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

[Anonymous]

I’m OP. My siblings and I went to H,Y, and S with no hooks (back when it was easier, of course). Two of us became lemmings in Big Law and at MBB (not a complaint - we do just fine), while the other became an entrepreneur, selling their first company in their 20s for a couple hundred million and leveling up thereafter. This sib donates a ton to their alma mater and I can’t imagine my nephew not getting in if he wants, but here’s the thing - he’s academically qualified, he’ll occupy just one seat, and my sib has supported many thousands of other students with their philanthropy. Why would anyone resent this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their 8, 9, even 10 figure donations lift all boats.

I'm not. Why do you think I would be?

These donors' funds matter. I get that there is a payback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m OP. My siblings and I went to H,Y, and S with no hooks (back when it was easier, of course). Two of us became lemmings in Big Law and at MBB (not a complaint - we do just fine), while the other became an entrepreneur, selling their first company in their 20s for a couple hundred million and leveling up thereafter. This sib donates a ton to their alma mater and I can’t imagine my nephew not getting in if he wants, but here’s the thing - he’s academically qualified, he’ll occupy just one seat, and my sib has supported many thousands of other students with their philanthropy. Why would anyone resent this?

I don't think people are mad. If anything, there will be less people care about the college games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m OP. My siblings and I went to H,Y, and S with no hooks (back when it was easier, of course). Two of us became lemmings in Big Law and at MBB (not a complaint - we do just fine), while the other became an entrepreneur, selling their first company in their 20s for a couple hundred million and leveling up thereafter. This sib donates a ton to their alma mater and I can’t imagine my nephew not getting in if he wants, but here’s the thing - he’s academically qualified, he’ll occupy just one seat, and my sib has supported many thousands of other students with their philanthropy. Why would anyone resent this?

Because it shatters the illusion that the schools are disinterested and impartial arbiters of merit. They don’t resent your nephew. They resent their own disillusionment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll bite... it's because it makes it obvious that getting into said school is not and is rarely based on merit. So the fail-upwards spawn gets into the "highly selective" school because mom and dad funded a serenity park on the quad. Said spawn goes on to become senator because his/her parent's name carries a lot of weight in all the right circles; and those are just the more blatant types of pay to play...

Meanwhile the rest of our children are busting their butts, taking on summer jobs, volunteering, losing sleep over grades; watching mom and dad not take a vacation, in the hopes they get into that special school...

We know it's all a lie; there are genius children who never get a chance, because they don't have the resources.

Sadly, Senator Fail-Upwards will sponsor a bill criminalizing his fellow poorer citizens.

If only we could pull ourselves up with our bootstraps with a million dollar loan from mom and dad - think of all the casinos we could bankrupt...

Who said it was about merit?

+1. Maybe makes some mad bc they want to believe it is about merit -- or their definition of merit.

Decisions are not always made based on grades and test scores. That's the way it is.

Is a "genius" kid necessarily any more meritorious than an athletic kid? No, both were born with gifts not everyone is born with, through no merit or effort of their own. Sure, some put work into developing those gifts than others.

Isn't IQ an equally unfair form of privilege?

And many often benefit from the donations, not just the child of the donor. If the school wants to give him/her a spot, they can.

[Anonymous]

Who's mad?

[Anonymous]

I do t get it either. At a school where there are many more qualified applicants than seats, isn’t it just the inverse of a financial aid admit (in the case a qualified donor kid admit)? Except that a donor likely ends up paying many multiples of a full tuition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll bite... it's because it makes it obvious that getting into said school is not and is rarely based on merit. So the fail-upwards spawn gets into the "highly selective" school because mom and dad funded a serenity park on the quad. Said spawn goes on to become senator because his/her parent's name carries a lot of weight in all the right circles; and those are just the more blatant types of pay to play...

Meanwhile the rest of our children are busting their butts, taking on summer jobs, volunteering, losing sleep over grades; watching mom and dad not take a vacation, in the hopes they get into that special school...

We know it's all a lie; there are genius children who never get a chance, because they don't have the resources.

Sadly, Senator Fail-Upwards will sponsor a bill criminalizing his fellow poorer citizens.

If only we could pull ourselves up with our bootstraps with a million dollar loan from mom and dad - think of all the casinos we could bankrupt...

Money trumps merit but merit still exists.

Was "[T]rumps" a deliberate choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m OP. My siblings and I went to H,Y, and S with no hooks (back when it was easier, of course). Two of us became lemmings in Big Law and at MBB (not a complaint - we do just fine), while the other became an entrepreneur, selling their first company in their 20s for a couple hundred million and leveling up thereafter. This sib donates a ton to their alma mater and I can’t imagine my nephew not getting in if he wants, but here’s the thing - he’s academically qualified, he’ll occupy just one seat, and my sib has supported many thousands of other students with their philanthropy. Why would anyone resent this?

Because it shatters the illusion that the schools are disinterested and impartial arbiters of merit. They don’t resent your nephew. They resent their own disillusionment.

There is no illusion of merit. Read the websites….holistic means $$$ or whatever they need

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's mad?

People like the PP who quoted Les Mis.

[Anonymous]

I’m not mad at all. But as a teacher, just don’t expect me to bend the rules. Allow me to treat the child like any other. Don’t expect that the child can act disgracefully without consequences. Don’t expect that I’ll look the other way because of donations.

- a teacher who has been there, done that.

[Anonymous]

I have less of a problem with it than athletes.

[Anonymous]

Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They make a ton of money on the backs of those kids, that’s why they admit them.

Not at Ivy League schools they don’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).