Would You Support A Legacy Lottery?

[Anonymous]

There will always be legacy….Part of the deal. If you are going to take my $200M, my kid is getting in….and kids of parents who dont donate, will also benefit……Who do you think is paying for a big portion of your kids experience at these places?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will always be legacy….Part of the deal. If you are going to take my $200M, my kid is getting in….and kids of parents who dont donate, will also benefit……Who do you think is paying for a big portion of your kids experience at these places?

Someone who donates $200mn will have their kid get in whether or not they attended that university. It's the money that's the beneficial factor in this case, not the legacy status. Very few alums donate at that level, and giving the occasional $200 or $2000 to your alma mater doesn't mean that you can buy your kid admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Most Elite schools in the US are private. They should be able to admit whomever they please. Do what you want with Public schools.

Hint, they don't want to make US schools better. They just don't like the way the legacies look.

Hint, most actually don't care how Legacy looks. Stanford, which generates so much money that they actually need to find ways to spend it gave up state money rather than drop legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Racist fiction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Racist fiction

I think there is some truth in having ties to a local area or region, as well as the university, that creates a feeling of belonging and alumni participation.

For international students who just see it as a stepping stone, with no ties to the region, who will leave and never come back, that is all they want. They want the degree and job placement and have moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nonsense.

+1

There isn't a "Legacy problem." Lord. Legacy, if a school even considers it (which is dwindling), applicants are a tiny percentage of the applicant pool. It's not a "problem"

[Anonymous]

I work in development at a university.

I think its kind of laughable that you people think that there are enough $200 million dollar donors (or anything over $1mill honestly) to make a difference to your precious snowflake's chances of admission. There are probably 100 kids/grandkids, in the country, who are "major donor" Dean's list consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Racist fiction

I think there is some truth in having ties to a local area or region, as well as the university, that creates a feeling of belonging and alumni participation.

For international students who just see it as a stepping stone, with no ties to the region, who will leave and never come back, that is all they want. They want the degree and job placement and have moved on.

I agree with you and wholeheartedly support legacy admissions. The poster was just acting racist, spewing about "tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over" which is just racists nonsense. The Chris Mullins reference indicates that they are talking about St. Johns which is only 4% international though it does have a very significant Asian, Hispanic, and African American presence.

[Anonymous]

Rather than a legacy lottery, I’d be totally in favor of auctioning let’s say 10 seats at each ivy or top 10 school. No gpa or sat criteria, just how much are you willing to pay for the slot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

I also attended St. John's University. I can confirm it's not a white utopia, which is apparently triggering for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My college I graduated way back in 1985 went full tilt D&I and international students after I graduated. I was offered chance to speak at a event there back in 2008 and was shocked at the 300 person event of students there was many at most 1-2 white people. And I say 50 percent of students English was a second language. It was a white Catholic College when I went there. It was tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over.

I went to campus one more time around 2018 and same thing. I recently went to an Alumni Event first time ever. It was 99 percent White or Back. But nearly all white Catholic. No one in room under 55. Turns out none of those international or D&I students give back they just want degree and move on.

They still have a strong donor base but will soon disapear. They have a very good basketball team. Wont say school but Chris Mullen type players are no longer on team. And the blonde cheerleaders of 1985 are now overweight international students.

Racist fiction

I think there is some truth in having ties to a local area or region, as well as the university, that creates a feeling of belonging and alumni participation.

For international students who just see it as a stepping stone, with no ties to the region, who will leave and never come back, that is all they want. They want the degree and job placement and have moved on.

I agree with you and wholeheartedly support legacy admissions. The poster was just acting racist, spewing about "tons of Muslims and Hindus and Chinese as well as international students Africa all over" which is just racists nonsense. The Chris Mullins reference indicates that they are talking about St. Johns which is only 4% international though it does have a very significant Asian, Hispanic, and African American presence.

I'm the child of Caribbean immigrants and I loved being in a melting pot environment at a university that also represented my Catholic faith. That poster should have gone to Notre Dame if they wanted a lily-white Catholic school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

Buildings and science equipment cost many times over a few hundred thousand dollars.

If the Walmart family, a tech entrepreneur or some other rich tycoon 1% family wants to build a new football stadium at XYZ flagship university, who cares if their dumbest offspring get a fast tracked admission to the school, ending up one special case in a sea of 10,000 freshmen students.

Letting the legacy kids of big donors attend a university is an investment in the school that yields a benefit to all the other students that is many times more than the tuition itself, and a way better return than any other special admittance class that universities offer.

Most of the selective schools have between 500 and 2000 students in their freshman class.

[Anonymous]

Bring it on! The only question is price is at $2 or $5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

If colleges want to give admission to families that donate buildings, improve infastructure, renovate dorms, fund full rides for poor kids, or donate things like specialized expensive science equipment, bravo to them.

It is a small sacrifice with far more benefits to the student body as a whole, to give a spot to the kids of major donors, than any possible tiny negative of the perception from those rejected from the university that their kid's potential spot was "taken" by the offspring of a rich donor.

Dollar to dollar, the lifetime benefits to the university and the tens to hundreds of thousands of other kids at the university, of giving maybe1 to 3 spots over a 4 to 10 year window (depending on family size) every generation to the kids of big donors, is incredibly lopsided, with almost all of the benefits going to students who are not the donor's kids.

Anyone who is pushing for the elimination of legacy/donor preference in admissions is, at best, a petty and shortsighted fool.

Reasonable logic. But then why limit to alumni? Why not just give preference to anyone who donates? Or give preference to anyone who pledges extra money.
"Dear Mr. X: Although you are qualified, we cannot offer you admission. Unless you want to pay us $190,000 instead of $90,000. Then we'll take you."

Buildings and science equipment cost many times over a few hundred thousand dollars.

If the Walmart family, a tech entrepreneur or some other rich tycoon 1% family wants to build a new football stadium at XYZ flagship university, who cares if their dumbest offspring get a fast tracked admission to the school, ending up one special case in a sea of 10,000 freshmen students.

Letting the legacy kids of big donors attend a university is an investment in the school that yields a benefit to all the other students that is many times more than the tuition itself, and a way better return than any other special admittance class that universities offer.

These are two separate issues: 1) Preferences for big donors (millions) and 2) Preferences for legacy who aren't big donors.

If I was running a college, I'd be annoyed that #1 was necessary, but I'd do it. I see no reason to do #2.

Until your progeny was a legacy. Then you would support it.

Maybe all the $1000 to $5000 recurring donations from everyday alumni are actually more important than the very very rare $100mm donation?

Why do you get to decide how they run their institution? Because your STEM robot got denied from Stanford?

DP

They don't.

But this is a democracy and all these schools are sucking at the taxpayer's teat. So the taxpayers as a whole do have a say. Or do colleges till think they don't need federal dollars like everyone was saying up until about a year ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. No legacy preference period.

+1.

It is wild that we have a heritable preference for elite college admissions. This would cause riots in other countries.

Most Elite schools in the US are private. They should be able to admit whomever they please. Do what you want with Public schools.

Most private schools get federal funding and grants.
Most private schools can give their donors tax deductions because of 501(c) status that can be withdrawn if their policies are contrary to public policy.