Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

Actually you are missing the point. They are qualified for admissions and that is all that matters. There are thousands of qualified applicants turned away every year in favor of other qualified applicants who have lesser stats but stand out in some other way. That is how holistic admissions works. Have the decency to treat all of those admits including those who are athletes with the respect that they deserve.

Many non-athlete applicants who "stand out on some other way" are nevertheless not held to lower academic standards to gain admission. Standout musicians who play in the school orchestra, for example. Also, there is this from Forbes:

"A 2019 study conducted by economists from Duke, University of Georgia, and University of Oklahoma found that at Harvard, '[a] typical applicant with only a 1% chance of admission would see his admission likelihood increase to 98% if he were a recruited athlete. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.'"

Link to the study below:
https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

It is a great hook and it will remain as one as long as athletics are important to their schools. And, athletics are important to these schools because their sports programs go back 150+ years in many cases. MIT doesn't do things without intent and they have the largest D3 sports program in the country. They obviously see great value in athletics.

These kids are sought out, desired, encouraged to attend, specifically because of their athletic talent combined with enough academic strength to succeed or excel at top schools. They are "recruited", which is something that typically doesn't happen for applicants. The admissions success is so high because the schools ask them to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trickle-down economics / Reaganomics, as we all know, did not really work in practice and exacerbated wealth inequality. Evidence suggests that wealth often stays at the top rather than trickling down to workers through increased wages.

The same idea applies here. When the ultra-wealthy donate massive sums to already wealthy universities, who can assure that the money will "trickle down" to disadvantaged families and help increase access to an elite education? Sure, Bloomberg and Johns Hopkins is a notable example. But in many other cases, we aren't so sure how the donation will be spent – sure, it might benefit the institution by creating another research center or revamping athletic facilities. But in my opinion, expanding access and increasing financial aid budgets are far more important than creating yet another lab (which are important, but not top priorities).

The majority of endowment money is encumbered by stipulations on how is may be deployed. If donors want their money to support Financial Aid they just stipulate the use. This is why endowments aren't nearly as flexible as many believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's mad? Not me. If someone makes a substantial donation to a school, I don't begrudge their kid an admissions bump. And I say this as someone who will never make a sizeable donation to a school. I think if we are honest with ourselves we have to admit we would gladly accept any advantage we could bestow upon our children, if it were in our power to do so. I know I would.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trickle-down economics / Reaganomics, as we all know, did not really work in practice and exacerbated wealth inequality. Evidence suggests that wealth often stays at the top rather than trickling down to workers through increased wages.

The same idea applies here. When the ultra-wealthy donate massive sums to already wealthy universities, who can assure that the money will "trickle down" to disadvantaged families and help increase access to an elite education? Sure, Bloomberg and Johns Hopkins is a notable example. But in many other cases, we aren't so sure how the donation will be spent – sure, it might benefit the institution by creating another research center or revamping athletic facilities. But in my opinion, expanding access and increasing financial aid budgets are far more important than creating yet another lab (which are important, but not top priorities).

The majority of endowment money is encumbered by stipulations on how is may be deployed. If donors want their money to support Financial Aid they just stipulate the use. This is why endowments aren't nearly as flexible as many believe.

My argument was that many posters in this thread fail to recognize that many of the donations don't actually trickle down to help underprivileged families – and these donors aren't as "noble" as they're painted to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trickle-down economics / Reaganomics, as we all know, did not really work in practice and exacerbated wealth inequality. Evidence suggests that wealth often stays at the top rather than trickling down to workers through increased wages.

The same idea applies here. When the ultra-wealthy donate massive sums to already wealthy universities, who can assure that the money will "trickle down" to disadvantaged families and help increase access to an elite education? Sure, Bloomberg and Johns Hopkins is a notable example. But in many other cases, we aren't so sure how the donation will be spent – sure, it might benefit the institution by creating another research center or revamping athletic facilities. But in my opinion, expanding access and increasing financial aid budgets are far more important than creating yet another lab (which are important, but not top priorities).

The majority of endowment money is encumbered by stipulations on how is may be deployed. If donors want their money to support Financial Aid they just stipulate the use. This is why endowments aren't nearly as flexible as many believe.

My argument was that many posters in this thread fail to recognize that many of the donations don't actually trickle down to help underprivileged families – and these donors aren't as "noble" as they're painted to be.

Where do you think the donations go? Do they have to go into the pockets of certain families to be noble? Why wouldn't the donations indirectly benefit students at the university include the "underprivileged"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

Most middle and upper middle class students don’t benefit from such philanthropy. They are in the college admissions “donut hole”. And for them it looks more like universities are preserving the status of children of the American oligarchy, than “lifting all boats”.

[Anonymous]

without the networking opportunities alot of kids who "win" the lottery with an admit wind up as middling players in biglaw or IB (where they could also get from a bucknell etc)never making it to partner its a myth that these schools guarantee success. also how do you know you would get the seat that the ultra rich person's kid got? buying into the whole thing is the crazy part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

Most middle and upper middle class students don’t benefit from such philanthropy. They are in the college admissions “donut hole”. And for them it looks more like universities are preserving the status of children of the American oligarchy, than “lifting all boats”.

Sure about that? Fairly certain all students benefit from philanthropic gifts that create new dorms, classrooms, and labs (and renovate old ones), attract and retain world-class faculty as well as talented postdocs and PhDs, sponsor paid undergraduate research opportunities, support hundreds of campus organizations that enhance student life, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

The biggest problem with the American middle class is that it hates itself. If the American middle class were more like Norway’s, we could stop the rat race and focus on policies that give everyone a meaningful life including good public education and healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

Most middle and upper middle class students don’t benefit from such philanthropy. They are in the college admissions “donut hole”. And for them it looks more like universities are preserving the status of children of the American oligarchy, than “lifting all boats”.

Sure about that? Fairly certain all students benefit from philanthropic gifts that create new dorms, classrooms, and labs (and renovate old ones), attract and retain world-class faculty as well as talented postdocs and PhDs, sponsor paid undergraduate research opportunities, support hundreds of campus organizations that enhance student life, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

Most middle and upper middle class students don’t benefit from such philanthropy. They are in the college admissions “donut hole”. And for them it looks more like universities are preserving the status of children of the American oligarchy, than “lifting all boats”.

Sure about that? Fairly certain all students benefit from philanthropic gifts that create new dorms, classrooms, and labs (and renovate old ones), attract and retain world-class faculty as well as talented postdocs and PhDs, sponsor paid undergraduate research opportunities, support hundreds of campus organizations that enhance student life, etc. etc.

I’m sure you don’t know the context of my response. It was in reference to individual scholarships….”my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

Most middle and upper middle class students don’t benefit from such philanthropy. They are in the college admissions “donut hole”. And for them it looks more like universities are preserving the status of children of the American oligarchy, than “lifting all boats”.

Sure about that? Fairly certain all students benefit from philanthropic gifts that create new dorms, classrooms, and labs (and renovate old ones), attract and retain world-class faculty as well as talented postdocs and PhDs, sponsor paid undergraduate research opportunities, support hundreds of campus organizations that enhance student life, etc. etc.

I’m sure you don’t know the context of my response. It was in reference to individual scholarships….”my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater”.

I’m OP, and also the PP to whom you’re replying here - apologies if that wasn’t clear. My sib’s 8 figure (approaching 9 figures at this point) philanthropy to their alma mater includes everything I wrote above, but we can zero in on the individual scholarships I first mentioned as well. Half the student body at their alma mater receives financial aid - some full, many more partial. The latter specifically includes middle class students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

Actually you are missing the point. They are qualified for admissions and that is all that matters. There are thousands of qualified applicants turned away every year in favor of other qualified applicants who have lesser stats but stand out in some other way. That is how holistic admissions works. Have the decency to treat all of those admits including those who are athletes with the respect that they deserve.

Many non-athlete applicants who "stand out on some other way" are nevertheless not held to lower academic standards to gain admission. Standout musicians who play in the school orchestra, for example. Also, there is this from Forbes:

"A 2019 study conducted by economists from Duke, University of Georgia, and University of Oklahoma found that at Harvard, '[a] typical applicant with only a 1% chance of admission would see his admission likelihood increase to 98% if he were a recruited athlete. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.'"

Link to the study below:
https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

It is a great hook and it will remain as one as long as athletics are important to their schools. And, athletics are important to these schools because their sports programs go back 150+ years in many cases. MIT doesn't do things without intent and they have the largest D3 sports program in the country. They obviously see great value in athletics.

These kids are sought out, desired, encouraged to attend, specifically because of their athletic talent combined with enough academic strength to succeed or excel at top schools. They are "recruited", which is something that typically doesn't happen for applicants. The admissions success is so high because the schools ask them to come.

This is 100% true. It is up to each individual college to decide how badly it wants any particular recruited athlete, and each school should be able to decide for itself how much it will lower its academic standards--IF AT ALL--to make that happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest problem with the American middle class is that it hates itself. If the American middle class were more like Norway’s, we could stop the rat race and focus on policies that give everyone a meaningful life including good public education and healthcare.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

Actually you are missing the point. They are qualified for admissions and that is all that matters. There are thousands of qualified applicants turned away every year in favor of other qualified applicants who have lesser stats but stand out in some other way. That is how holistic admissions works. Have the decency to treat all of those admits including those who are athletes with the respect that they deserve.

Many non-athlete applicants who "stand out on some other way" are nevertheless not held to lower academic standards to gain admission. Standout musicians who play in the school orchestra, for example. Also, there is this from Forbes:

"A 2019 study conducted by economists from Duke, University of Georgia, and University of Oklahoma found that at Harvard, '[a] typical applicant with only a 1% chance of admission would see his admission likelihood increase to 98% if he were a recruited athlete. Being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.'"

Link to the study below:
https://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

It is a great hook and it will remain as one as long as athletics are important to their schools. And, athletics are important to these schools because their sports programs go back 150+ years in many cases. MIT doesn't do things without intent and they have the largest D3 sports program in the country. They obviously see great value in athletics.

These kids are sought out, desired, encouraged to attend, specifically because of their athletic talent combined with enough academic strength to succeed or excel at top schools. They are "recruited", which is something that typically doesn't happen for applicants. The admissions success is so high because the schools ask them to come.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.