It’s a bit of an odd thing to begin with— Jeremy Lin’s “Linsanity” legacy. How often does 25 games started, one insane week, and post-season injuries and irrelevance constitute one of the most-talked-about monikers in all of sports?

photo by DvYang

Doesn’t Derek Jeter have a legacy, too? One with five World Series rings, over 2500 games, and a captaincy over the most famous sports team on earth?

So how is it that both of them have what we call a “legacy”? How is it that right now, Jeremy Lin is on the cover of ESPN.com, while Jeter, who is actually in season, and cruising to yet another AL East title, is by the wayside?

This isn’t a comparison between the two, because that’d be Linsane. But it’s a realization that this Lin attention has an extremely odd quality to it. And that’s a good thing. But now it might be over. Is that a good thing?

During the most fervent moments of “Linsanity”, New Yorkers sipped on Lintinis and Lin & Tonics, while  the Nom Wah restaurant in the heart of Chinatown held viewing parties in the midst of Time Warner’s inability to strike a deal with MSG (leaving 2.5 million New Yorkers without him, according to the Huffington Post). It was almost pandemonium. Insane, if you will? But it wasn’t always like that. And with the rush of enthusiasm that hit New York so quickly, it can be a bit hard to remember the spunky reserve that sat, all-day-in-all-day-out, at the edge of the New York Knicks bench.

For years Jeremy Lin was unremarkable. A Harvard star, but without the NBA size (Lin is listed generously at 6’3, 200 pounds), Lin went undrafted in the 2010 draft and floated around the NBA’s D-League (Development League), eventually landing on the Golden State Warriors roster. There, according to basketball-reference.com, he played in 29 games, averaged a meager 9.8 minutes per game, an even more meager 1.6 assists per game, and an even more meager 2.6 points per game.

He eventually was cut, and was picked up perfunctorily by New York.

And then, it was practically instant.

When Lin hit major minutes in the Knicks’s lineup on February 4, it marked the beginning of an 7-game win streak that carried until the 14, and, with some help from the symbol he represented —”an Asian-American in the NBA?! and he’s good?!” were the thoughts of many— marked one of the quickest rises to fame in recent sports history. Quick enough to be quantified.

Honestly, the #Knicks franchise has spent money on Stephon Marbury, Eddy Curry, and Steve Francis.Give Lin a shot to grow. #NBA

— NBA Wired (@NBAWired) July 16, 2012

According to The Hollywood Reporter (who cited a social study by company General Sentiment), in the days between Feb. 6 and 14, Lin’s Twitter account, @JLin7, was the most-mentioned NBA player in social media. Based on the study, Lin was mentioned 2,610,684 times on Twitter in that timeframe— more than second-most Lebron James, whose regal handle @KingJames, has almost 5.5 million followers.

But it wasn’t just NBA-related. During the same time, Lin was mentioned more than an account whose following amasses near 18 million people. Said handle is that of our President, Barack Obama.

And it was more than just numbers on a relatively new social media sensation. Lin was a symbol for Asian-Americans across the globe. Lin stood brighter than usual because of his NBA-unique ethnicity.

Glancing quickly at a March Yahoo! blurb, Lin is the second-best Asian-American player to ever play in the NBA, and this without ever completing an entire NBA season.

According to the list, Lin is second behind Yao Ming, a similar sensation during much of the 2000s. The other two on the list? Yi Jianlian and Rex Walters. Who?

But the amount of  followers James has, despite Lin’s week of fame, outnumbers Lin’s by 4.5 million people, and symbolizes how Lin was possibly a bright flash in an otherwise disappointing Knicks frying pan.

Letting go of Jeremy Lin is one of the smartest things the Knicks have done in the last 10 years

— Joe Perrone (@Perrone27) July 16, 2012

If it wasn’t for the Knicks’s penchant for signing starpower rather than a full squad (i.e. overpaying Amar’e Stoudemire, whose knees (and defense) are so shaky that they were actually denied insurance and letting fan-favorite Landry Fields out of their grasp), maybe there wouldn’t be so much attention. Maybe the over-the-top contract, $25 million/3 years, from Houston, which would, after accounting for luxury tax, would cost the Knicks $30 million in the third year alone, would be recognized as a cost unpayable.

i’ll miss jeremy lin, but there’s no way they can pay $30 mil

— Chris Molicki (@chrismolicki) July 15, 2012

New York and its vast Asian-American culture birthed Lin’s story, but is now making it pretty tough for the Knicks avoid appearing loyalty-less.

But, like mentioned before, what’s the middleground between salary requirements and what makes so many New Yorkers so happy?

There are guys on the Knicks better than Lin. Carmelo Anthony is widely considered one of, if not the, best pure scorers in the NBA. Iman Shumpert is a quickly-developing shooting guard. Heck, you could even argue goggle-clad Stoudemire still has more in the tank than Lin.

But how much do stats and reps matter over a guy who only “Lin, Lin, Lins!” games?

According to a February WebProNews article, during Linsanity’s birth week, MSG (the host-channel for Knicks games) ratings increase an outrageous 87%.

Jeremy Lin is not worth 30million

— Harry Fraud (@Kick_Push) July 16, 2012

A whole lot of attention for a week’s worth of winning, but then when Lin got hurt in late March, and subsequently sat for the season’s duration (including the playoffs) Lin was a large part forgotten.

Is all the new hoopla just a result of the suffocating New York publicity? Is a guy who means so much to Asian-American communities worth the money to make the fans happy? What does he mean to Asian-American communities? Is he even actually good? Will he even stay healthy?

One New Yorker, and probably to the frustration of many New Yorkers, hasn’t fully bought into Linsanity, and thinks Marcus Camby, Ray Felton, and Jason Kidd, are a step in the right direction for a franchise whose volatile, multi-coached, multi-chaptered season was a mess.

And now we wait to see what the Knicks think.

by Nick Gallinelli

Not really, but it’s helpful to know the myths and realities of the admissions process

With 1.4 million school-aged children, New York City has the nation’s biggest public school system, the densest concentration of private schools, and admissions competition for the under-5 set so intense that it has inspired satirical novels and critically-acclaimed documentaries—while bewildering and frustrating countless parents. Each year, rumors and misinformation about the availability of spots and what it takes to get into certain schools only make matters worse.

To help guide you through the city’s various admissions processes, here’s an overview of recent trends in admissions for nursery school and both public and private kindergarten, along with answers to common questions and helpful resources.

NURSERY SCHOOL

The good news: If you apply to enough private preschools—and your list goes beyond the most competitive schools—you are likely to get in somewhere. (This is not the case with public pre-K, which is only offered to 4-year-olds, and has recently seen an increase in applications.)

Gina Malin of the Parents League, a nonprofit group supported by independent schools and member families, advises parents to contact “10 schools to get eight applications,” but adds that “this isn’t a hard and fast number.” If you have twins or live in a family-heavy neighborhood like the Upper East Side, you should probably add a few more schools to the list.

As you are forming your list, it’s especially important to contact the schools (or visit their websites) and note their systems for giving out applications (i.e. website, phone call or lottery). Get out your calendar: many schools only give out applications on the day after Labor Day (and the most popular ones often run out by midday), while other schools offer applications more freely in the course of the fall.

Take note of the minimum age of entry at schools that interest you, as well as the age at which the school has the most openings. Manhattan has more programs that start closer to or at age 3 than those that start at age 2, but the number of schools offering classes for 2-year-olds has expanded greatly in recent years. Some schools that start at age 2 may take most of their students at that age, whereas other schools with 2-year-old programs might have a greater share of their students starting at age 3.

If you do not receive any preschool acceptances or if you have moved to the city too late to apply, you can call the Parents League to find schools with openings. Executive director Kathy Shea says the number of parents who are rejected from all the preschools they apply to is “not huge” and “they pretty much get placed somewhere.”

Looking ahead? Parents may have an unfounded fear that only the “right” preschool will guarantee entry to a good private kindergarten. Wendy Levey, founder and director of Epiphany Community Nursery School, says that on the contrary, “ongoing schools are trying to take children from a variety of programs,” an assertion backed by private schools reports. At the same time, if parents applying to nursery school think they are likely to be applying to private school in a few years, they should inquire about a nursery school’s track record for placing children in private school to ensure that it’s a school with experience in ex-missions and has positive relationships with a lot of private schools.

To read the full article at New York Family magazine click here.

By David Stoll

The story this month seems to be that it is harder than ever to gain admission to a selective college. Harvard, for example, admitted just 5.9 percent of its 34,302 applicants this spring, down from 6.2 percent last year. However, this trend should be viewed in a larger perspective—one that suggests that applying early remains an important part of the admissions process.

The Harvard story is instructive. Harvard reinstated early admissions, in the form of nonbinding early action, this year. A full 772 students—18 percent of early applicants—were offered early admission, a number representing nearly half the size of the entering class. Harvard naturally assumed that the yield (the percent who will eventually accept) would be high. Thus, fewer students were offered regular admission this year, making that larger pool even more competitive.

Harvard is not alone. Princeton offered admission to 21 percent of its early applicants, who would fill more than half the class if they all accepted. The 15 percent accepted early by Yale would also fill more than half the class. The University of Chicago admitted over 18 percent of its early applicants; because Chicago’s yield is lower than those of the Ivy Leagues (despite its stellar reputation), the school admitted more people early than it has freshman slots. Locally, Fordham admitted more than 45 percent of its applicants early, also admitting more students than there are slots.

The early decision story is even more interesting. Applying early decision involves a binding promise to attend the school if accepted. Columbia University admitted more than 20 percent of its early applicants, filling 45 percent of its freshman class before most people had even submitted their applications. University of Pennsylvania admitted more than 25 percent of its early applicants, filling 47 percent of its freshman class.

Duke, as competitive as the Ivy Leagues, admitted nearly 25 percent of early applicants, filling 38 percent of its class. Williams College admitted over 42 percent of applicants, representing 43 percent of its class. Locally, NYU admitted nearly 46 percent of early applicants, representing 29 percent of the class.

What do these numbers mean? Applying early decision is wise for a competitive student who has a clear first choice and for whom financial aid is not an issue. For such a student, the odds of acceptance are higher, because the student is showing an interest, the school will accept a higher percentage of applicants and there will be fewer slots available for those applying regular decision.

On the other hand, someone uncertain about attending a school should not apply early decision as a means of gaming the system; attending a good-fit school is well worth the wait.

Applying early action is also wise, and financial aid need not be a consideration yet. While chances of admission are not quite as high at an early action school as at an equivalently selective early decision school, the odds for a competitive student are still are better than they would be in April. Do note that some early action schools, including Harvard, Princeton and Yale, will not permit early applicants to apply early to other schools. Thus, it may be better to apply to other schools early to allow for more possible options.

David Stoll is a premier tutor and college admissions counselor at The Princeton Review.