When DC doesn't get into your alma mater

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perfectly OK that my DS didn't get into the Ivy where I, my spouse, my spouse's brother, both my sisters, both my sisters' husbands, my dad, my aunt, and probably other connections on both sides I'm forgetting went. First, as PP said, the standards are different now and it's much harder. Second, I really believe firmly that all legacy preferences should be eliminated. 15:02's kid isn't any better qualified for Columbia by virtue of being born into the right family and having chosen the right ancestors any more than my kids are better qualified for my school. Legacy preference is just another way of perpetuating kleptocracy rather than meritocracy.

On the other hand, what I'd really like to see are eliminating athletic recruitments for colleges. That pisses me off to no end.

with neither football scholarships nor legacy admissions, colleges would go broke. You can’t fund a decent college merely through tuition.

False.

Most schools lose money on Sports - https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-college-sports-make-money/

"Among those reporting a net positive, the median profit per school was $7.9 million. And among the 40 autonomy schools reporting a negative net revenue, the median loss was $15.9 million. In other words, the majority of universities in the nation's top athletic conferences — the schools you see on TV every weekend competing for national championships — lost money through their sports programs to the tune of approximately $16 million each."

Legacy donations generally go to specific purposes are not general funds that can be used to pay for salaries or other normal expenses.

[Anonymous]

Couldn't care less. They accept students into their college for a living. They must have sensed something that made it clear to them my kids weren't a good fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. How is some celeb giving $20,000 to a rowing coach different from an alumnus giving a $20,000 donation aside from the fact one is out in the open? Both are giving money for a preferential admission for their kid which will deny another child that spot. They are both bribery.

One is approved by the powers that be and the other not.

[Anonymous]

My kid got into my alma mater (a Catholic liberal arts school) but most likely because he is a boy and Hispanic (his dad is Hispanic and I am not). Of course it is so outrageously expensive that I doubt I can afford to send him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. How is some celeb giving $20,000 to a rowing coach different from an alumnus giving a $20,000 donation aside from the fact one is out in the open? Both are giving money for a preferential admission for their kid which will deny another child that spot. They are both bribery.

It's totally different. The first is an outright quid pro quo. The second is giving to support an institution that you have a longstanding relationship with and feel strongly about as an alum.

NP...You don't understand quid pro quo, PP is correct.

Right...I'm a criminal defense lawyer who does not understand quid pro quo.

If an alum is not giving for the specific purpose of their kid being admitted, it's not a quid pro quo. (FWIW, as a rule colleges generally will not solicit non-routine gifts from alumni during the year that their kid might be applying.) The fact that an alum might stop giving if their kid is denied also does not mean that their prior giving was part of a quid pro quo. It just means that they now feel differently about the institution after their kid was rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perfectly OK that my DS didn't get into the Ivy where I, my spouse, my spouse's brother, both my sisters, both my sisters' husbands, my dad, my aunt, and probably other connections on both sides I'm forgetting went. First, as PP said, the standards are different now and it's much harder. Second, I really believe firmly that all legacy preferences should be eliminated. 15:02's kid isn't any better qualified for Columbia by virtue of being born into the right family and having chosen the right ancestors any more than my kids are better qualified for my school. Legacy preference is just another way of perpetuating kleptocracy rather than meritocracy.

On the other hand, what I'd really like to see are eliminating athletic recruitments for colleges. That pisses me off to no end.

with neither football scholarships nor legacy admissions, colleges would go broke. You can’t fund a decent college merely through tuition.

False.

Most schools lose money on Sports - https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-college-sports-make-money/

"Among those reporting a net positive, the median profit per school was $7.9 million. And among the 40 autonomy schools reporting a negative net revenue, the median loss was $15.9 million. In other words, the majority of universities in the nation's top athletic conferences — the schools you see on TV every weekend competing for national championships — lost money through their sports programs to the tune of approximately $16 million each."

Legacy donations generally go to specific purposes are not general funds that can be used to pay for salaries or other normal expenses.

oh, geez. Look, genius, of course most colleges lose money on sports. I’m talking about the big football factories that make money on football.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perfectly OK that my DS didn't get into the Ivy where I, my spouse, my spouse's brother, both my sisters, both my sisters' husbands, my dad, my aunt, and probably other connections on both sides I'm forgetting went. First, as PP said, the standards are different now and it's much harder. Second, I really believe firmly that all legacy preferences should be eliminated. 15:02's kid isn't any better qualified for Columbia by virtue of being born into the right family and having chosen the right ancestors any more than my kids are better qualified for my school. Legacy preference is just another way of perpetuating kleptocracy rather than meritocracy.

On the other hand, what I'd really like to see are eliminating athletic recruitments for colleges. That pisses me off to no end.

with neither football scholarships nor legacy admissions, colleges would go broke. You can’t fund a decent college merely through tuition.

False.

Most schools lose money on Sports - https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-college-sports-make-money/

"Among those reporting a net positive, the median profit per school was $7.9 million. And among the 40 autonomy schools reporting a negative net revenue, the median loss was $15.9 million. In other words, the majority of universities in the nation's top athletic conferences — the schools you see on TV every weekend competing for national championships — lost money through their sports programs to the tune of approximately $16 million each."

Legacy donations generally go to specific purposes are not general funds that can be used to pay for salaries or other normal expenses.

The study that you linked to does not discuss or attempt to quantify the impact that college sports programs have on alumni giving to the university generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. How is some celeb giving $20,000 to a rowing coach different from an alumnus giving a $20,000 donation aside from the fact one is out in the open? Both are giving money for a preferential admission for their kid which will deny another child that spot. They are both bribery.

It's totally different. The first is an outright quid pro quo. The second is giving to support an institution that you have a longstanding relationship with and feel strongly about as an alum.

NP...You don't understand quid pro quo, PP is correct.

Right...I'm a criminal defense lawyer who does not understand quid pro quo.

If an alum is not giving for the specific purpose of their kid being admitted, it's not a quid pro quo. (FWIW, as a rule colleges generally will not solicit non-routine gifts from alumni during the year that their kid might be applying.) The fact that an alum might stop giving if their kid is denied also does not mean that their prior giving was part of a quid pro quo. It just means that they now feel differently about the institution after their kid was rejected.

You are a CD lawyer, gross and not worth listening too. Something for something is something for something. Throw your greasy lawyer speak in all you want; us lesser folk see it as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. How is some celeb giving $20,000 to a rowing coach different from an alumnus giving a $20,000 donation aside from the fact one is out in the open? Both are giving money for a preferential admission for their kid which will deny another child that spot. They are both bribery.

It's totally different. The first is an outright quid pro quo. The second is giving to support an institution that you have a longstanding relationship with and feel strongly about as an alum.

NP...You don't understand quid pro quo, PP is correct.

Right...I'm a criminal defense lawyer who does not understand quid pro quo.

If an alum is not giving for the specific purpose of their kid being admitted, it's not a quid pro quo. (FWIW, as a rule colleges generally will not solicit non-routine gifts from alumni during the year that their kid might be applying.) The fact that an alum might stop giving if their kid is denied also does not mean that their prior giving was part of a quid pro quo. It just means that they now feel differently about the institution after their kid was rejected.

You are a CD lawyer, gross and not worth listening too. Something for something is something for something. Throw your greasy lawyer speak in all you want; us lesser folk see it as it is.

Glad to hear that you have a healthy view of the Sixth Amendment and due process.

Regardless, it's not something for something. What if an alum's kids decide not to apply and don't want to go to the legacy school? And the alum, who has been giving since before the kids were born, keeps giving after the kids go to other colleges and also leaves a bequest to the college in their will. Is that something for something? The alum was not giving for the purpose of getting the kids admitted to the school. If the same alum's kids do decide to apply, that doesn't mean that the alum's purpose in giving has all of a sudden changed into something that you think is inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family has attended Columbia for many generations. My great grandmother endowed a chair. But there’s presently a proposed law in Congress to outlaw legacy admissions for any college that gets federal aid, which is ALL colleges. DW says it’s nothing to worry about because bills get proposed all the time and nothing happens. I disagree because this bill puts the Democrats on the side of the Angels without costing the Treasury a dime. My 14 year old son wants to follow in his ancestors’ footsteps and go to Columbia. Now, in order to get into Columbia as a legacy, one MUST apply early decision. Columbia now rejects 98% of its normal applicants and rejects 67% of its legacy applicants. DS is the top student in the fourth form at the Eaglebrook School. He’s been the highest ranked Kindergarten through Eighth Grade chess player in Washington, D.C., for years, and was National Junior Grand Prix Chess Champion of 2016. But I’ve known legacies as good or better whom Columbia has rejected. Columbia’s no longer second tier, it’s ranked first tier tied with Harvard. So I donate to Columbia, hoping I’m not throwing good money after bad. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Lmao

[Anonymous]

I went to MIT, most likely not going to happen for my kids. I'd be happy if they went in state frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to MIT, most likely not going to happen for my kids. I'd be happy if they went in state frankly.

Because in-state is such a Shi%%Y prospect...FFS you people have a warped sense of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. How is some celeb giving $20,000 to a rowing coach different from an alumnus giving a $20,000 donation aside from the fact one is out in the open? Both are giving money for a preferential admission for their kid which will deny another child that spot. They are both bribery.

It's totally different. The first is an outright quid pro quo. The second is giving to support an institution that you have a longstanding relationship with and feel strongly about as an alum.

NP...You don't understand quid pro quo, PP is correct.

Right...I'm a criminal defense lawyer who does not understand quid pro quo.

If an alum is not giving for the specific purpose of their kid being admitted, it's not a quid pro quo. (FWIW, as a rule colleges generally will not solicit non-routine gifts from alumni during the year that their kid might be applying.) The fact that an alum might stop giving if their kid is denied also does not mean that their prior giving was part of a quid pro quo. It just means that they now feel differently about the institution after their kid was rejected.

You are a CD lawyer, gross and not worth listening too. Something for something is something for something. Throw your greasy lawyer speak in all you want; us lesser folk see it as it is.

Glad to hear that you have a healthy view of the Sixth Amendment and due process.

Regardless, it's not something for something. What if an alum's kids decide not to apply and don't want to go to the legacy school? And the alum, who has been giving since before the kids were born, keeps giving after the kids go to other colleges and also leaves a bequest to the college in their will. Is that something for something? The alum was not giving for the purpose of getting the kids admitted to the school. If the same alum's kids do decide to apply, that doesn't mean that the alum's purpose in giving has all of a sudden changed into something that you think is inappropriate.

NP-LOL, 6th Amendment? Doesn't mean CD lawyers aren't hollow money-grubbing losers. For every positive you need a negative, you are a bottom feeder, own it.

[Anonymous]

Mine didn't even apply. He'd have like to go to mine but 1) he was highly unlikely to get in since it's gotten so competitive and 2) it's an OOS public that's too expensive. So, he didn't apply.

DH did NOT want DS applying to his school. It was a fine option for where he was at the time -- not a great student, 1st gen, lived at home, and did the work to get an engineering degree. But not at all a fit for DS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it. How is some celeb giving $20,000 to a rowing coach different from an alumnus giving a $20,000 donation aside from the fact one is out in the open? Both are giving money for a preferential admission for their kid which will deny another child that spot. They are both bribery.

It's totally different. The first is an outright quid pro quo. The second is giving to support an institution that you have a longstanding relationship with and feel strongly about as an alum.

NP...You don't understand quid pro quo, PP is correct.

Right...I'm a criminal defense lawyer who does not understand quid pro quo.

If an alum is not giving for the specific purpose of their kid being admitted, it's not a quid pro quo. (FWIW, as a rule colleges generally will not solicit non-routine gifts from alumni during the year that their kid might be applying.) The fact that an alum might stop giving if their kid is denied also does not mean that their prior giving was part of a quid pro quo. It just means that they now feel differently about the institution after their kid was rejected.

You are a CD lawyer, gross and not worth listening too. Something for something is something for something. Throw your greasy lawyer speak in all you want; us lesser folk see it as it is.

Glad to hear that you have a healthy view of the Sixth Amendment and due process.

Regardless, it's not something for something. What if an alum's kids decide not to apply and don't want to go to the legacy school? And the alum, who has been giving since before the kids were born, keeps giving after the kids go to other colleges and also leaves a bequest to the college in their will. Is that something for something? The alum was not giving for the purpose of getting the kids admitted to the school. If the same alum's kids do decide to apply, that doesn't mean that the alum's purpose in giving has all of a sudden changed into something that you think is inappropriate.

NP-LOL, 6th Amendment? Doesn't mean CD lawyers aren't hollow money-grubbing losers. For every positive you need a negative, you are a bottom feeder, own it.

Whatever. Do I have to spell out the words “white collar” first in order to not be derided as a “money-grubbing loser” by a troll on an anonymous message board?