writes, "legacy preferences introduce an aristocratic snake into the democratic republican Garden of Eden."

For the most part, American higher education has sought to democratize, opening its doors to women, to people of color, and to the financially needy. Legacy preferences are an outlier in that trend, a relic that has no place in American society. In a fundamental sense, this nation's first two great wars—the Revolution and the Civil War—were fought to defeat different forms of aristocracy. That this remnant of ancestry-based discrimination still survives—in American higher education, of all places—is truly breathtaking.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, is the editor of Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions, being published this month by the Century Foundation Press.

The information was provided by Lauren Kahn, CEO of Lone Star Ed Consulting. If you would like more information about Lone Star Ed Consulting's college planning services, please e-mail Lauren Kahn or call her at 512-294-6608. You can also view LSEDC's brochure here.


    Turn Blog Posts into a PDF

    Send blog posts as PDFs

    Search This Blog and More About Lone Star Ed Consulting

    My Book Recs