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

[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).

A lot of top colleges and universities are need blind and will meet 100% of financial need. They can only do that because of their large endowments.

[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).

A lot of top colleges and universities are need blind and will meet 100% of financial need. They can only do that because of their large endowments.

They could do so much more. And this is been studied many times.

[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.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

I think people want every kid at top schools to have earned their spot and you nephew did not in most peoples mind. There are very few spots at the top schools and their endowments are large enough that they should stop caring about donors, yet they dont. There is no institution in this country that is a true academic meritocracy and I think they should have such places (MIT is probably one but even there you have athletes).

Really?
Only 6 colleges have endowments above $20 MM
I don't know if you could sustain your endowment without donations much below that.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.

[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.

Or you could say they have different athletic standards for some kids. If you can't throw a ball, kick, run, or shoot baskets you better have high test scores. They are allowed to have different priorities for a class.

This is not true because athletic preferences are almost binary. A 3 sport high school student that is not recruitable has no advantage over a kid in a wheelchair.

That's true but we're talking about recruitable ones. If you're not a stand out in your sport then it's not going to help. That's why it doesn't really matter what you do in HS as long as you do something. Very few kids are good enough athletes to be recruited and non athletes aren't competing with them in anyway. They are different pools.

The initial argument was that these schools have lower academic standards for recruited athletes.
The post I am responding to tries to reverse the argument saying that we could just ass easily see it as much lower athetic tandards for kids with high academics.
That's bad logic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or you could say they have different athletic standards for some kids. If you can't throw a ball, kick, run, or shoot baskets you better have high test scores. They are allowed to have different priorities for a class.

This is not true because athletic preferences are almost binary. A 3 sport high school student that is not recruitable has no advantage over a kid in a wheelchair.

That's true but we're talking about recruitable ones. If you're not a stand out in your sport then it's not going to help. That's why it doesn't really matter what you do in HS as long as you do something. Very few kids are good enough athletes to be recruited and non athletes aren't competing with them in anyway. They are different pools.

The initial argument was that these schools have lower academic standards for recruited athletes.
The post I am responding to tries to reverse the argument saying that we could just ass easily see it as much lower athetic tandards for kids with high academics.
That's bad logic

Pick your poison. The kids must meet hight standards in one or the other area but not necessarily both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP, if you wanted a pat on the head, you could’ve just asked for one…

[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).

A lot of top colleges and universities are need blind and will meet 100% of financial need. They can only do that because of their large endowments.

They could do so much more. And this is been studied many times.

They meet 100% of financial need.
How much more can they do? Meet 150% of financial need?

[Anonymous]

The schools need the big donors. Every dollar that comes in, even with stipulations, allows the schools to spend money on other priorities that they pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP, if you wanted a pat on the head, you could’ve just asked for one…

Lol, it’s my sib that does all this, not me. Why in the world would I ask for a pat on their head? I’m merely pointing out that “UHNW donor” does not automatically equate with “*sshole with ulterior motives” as many posters here seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

A lot of top colleges and universities are need blind and will meet 100% of financial need. They can only do that because of their large endowments.

They could do so much more. And this is been studied many times.

They meet 100% of financial need.
How much more can they do? Meet 150% of financial need?

You have to be joking. They meet 100% financial need as they define it, which typically means families with HHI of 250k are paying over 90k a year. And 17 elite schools (including Yale, Penn, and MIT) were sued for conspiring to suppress financial aid awards. 12 settled for over $300 million, the judge ruled the remaining 5 schools have to proceed to trial because there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the schools knowingly suppressed aid awards in concert in violation of the law. Please keep telling me how elite schools are so generous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or you could say they have different athletic standards for some kids. If you can't throw a ball, kick, run, or shoot baskets you better have high test scores. They are allowed to have different priorities for a class.

This is not true because athletic preferences are almost binary. A 3 sport high school student that is not recruitable has no advantage over a kid in a wheelchair.

That's true but we're talking about recruitable ones. If you're not a stand out in your sport then it's not going to help. That's why it doesn't really matter what you do in HS as long as you do something. Very few kids are good enough athletes to be recruited and non athletes aren't competing with them in anyway. They are different pools.

The initial argument was that these schools have lower academic standards for recruited athletes.
The post I am responding to tries to reverse the argument saying that we could just ass easily see it as much lower athetic tandards for kids with high academics.
That's bad logic

Pick your poison. The kids must meet hight standards in one or the other area but not necessarily both.

Is the school an academic organization or an athletic one? These two things are not co=equals in the school's mission.
The overwhelming majority of these recruited athletes are not extraordinary athletes. They are being recruited for some country club sport that most kids have no access to or interest in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

I think people want every kid at top schools to have earned their spot and you nephew did not in most peoples mind. There are very few spots at the top schools and their endowments are large enough that they should stop caring about donors, yet they dont. There is no institution in this country that is a true academic meritocracy and I think they should have such places (MIT is probably one but even there you have athletes).

Really?
Only 6 colleges have endowments above $20 MM
I don't know if you could sustain your endowment without donations much below that.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.

This is waaaay wrong. Do you mean billion?

[Anonymous]

I think the donor/legacy angle pisses off non donor/legacy UMC and MC white parents because it effectively removes their kids chances now that large numbers of international students, Latino, AA, Asian American, FGLI, rural and veterans need to make up the classes. The number of seats allotted for basic white kids are eaten up by donor/legacy and some athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the donor/legacy angle pisses off non donor/legacy UMC and MC white parents because it effectively removes their kids chances now that large numbers of international students, Latino, AA, Asian American, FGLI, rural and veterans need to make up the classes. The number of seats allotted for basic white kids are eaten up by donor/legacy and some athletes.

Being “pisse[d] off” implies entitlement. Are you saying “basic white kids” students feel entitled to these seats? The idea of “non donor/legacy UMC and MC white” people being entitled to T5 or whatever admission is ridiculous. Talk about privilege!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the donor/legacy angle pisses off non donor/legacy UMC and MC white parents because it effectively removes their kids chances now that large numbers of international students, Latino, AA, Asian American, FGLI, rural and veterans need to make up the classes. The number of seats allotted for basic white kids are eaten up by donor/legacy and some athletes.

Being “pisse[d] off” implies entitlement. Are you saying “basic white kids” students feel entitled to these seats? The idea of “non donor/legacy UMC and MC white” people being entitled to T5 or whatever admission is ridiculous. Talk about privilege!

Preach! Agreeing with this PP.