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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Except they did, according to the college in question, who also makes this determination for athletes, underrepresented minorities, kids from random geographic regions, trombone players when the orchestra has none, etc. If you don’t like it, opt out. You’re not entitled to anything more.

This is illegal. Racial preferences are illegal. Colleges cannot make this determination without breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Except they did, according to the college in question, who also makes this determination for athletes, underrepresented minorities, kids from random geographic regions, trombone players when the orchestra has none, etc. If you don’t like it, opt out. You’re not entitled to anything more.

THE KID did not earn it.

THE KID did nothing to have rich parents.

Kids don’t do anything to have parents who raise them in North Dakota either.
You can keep blustering, but it’s not going to change the fact that you’re not entitled to decide who institutions prioritize. I’m not either; I’m just not mad like you because I recognize it.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly! And athletes have actual alent, whereas rich kids need no talent or brains...they were just born to someone who has money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Life is never strictly about "merit". Wait until you get out of college and realize that you might be working for someone who went to state U (not even T100), graduated with a 2.8, and is now your 2nd level manager making 4x what you make. Doesn't matter that you went to a T25 school, you report to people who didn't.
Even better, wait until there are 5 of you on a team and the one who gets promoted or the best next project is Person A whose Mom is best friends with the VP 3 levels up. They do decent work, but 3 of the 5 are better employees than them, yet they get the cushy position and projects and chances to advance more rapidly.
It's life. You can lament that it's not fair and focus on that or you can choose to work with what you are given and advance yourself accordingly

None of my ivy undergrad friends report to someone with these stats. We almost all are doctors, lawyers, research scientists, professors, VPs in top companies who work under or with similar level people, or started our own companies. Or some combination of the above. The one who is not is a teacher in private school where many of the other teachers and principal/admin went to T25/Top15 SLAC and are not less intelligent.

[Anonymous]

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

Fair, almost all athletes from our private who go to that level of school are slightly (1350-1400) to significantly (1150-1200) lower than the average unhooked admit at the same schools (1500+). Rarely there is a recruited athlete with a 1500+ and top GPA/rigor.
The ones who are legacy are almost all 1500+/tops, some are 1450. Legacy is not the same boost as athlete but it is a boost.
The fac-brat was a 1350. We have not had a known big-donor-hollywood type admit, likely could be athlete level boost, who cares.

It doesn't matter tons because if your unhooked kid is good enough to get in to T10/ivy or even T20, there will be somewhere between 30-40% of students who are hooked and below the average unhooked group, hence your kid has a great shot at being top half or better when they graduate from the top college! That earns one top recs, a 3.8-3.9 GPA, and a great shot at the next application cycle of life. Two at two different ivies and the competition is fierce among the unhooked--it is better that there are not 90-100% unhooked!
If your unhooked kid does not get in sure you can say a hooked kid stole the spot and they did, but yours can go be a big fish at a T30-40ish and win that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

MIT has a huge athletic preference. You need the academics but if you have them you have a chance that is 20x the typical admit.

The academic bar is not lowered for the athlete at MIT. Their chances might be better in the same way that a math Olympian's chances are better but the academic standards are no lower.
There are no 1300 SAT athletes at MIT. There are 1300 athletes at Stanford.

+1

Different schools, different priorities regarding athletics but athletics is of huge importance to both schools.

MIT, largest athletics program in D3 and they look to grab the cream of the crop for athletic talent among the academically gifted. It's a big disadvantage for some sports but in others they are remarkably competitive.

Stanford has chosen to play in a major Power 4 conference. This requires some compromises if they are to be competitive but they have much higher standards than most P4 schools including their closest peer in Duke. They are also a huge supplier of elite athletes in Olympic sports which requires compromises as well.

Both schools do a good job of balancing their priorities within their environments. And if you question the value of athletics check out what happened when Stanford tried to cut some sports a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Life is never strictly about "merit". Wait until you get out of college and realize that you might be working for someone who went to state U (not even T100), graduated with a 2.8, and is now your 2nd level manager making 4x what you make. Doesn't matter that you went to a T25 school, you report to people who didn't.
Even better, wait until there are 5 of you on a team and the one who gets promoted or the best next project is Person A whose Mom is best friends with the VP 3 levels up. They do decent work, but 3 of the 5 are better employees than them, yet they get the cushy position and projects and chances to advance more rapidly.
It's life. You can lament that it's not fair and focus on that or you can choose to work with what you are given and advance yourself accordingly

None of my ivy undergrad friends report to someone with these stats. We almost all are doctors, lawyers, research scientists, professors, VPs in top companies who work under or with similar level people, or started our own companies. Or some combination of the above. The one who is not is a teacher in private school where many of the other teachers and principal/admin went to T25/Top15 SLAC and are not less intelligent.

Many Ivy graduates do though. The top tech companies are loaded with public school graduates with stacks of Ivy graduates reporting to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Fair, almost all athletes from our private who go to that level of school are slightly (1350-1400) to significantly (1150-1200) lower than the average unhooked admit at the same schools (1500+). Rarely there is a recruited athlete with a 1500+ and top GPA/rigor.
The ones who are legacy are almost all 1500+/tops, some are 1450. Legacy is not the same boost as athlete but it is a boost.
The fac-brat was a 1350. We have not had a known big-donor-hollywood type admit, likely could be athlete level boost, who cares.

It doesn't matter tons because if your unhooked kid is good enough to get in to T10/ivy or even T20, there will be somewhere between 30-40% of students who are hooked and below the average unhooked group, hence your kid has a great shot at being top half or better when they graduate from the top college! That earns one top recs, a 3.8-3.9 GPA, and a great shot at the next application cycle of life. Two at two different ivies and the competition is fierce among the unhooked--it is better that there are not 90-100% unhooked!
If your unhooked kid does not get in sure you can say a hooked kid stole the spot and they did, but yours can go be a big fish at a T30-40ish and win that way.

Nobody stole anyone's spot. You could eliminate all ALDC kids and Larla still isn't getting in because 60,000 kids applied for 1600 seats. People just need to deal with it. Plenty of athletes at the schools mentioned have academic stats equal to anybody at the school and they are the ones that the unhooked kids should fear because they will be taking the top spots in any area that they choose.

[Anonymous]

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

Those talents the athletes bring that the smarter kids don’t have make a lot of money for the college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Fair, almost all athletes from our private who go to that level of school are slightly (1350-1400) to significantly (1150-1200) lower than the average unhooked admit at the same schools (1500+). Rarely there is a recruited athlete with a 1500+ and top GPA/rigor.
The ones who are legacy are almost all 1500+/tops, some are 1450. Legacy is not the same boost as athlete but it is a boost.
The fac-brat was a 1350. We have not had a known big-donor-hollywood type admit, likely could be athlete level boost, who cares.

It doesn't matter tons because if your unhooked kid is good enough to get in to T10/ivy or even T20, there will be somewhere between 30-40% of students who are hooked and below the average unhooked group, hence your kid has a great shot at being top half or better when they graduate from the top college! That earns one top recs, a 3.8-3.9 GPA, and a great shot at the next application cycle of life. Two at two different ivies and the competition is fierce among the unhooked--it is better that there are not 90-100% unhooked!
If your unhooked kid does not get in sure you can say a hooked kid stole the spot and they did, but yours can go be a big fish at a T30-40ish and win that way.

Nobody stole anyone's spot. You could eliminate all ALDC kids and Larla still isn't getting in because 60,000 kids applied for 1600 seats. People just need to deal with it. Plenty of athletes at the schools mentioned have academic stats equal to anybody at the school and they are the ones that the unhooked kids should fear because they will be taking the top spots in any area that they choose.

The math ain’t mathing on this. It’s a zero-sum game.

[Anonymous]

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.

Most of the athletes at T20/Ivies are smart. People who think otherwise are not well informed.

Why would anyone even care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Those talents the athletes bring that the smarter kids don’t have make a lot of money for the college.

Most college athletes do not compete in sports that raise revenue for the college.