| Schools should generally admit people who can keep up with the rigor of the courses. Make it academic/social/values-based only. |
| I think companies then have to stop letting friends/families have a boost in internships. Unfair, discriminatory practices! |
Among the most ridiculous comments that I have ever read on any college website. |
+1 And if you are not at a highly competitive uni, your college savings plans were likely based around the assumption your kid would be attending school where you work. |
And at elite/high stats universities, the kids typically still have to gain admissions---they don't just automatically get in. I have family member employed by elite university. First kid did not apply because they did not have the stats to get in and knew there is no preference given to faculty/staff kids. 2nd kid did get in, but they had the stats to be competitive. Also this family member works for one of the top faculty members at the university---there are buildings on the campus with this faculty members name on it because they have donated millions from research results that made them wealthy. So if anyone could get a kid with "lower stats" in it would be this situation. If the faculty member said "admit this kid" it would probably happen if allowed. |
|
Approx 1% of each class at UVa are the children of faculty.
This is not a small number at many schools. |
Reads like: What did you say to upset your husband that made him hit you? You anti-academic people are Fox robots. I would love for business schools to be separate entities like vocational schools so you entitled, money-hungry, anti-intellectuals could stop ruining higher education. |
|
University of California doesn't have an admissions bump for faculty. There are obviously faculty kids who go to UC schools because they are in-state and the schools are high caliber, and those kids might have access to things that improve their applications, but there's no program for an admissions bump or faculty discount.
The admissions preference that is crazier to me is the celebrity child bump. Why should Harvard or Yale care about the publicity a celebrity kid will bring to the school? |
I guess then feel bad for any other kids in Charlottesville who apply! |
And professors’ kids are typically going to have a competitive application anyway. They’re often married to another professor and if you’re born and raised in an intellectual household with parents who value education and have natural ability and advanced degrees, chances are you will too. It’s not like their 2.0 kid is taking “your kids spot.” The outrage is silly. |
|
Many of the arguments on this thread could also be applied to legacy admissions.
If Legacy goes, then faculty should start assuming that the perks for their kids are next. |
Nope. They will continue to receive the admission advantage. Seethe. |
It's one of the biggest admission boost even more than legacy donor. |
If they’re so great, then they don’t need any admissions advantage. |
People keep saying there is no admission advantage. There is a tuition benefit. Those are two different things. But even if there is, you’re aware that thousands of kids get rejected with competitive stats every year because they simply can’t take everyone with a great application. If you’re so hung up on this, become a professor. Good luck with that. |