Legacy applicants

My friend applied to Stanford last year (2007). He had REALLY strong legacy, both from a connection standpoint and $$$ contribution standpoint. He didn't even get a courtesy interview invite...

In your opinion was he an otherwise competitive applicant for Stanford? What was his profile?

I'm not sure anybody knows what "competitive" at Stanford means.

That being said, he does have a solid undergrad from a top 50, masters in accounting (high GPA from both schools), CPA, competitive GMAT, really high level/leadership extracurriculars, good international experience, almost done with the CFA (passed Level II), and in my opinion VERY interesting government work experience ~3.5 years (yes it is possible to have good gov't work experience at a handful of gov't agencies).

Also, when he applied this year, he got in at Duke, and is waitlisted at Columbia and Yale. Got dinged w/interview at Chicago.

Was it his father, or just his boss/some distant relative?

You're right that "competitive" was maybe a little too hard to define for the most selective B-school. By his other admit/ding/waitlist record it appears that he wasn't very competitive at Stanford, in my opinion. I wouldn't expect legacy to have much influence except for borderline candidates, maybe waitlisters, who would most likely be accepted at schools like Columbia and Chicago.

If i remember correctly, both Duke and Cornell ask about others in your family who've been to the school - or to any school, in Cornell's case. I had fun trying to find the name of my mom's community college.

I think every school I applied to (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Northwestern) asked my parents' education background. But I don't think much weight is put on that other than to maybe determine if your parents were alums or if you're the first in your family to get a college degree or something like that.

I could be wrong, but I would think your parents would have had to have been major donors for it to make any difference. As in have a building named after them, give north of $10M in one donation....

This is not the case at the undergraduate level, from what I understand. If your parents have been major donors ($10M+, etc.), then I believe you are pretty much going to be automatically accepted regardless of your credentials at the undergraduate level. If your parents went to the school, and have made smaller donations as well as been involved with the school, I think it carries a fair amount of weight. And lastly, if your parents have done nothing, I think it carries minimal weight at the undergraduate level.

I have no idea how this parallels to the graduate level, but my assumption is about the same or even less.

Additionally, it's certainly known that some schools place a greater emphasis on this than others. Harvard/Princeton/Yale used to place a great emphasis on it but have been slowly moving farther and farther away from putting emphasis on legacy admits. Duke, for example, has been putting more and more emphasis on getting legacies in the door. Duke has had enormous success in fund raising from alumni after they grant their underqualified or barely qualified children admission.

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... icants.htm

this makes me ill.

coming from where i do, you hear about white privilege and the privilege of wealth all the time. it wasn't until I came to grad school that i started to see it. like my friend whose dad is paying for her tuition and who had an internship in college at a fortune 100 company - because her dad was the CFO. She's a good, smart person and works her a$$ off, but you can't tell me that her birth hasn't helped her enormously. no one i grew up with knows anyone in fortune 500 companies.

our society is structured in such a way that that networks matter. that where you've been DOES make a difference in where you'll get to.

you can work your way through it - i would say that i have done so. my parents, in spite of their humble roots, always pushed me to move forward, to get out and do more than they did, more than anyone I grew up with. i found myself completely shocked that i could, if i wanted to, get a job next spring making more than any two (or even three) people in my family ever made. but even still - even with my solid (though certainly less prestigious) undergraduate degree, my success in my former work, and my top 15 mba and high gpa - i am still behind. i don't know what to wear, don't look the same when i do wear it, and don't have the money to buy it. I still sound like i'm from a small town in the midwest (even if barely).

so even my success story has thorns.

i write all this because i am tired of hearing that people need to help themselves. when i hear this, what i hear is "low-income people and the middle class need to help themselves, but everyone else can use mom's networks and daddy's pocketbook."

I probably sound bitter, and i guess I probably am. but mostly, i just wish we could all admit that the playing field ISN'T even. I don't have the answers - there probably isn't one - but could we all just admit that getting ahead is a function of both luck and bootstraps?

hey Aau, I support (and agree with) you 100% on this one

I can understand your pain. Overall, the world is an unfair place and we just have to make the best of it that we can. Additionally, you have to understand that most Fortune 500s and other large companies are meritocracies today. Far more than they were in the past. Just because her dad is the CFO, does not mean that your friend is going to become the CFO within 5 years. She most likely received an entry-level internship position (if she was lucky, perhaps in strategy or corporate development). What she makes of it from there is completely up to her. The reality is that a majority F500s, investment banks, consulting firms, etc. do not have a family ownership structure. The shareholders vote on the major decisions of the company and work with the board and the executive management team to carry forward the company's strategic plan. Most well-run companies that are not family owned also tend to have policies that prevent family members from reporting to each other. Your friend is an exception rather than the rule in America. Family empires are still very common in Europe and Asia, but America is a country that prizes individualism and meritocracy. Just go look at what Warren Buffett's doing with his children.

As far as getting her tuition paid for - I'm sure I'll run into that when I go to business school as well. There's always a few people like that in every class. As long as they're not flaunting it - I won't judge them for it and that's really their business. Due to the nature of business school, I'm sure that everyone in your class will know pretty quickly if someone is the daughter of James Dimon or the son of Lloyd Blankfein - but I doubt that the guy/gal will feel too great about it and I also doubt that they would desire to even speak about it, nevermind rub it in your face.

If you want inspiration - go look at the Forbes 400 list. I would conservatively estimate that at least 75% of the people on it have earned every penny.

Okay didn't know that, but I guess it could be true. I attended an UG with a pretty high number of REALLY wealthy students mostly international (think: royalty, diplomat kids, and kids of SUPER infuential families in their countries). I guess I just always assumed since most of them could have easily laid down a huge amount if they wanted the school wouldn't care that much about small thousand or so dollar donations.

On the other hand now that I think about it one of my freshman roommates got into college even though she never graduated from high school. She got expelled from boarding school for selling ecstacy and her parents just wrote a huge check (like $200K or something) to the university and she got in. Now granted she had the grades and scores and was certainly academically capable, but stil... If that isn't evidence of preferential treatment I don't know what is.

Hey auu, I hear you too. There isn't much fairness to it and its almost like for the rest of us from humble backgrounds the fact that the opportunities exist should be reward enough! Trust me I've felt the frustration. I've learnt to try and not hold it against those kids. I look at it this way, soon enough my kids will be those kids with a silver spoon in their mouth. (hahaha though I do know I will work my ass off to make sure they understand the world is not all rosy by sending them to volunteer in Africa etc etc.)

Agree with you 100% aau.

It comes down to a question of ethics on the schools part imo. If legacy is important, is this not an ethical issue? Is the candidate being judged on the stereotype and assumptions created by their social network rather than an evaluation on their individual traits?

If contributions matter isn't this a type of bribery?

If your father was the CFO of the company you work for, your path to the top will be a lot easier than another person. I'm not saying that you just sit on your ass and rise to the top, but having this hookup is HUGE. I'm not even going to explain the benefits. It's pretty obvious.

Rising to the top is not all about ability. Luck, savvy, and office politics are just as important.

I dont believe a word of this.

Meritocracy doesnt exist...People with connections like a CFO dad etc have it easier than others.

Also, your example about Warren Buffet: you think Mr.Buffet will not save their ass if his children screw-up? Also, do you think others will even bother complaining about these guys, knowing who their father is.