This was true for Harvard. It doesn't pay attention until you give seven figures. DC was waitlisted (yes, had the stats, ECs and everything else.) |
Lies. At a school like Penn, admissions and development have a bright line separating the offices - with the exception of donors with the potential for donating in the 7 figures. |
+1. |
Not a lie. That’s what they told us. To give consistently. |
DP. I didn’t go to Penn, but I can confirm that the colleges that I attended to keep lists of alumni who have contributed for more than x number of years, y number of years, etc. Harvard may not care, but I have heard from the Dean of my highly ranked (and highly endowed) graduate school that colleges are paying more attention to increasing the % of alumni who contribute consistently. I was surprised at how low the number is for most colleges. There is the multiplier effect, but I also think there is evidence that people who get in the habit of giving are more likely to increase those contributions as time goes on. FWIW, my DC was admitted to my alma mater. His stats were well within range, so who knows if it helped or not. I do know that I was known to the development office and they knew my DC was applying. I do find the response above amusing — “there is a bright line separating the offices — with the exception of….” In other words, there is no “bright line.” |