Elite Colleges’ Quiet Fight to Favor Alumni Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

Every private school/high school/k-8 in the DMV has sibling and legacy preferences. It's nice when you are at a school and everyone is so gung-ho about it and there is tradition.

If a school or university is private, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

Donating to universities does not matter at all until you start donating at least $1M+, likely even higher. So donate if that's what you want to do, but sending in $5K/year is not going to help your kid get admitted ANYWHERE.

Kids whose parents graduated from JHU already have such a leg up in life, they should be able to excel anywhere (yes, even at a non Elite university). I for one want my kids attending school with a wide variety of students---I don't want them at school with only high income, prep school students. I want diversity on all levels. If that means my own kid doesn't get into an elite university due to their privilege and that spot goes to a Pell grant student, I'm happy. That kid will gain much more from attending Elite U than my kid will. My kid will excel no matter what and the fact they go to a T30 instead of T10 school won't change their trajectory, but for that Pell grant kid, this will likely greatly advance their life, and help their family---it will likely be life changing for them.

I know many, MANY non-elite, non-wealthy, down-right poor kids who are incredibly bright. My father and my husband were perfect SAT scores and my dad was fed by Salvation Army as a kid. My husband had to have his friend's parents by him shoes and jeans, etc. They both got in on merit to selective universities. Middle class kids make up a huge portion of selective universities.

I don't where people get the idea there is no diversity and everyone is a rich prep school kid. Jesus Christ, there are more rich kids at are local HS than the selective university my oldest attends, and a lot more diversity.

Take a look at the numbers in the past 5 years, there is more diversity than not in these top20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I avoid medical or any professional service by a provider that received their education and training because they were given priority because family had connections.
Nepotism will always happen. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to tease out a legacy.
As a side, I think it is sad that a person feels obligated to follow in someone else’s footsteps.

Another delusional one. Like you'd know.

I avoid medical service by anyone with a Medical degree from the Caribbean or bottom-feeder med school.

Sigh.

Hopkins educated doctor, NYC or G-town med, etc., sign me up.

I think most educated people give weight to where the degree was obtained. Do you really think Med schools are giving kids As because of who their parents were? Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I avoid medical or any professional service by a provider that received their education and training because they were given priority because family had connections.
Nepotism will always happen. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to tease out a legacy.
As a side, I think it is sad that a person feels obligated to follow in someone else’s footsteps.

Another delusional one. Like you'd know.

I avoid medical service by anyone with a Medical degree from the Caribbean or bottom-feeder med school.

Sigh.

Hopkins educated doctor, NYC or G-town med, etc., sign me up.

I think most educated people give weight to where the degree was obtained. Do you really think Med schools are giving kids As because of who their parents were? Give me a break.

And you think that legacies are going to the Caribbean for med school? They don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

Every private school/high school/k-8 in the DMV has sibling and legacy preferences. It's nice when you are at a school and everyone is so gung-ho about it and there is tradition.

If a school or university is private, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

Yes they should---if Harvard wants to admit 100% white males with income over 200K that is their choice. Not likely to do that because even they reconginze the benefits to having diversity on campus.
And it's nice to see that even elite private universities want to increase their first gen/pell grant (lower income)/any other diversity category over simply legacy, as the majority of legacy students fall into categories well represented already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

Donating to universities does not matter at all until you start donating at least $1M+, likely even higher. So donate if that's what you want to do, but sending in $5K/year is not going to help your kid get admitted ANYWHERE.

Kids whose parents graduated from JHU already have such a leg up in life, they should be able to excel anywhere (yes, even at a non Elite university). I for one want my kids attending school with a wide variety of students---I don't want them at school with only high income, prep school students. I want diversity on all levels. If that means my own kid doesn't get into an elite university due to their privilege and that spot goes to a Pell grant student, I'm happy. That kid will gain much more from attending Elite U than my kid will. My kid will excel no matter what and the fact they go to a T30 instead of T10 school won't change their trajectory, but for that Pell grant kid, this will likely greatly advance their life, and help their family---it will likely be life changing for them.

I know many, MANY non-elite, non-wealthy, down-right poor kids who are incredibly bright. My father and my husband were perfect SAT scores and my dad was fed by Salvation Army as a kid. My husband had to have his friend's parents by him shoes and jeans, etc. They both got in on merit to selective universities. Middle class kids make up a huge portion of selective universities.

I don't where people get the idea there is no diversity and everyone is a rich prep school kid. Jesus Christ, there are more rich kids at are local HS than the selective university my oldest attends, and a lot more diversity.

Take a look at the numbers in the past 5 years, there is more diversity than not in these top20.

Never said there was no diversity. Even 30 years ago there was diversity. But it's nice to see many universities (including Top schools) striving to increase their diversity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

This is our approach. I don't control the system. I don't like it. But I'm not changing it. So we are going to try to use sports as a hook in. So far, so good. We'll see how DC lands in the end (high stats -so far- and high level of play in the sport).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look -- college is not a government program where the "most deserving" whatever that means gets the slot. Getting federal money to do things for the common good does not change that. Colleges get to pick what they want. I get legacy. It grounds the college and helps give it a history that can be shared. But the college gets to decide what it wants. Hey we need more music majors let's lower the scores for them or any other majors.

And this is the exact time that URMs admitted in an earlier time in great numbers have the legacy option. Seems a bit harsh to pull from them.

It will never be a "fair system". There is no way for that to happen. Just like life isn't fair. The fact that some people can afford tutoring and extras to help their kids isn't fair either. The fact that I can afford private schools (don't do that but I could) and can also afford to live in a top public district isn't fair. State schools should not use legacy, but private schools should get to pick what they want. Just like you stated, they do that when they don't admit 90% of their class as engineering, unless it's solely an engineering school. They do that with athletics, and many other admits.
Most of these on DCUM complaining that it isn't fair don't really appreciate all of the advantages they already have over most of the kids in the USA/world.

I think legacy should be abolished and it’s not because of fairness. I don’t think fairness is a reasonable objection to legacy. It’s because legacy are the only group that get admissions advantages without accompanying accomplishments or benefits to the school. I honestly don’t understand how parents can even put their kids through admission as a legacy — it’s like flat-out telling them they are mediocre — but my real objection is that legacy admissions bring a lot of extremely entitled kids to campuses and I think it harms the environment of schools.

Well the school does get a benefit. legacies, especially if it's multiple generations are much more likely to donate after graduation. Really legacy is all about financial issues for the university. Similarly, a Rich legacy whose family actually donates is more likely to get admitted than someone whose parents have not. I agree it's not the best for the school environment, but dont kid yourself, the places that admit by legacy are expensive schools and typically 50%+ are full pay students anyhow, with many being rich kids so that would be there no matter what.

There are no kids getting into anywhere because of legacy that are mediocre. Just not a thing. They are in the group at each school that have the potential to be admitted. No people who make multi million donations may get mediocre kids in. But legacy is just not that.

I agree. Most who get in via legacy have the stats to be admitted or extremely close (and really someone who has a 1500 SAT and 4.2 W GPA are not that much different than a 1580 and 4.4). And that's to be expected because someone growing up in a wealthy family would have had the best educational opportunities available to them all the way thru life and expected to excel.

I've heard it said that people who come from privileged backgrounds have a leg up already in life compared to mere mortals. Hence, part of the reason for holistic admissions.

If you compare two students with the same stats: one from a MC family whose parents went to a B rated state univ and the other whose a child of an ivy league graduate, the MC student probably had to work harder for those stats than the legacy kid.

Isn't that what we are told about poor kids, first gen kids.. that they have to work harder? MC kids have to work harder than UMC.

So, yes, I would expect UMC kids whose parents are ivy league educated to have super high stats, but that kid most likely didn't have to work as hard, or at least had more opportunities than a MC, or LMC kid did with the same stats.

In that way, the MC or even UMC kid whose parents just managed to work hard an save seems to always be screwed - no hooks.

No that UMC kid had to work just as hard.

The unhooked UMC kid is the most disadvantaged. No hooks.

Legacy families have a network that their kids can tap into. Unhooked UMC family doesn't have that network.

Yes. Great for them. Work your butt off and you can have this too.

+1. Don't dream that getting your kids into Harvard will open doors for you. I married into an old money WASP family and they all know each other from Dalton and Deerfield, they smell desperation from miles away, and despise social climbers. Attending an elite college will not create a network for you. The most successful networks are those created by Penn and UM at Ann Harbor.

100 percent true. My son is friends with a bunch of kids like this thru sleep away camp (an old camp in Maine). These are genuine friendships and the boys keep in touch all year long and visit each other over breaks, but the parents definitely have walls up when it comes to "outsiders."

see.... this smacks of privileged elitism that wants to keep the "others" out of the legacy institutions.

Eerily similar to how they kept Jews out with legacy admissions way back when.

OMG, you posted this a million times. You are not a discriminated Jew. You are a MC government contractor salivating to get his child into investment banking or consulting so someone can finally make 500K in our family and take you to Europe so you can post all over Facebook and make your siblings and HS acquaintances jealous.

This is the first time I read someone highlight how legacy preferences were born of a desire to keep Jews out of elite schools on this thread, so it probably isn’t the millionth time. Particularly because there aren’t a million posts here. The posts I find really tedious are the dim bulb posts like yours that try to assume they know the characteristics of those against legacy preferences. Because if you were actually familiar with elite schools and their students you would know that many students and Alums of elite schools are against legacy preferences because of their clear link to anti-Semitism and racism. The alums who are up in arms about getting rid of legacy preferences are the ones with mediocre offspring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a first gen, non-legacy at a selective private university. Very poor.

Now his son will be non-preferred over a non-legacy according to the school’s prez.

We are not a wealthy, privileged family, but he is a legacy. Not all legacies are rich and entitled.

The school wants no legacies. Seriously f’d up.

Why is this f-ed up? This is fair. Just like your huband got in on his own, your child should be able to do so too!

BUT HE won't because they won't take legacies. It's a downgrade to be one at Hopkins.

He has 35 ACT and a 4.5/4.0 un-weighted (most rigorous schedule), 3 sport athlete. We have already been told they want first generation, non-legacies. The President openly condemned legacies.

To further explain:

My husband is 51. He got in to Hopkins in 1990 when they PREFERRED legacy admits. He was not one. He got in on merit (non-minority or recruited athlete either).

My son is now of similar grades/scores, but because is dad (poor, not entitled) went there, he is now less likely to get in since the President has been broadcasting he wants no legacy and dropped such admits to -3%. He is further handicapped because of his race/ethnicity.

Show me where the president said that. Not considering legacy is not the same as being anti-legacy.

Both of my brothers went to Hopkins; one of them the same year as your husband. They pass on to me every issue of the alumni magazine and that other magazine that gets sent out, because they know my child is considering JHU and they feel the information is useful. We read those magazines from cover to cover and I have never seen anything saying the president is trying to keep out legacy students. Do you have a link?

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You think he will say that in an ALUMNI magazine?!?!! There go the alum donations!! Their kids are screwed, why should they donate? My husband had donated every year, even when he could barely afford rent and had no car got get to work, resoled his shoes. After all that has been in the press about the move to bring down legacy numbers (legacies with creds to get in on their own, mind you, there is no incentive for an alum with kids to give. They would be better off donating to a school that doesn't outright say: we don't want your kids.

From the Prez:

The year I arrived, Hopkins had more legacy students in its freshman class (12.5 percent) than students who were eligible for Pell Grants (9 percent). Now those numbers are reversed—3.5 percent of students in this year’s freshman class have a legacy connection to the university, and 19.1 percent are Pell-eligible—and we expect that the number of Pell-eligible students will continue to rise in the coming years.

Ending legacy preferences is but one piece of our university’s work to make a Johns Hopkins education accessible to all talented students, to mitigate the burdens of debt, and to ensure that students receive the supports and services that will help them thrive.

The past two years it is a war on which University can have the least amount of white students, non-first generation students, and no legacies. They broadcast across every headline that minorities made up 68% of their incoming students and the majority first generation...and it's trickling in at our local state universities now too. Getting rid of standardized testing has allowed them to bypass quality and merit and justify admitting students of much lower credentials.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

You sound a little nutty. There’s a big difference between a school deciding if wants to have more equitable admissions and being anti-alumni.

This poster sounds a lot nutty. I’m always amazed by the people who feel like their kids are entitled to admission to a particular school or tier of schools, and then get angry that “less deserving” kids are admitted instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

This is our approach. I don't control the system. I don't like it. But I'm not changing it. So we are going to try to use sports as a hook in. So far, so good. We'll see how DC lands in the end (high stats -so far- and high level of play in the sport).

I think parents should play with whatever cards they were dealt with because the college admission process is a brutal game. My neighbor played the sports card and their child is at Harvard. Great kid, but his mother was very strategic about the college admission process from the time this kid was in middle school. Sports can take you places. As a matter of fact every child that I know who has received a full ride at top universities all played sports. Good luck to your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people lament legacy advantages, but simultaneously want them for their own kids. Including the politicians.

Fully support it. Private colleges should be able to pick who they want for whatever reasons they want.

+1. Some schools want to be family traditions. Personally, I was crafting a class I would much rather have a kid who wants to be at my school than another kid who applied based on ranking and doesn't really care if they're at much school or another similar school.

Every private school/high school/k-8 in the DMV has sibling and legacy preferences. It's nice when you are at a school and everyone is so gung-ho about it and there is tradition.

If a school or university is private, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

+1 People who don't like it should work on state schools being just as good or better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

This is our approach. I don't control the system. I don't like it. But I'm not changing it. So we are going to try to use sports as a hook in. So far, so good. We'll see how DC lands in the end (high stats -so far- and high level of play in the sport).

I think parents should play with whatever cards they were dealt with because the college admission process is a brutal game. My neighbor played the sports card and their child is at Harvard. Great kid, but his mother was very strategic about the college admission process from the time this kid was in middle school. Sports can take you places. As a matter of fact every child that I know who has received a full ride at top universities all played sports. Good luck to your child.

Doesn't work out that way for most sports kids. Just look at the number of people dumping $15-20K/year into travel sports. Then consider how many full scholarships there are in DI, DII and DIII schools in the USA. The odds are still against you (keep in mind that beyond DI, most kids are not there on FULL scholarships, some are but not most). In reality, if you saved and invested the $15-20K/year spent since age 7 in travel sports, you would have more than enough to pay for Harvard or any other $80K/year university.

I've watched several families dedicate their lives (and their wallets) to sports from a young age in hope that their kid would get a scholarship. Very few are even playing in college with a scholarship. Most that are on even partial scholarship are at a D3 school. Their kid could have easily gotten into those D3 safety schools (none are elite or even 2nd tier) on academics alone and parents could have easily paid for college with the money from sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

This is our approach. I don't control the system. I don't like it. But I'm not changing it. So we are going to try to use sports as a hook in. So far, so good. We'll see how DC lands in the end (high stats -so far- and high level of play in the sport).

I think parents should play with whatever cards they were dealt with because the college admission process is a brutal game. My neighbor played the sports card and their child is at Harvard. Great kid, but his mother was very strategic about the college admission process from the time this kid was in middle school. Sports can take you places. As a matter of fact every child that I know who has received a full ride at top universities all played sports. Good luck to your child.

Doesn't work out that way for most sports kids. Just look at the number of people dumping $15-20K/year into travel sports. Then consider how many full scholarships there are in DI, DII and DIII schools in the USA. The odds are still against you (keep in mind that beyond DI, most kids are not there on FULL scholarships, some are but not most). In reality, if you saved and invested the $15-20K/year spent since age 7 in travel sports, you would have more than enough to pay for Harvard or any other $80K/year university.

I've watched several families dedicate their lives (and their wallets) to sports from a young age in hope that their kid would get a scholarship. Very few are even playing in college with a scholarship. Most that are on even partial scholarship are at a D3 school. Their kid could have easily gotten into those D3 safety schools (none are elite or even 2nd tier) on academics alone and parents could have easily paid for college with the money from sports.

Years ago I was on the rental car bus returning to the airport after a soccer tournament for DD. DD enjoyed playing soccer, the fees were no hardship, and, barring unforeseen developments, knew she would be a full pay college student. She must've been about 8th or 9th grade as many coaches were scheduled to attend this tournament. Ended up talking to the dad sitting across the aisle. He started pressing on where DD wanted to play, had she been in contact with coaches, etc. When I said it seemed a little early for that and DD wasn't even sure she wanted to go that route, he was just aghast and ended up asking, "why are you even here?"

I came to understand that some parents wanted their kids to play wherever they could get in, especially if the school gave them money. Then another segment of parents wanted their kids recruited, but only to good schools. And some parents could afford to not worry where it was all going. I feel fortunate that we were able to be in that group yet also know that some parents spent a lot of money on travel and may have ended up with more cash for college if they had avoided travel altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy is a problem, but kids getting into schools because of sports is an even bigger problem. Those two student populations take a significant number of spots at top schools. A kid could be busting their ass, and an athlete who has a weaker transcript & test scores will get it.

If it's that easy, teach your kid how to play lacrosse.

My kid used athletic talent to access high academic college. I can't control that that is the system, so we played that game, but it's a silly criteria to use to help gain admittance to a place for academic pursuits.

This is our approach. I don't control the system. I don't like it. But I'm not changing it. So we are going to try to use sports as a hook in. So far, so good. We'll see how DC lands in the end (high stats -so far- and high level of play in the sport).

I think parents should play with whatever cards they were dealt with because the college admission process is a brutal game. My neighbor played the sports card and their child is at Harvard. Great kid, but his mother was very strategic about the college admission process from the time this kid was in middle school. Sports can take you places. As a matter of fact every child that I know who has received a full ride at top universities all played sports. Good luck to your child.

Doesn't work out that way for most sports kids. Just look at the number of people dumping $15-20K/year into travel sports. Then consider how many full scholarships there are in DI, DII and DIII schools in the USA. The odds are still against you (keep in mind that beyond DI, most kids are not there on FULL scholarships, some are but not most). In reality, if you saved and invested the $15-20K/year spent since age 7 in travel sports, you would have more than enough to pay for Harvard or any other $80K/year university.

I've watched several families dedicate their lives (and their wallets) to sports from a young age in hope that their kid would get a scholarship. Very few are even playing in college with a scholarship. Most that are on even partial scholarship are at a D3 school. Their kid could have easily gotten into those D3 safety schools (none are elite or even 2nd tier) on academics alone and parents could have easily paid for college with the money from sports.

I’ve never met anyone spending more than $5k per year for travel sports, and for most of us it’s around $3K. What sport are people paying $15-20K/year for?

[Anonymous]

It’s not scholarships that people are after with sports. It’s admissions. There is a big difference.