When DC doesn't get into your alma mater

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My family has attended Columbia for many generations. My great grandmother endowed a chair.

Imaginary great-grandma should have donated to Barnard, because women weren't admitted to Columbia until 1983!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Senior didn’t even apply to my school, there’s no way they would have gotten in. My own fault for having dumb kids I guess.

You sound like a peach.

Did you miss the sarcasm?

I did not, but you still sound very full of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You forgot "hollow" but point still stands, you are a bottom feeder, but a bottom feeder that needs thicker skin. No one is saying bottom feeders aren't needed, they are. As you say, it's a constitution thing, but you seem smart, two things can be true. Music can be great but too loud and someone can be a lawyer doing their duty defending criminals and still be a money-grubbing bottom feeder. Unless you are an altruistic public defender you are the bottom feeder which is cool, own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't the rejection that I had the strongest reaction to - it was that the AO for the school told DC's high school college counselor that because both parents were alum, and DC had the academic credentials that DC would get in. Then guidance counselor relayed this message to DC. Since the admit rate for the school is now around 5% I tried to prepare DC for rejection, but was told by DC that the counselor knew more than I did, and I was just being a downer. When the rejection arrived all I could do was tell DC I was sorry it didn't work out, and that he was fortunate to have other options.

In writing?

If not, you should have taken this nice talk with a grain of salt. 5% admin rate TODAY is so tough. I am sorry OP and hope that your DC has another strong contender.

S/he did.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny how some people are ignoring substance and now just taking shots at someone for being a lawyer. In DC of all places. LOL.

[Anonymous]

16:34 here. I made the comment about donating to an alma mater essentially being an overt form of bribery but unfortunately the ensuing slanging match didn’t really tackle the issue. Of course it’s not bribery from a legal POV. But the existence of this thread shows there absolutely is an expectation of favourable admissions for the children of alumni who donate. Let me ask this. If there was a rule that the children of alumni could not be given preferential treatment, would the level of donations drop? Of course it would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:34 here. I made the comment about donating to an alma mater essentially being an overt form of bribery but unfortunately the ensuing slanging match didn’t really tackle the issue. Of course it’s not bribery from a legal POV. But the existence of this thread shows there absolutely is an expectation of favourable admissions for the children of alumni who donate. Let me ask this. If there was a rule that the children of alumni could not be given preferential treatment, would the level of donations drop? Of course it would.

But what’s the problem with a college having an admissions process that leads to such an expectation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a family friend - he went to Princeton UG and he did his PhD there too.

None of his three brilliant children got in and he's been really bitter ever since. One child did Harvard UG and Oxford PhD. Another son became a tech gazillionaire. Youngest child is a senior exec at Gates Foundation.

I mean, clearly none of his sons were harmed by not going to Princeton. But at least one should've attained admission. But that's what happens when you're not a deep pocketed donor or a famous person.

They should have because they were legacy?

They were clearly qualified AND legacy, which should act as a tie-breaker. Why would a college not accept a high achieving legacy kid? Why would they not want to foster goodwill among their graduates? I am convinced that colleges esp now want to admit as few legacy kids as possible, so they can look like they are somehow pursuing “equity,” while still accepting the mega donor and celebrity kids. Instead the legacy kids just end up at another top school but the bonds with the alma mater are permanently severed. What’s the point of that?

[Anonymous]

UMD probably rejected my kid because I still have unpaid campus parking tickets. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:34 here. I made the comment about donating to an alma mater essentially being an overt form of bribery but unfortunately the ensuing slanging match didn’t really tackle the issue. Of course it’s not bribery from a legal POV. But the existence of this thread shows there absolutely is an expectation of favourable admissions for the children of alumni who donate. Let me ask this. If there was a rule that the children of alumni could not be given preferential treatment, would the level of donations drop? Of course it would.

But what’s the problem with a college having an admissions process that leads to such an expectation?

The problem is it’s bribery, without any guarantee of the pay off but enough of an expectation that people are willing to take the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a family friend - he went to Princeton UG and he did his PhD there too.

None of his three brilliant children got in and he's been really bitter ever since. One child did Harvard UG and Oxford PhD. Another son became a tech gazillionaire. Youngest child is a senior exec at Gates Foundation.

I mean, clearly none of his sons were harmed by not going to Princeton. But at least one should've attained admission. But that's what happens when you're not a deep pocketed donor or a famous person.

They should have because they were legacy?

They were clearly qualified AND legacy, which should act as a tie-breaker. Why would a college not accept a high achieving legacy kid? Why would they not want to foster goodwill among their graduates? I am convinced that colleges esp now want to admit as few legacy kids as possible, so they can look like they are somehow pursuing “equity,” while still accepting the mega donor and celebrity kids. Instead the legacy kids just end up at another top school but the bonds with the alma mater are permanently severed. What’s the point of that?

Last year, at our kids public MD school, a boy was a double legacy at Princeton, NMS, rigorous course load, had really impressive ECs, and got deferred, then denied. A couple of kids from the same year got in, no legacy connections. This year, the legacies got in, and kids with higher stats got deferred. Who knows?

[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.

what’s false? OBVIOUSLY the vast majority of schools lose money on sports. My college certainly did. I’m talking about the group of football powerhouses which televise their games and sell advertising. They have quasi professional football programs and make millions. Nothing false about it. https://www.si.com/college/indiana/football/big-ten-daily-big-ten-leads-all-conferences-in-2020-revenue-indiana

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16:34 here. I made the comment about donating to an alma mater essentially being an overt form of bribery but unfortunately the ensuing slanging match didn’t really tackle the issue. Of course it’s not bribery from a legal POV. But the existence of this thread shows there absolutely is an expectation of favourable admissions for the children of alumni who donate. Let me ask this. If there was a rule that the children of alumni could not be given preferential treatment, would the level of donations drop? Of course it would.

But what’s the problem with a college having an admissions process that leads to such an expectation?

The problem is it’s bribery, without any guarantee of the pay off but enough of an expectation that people are willing to take the chance.

So you’re saying it would be better if donating to one’s Alma Mater would guarantee the child’s acceptance? Not even I’m willing to go that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

NP, and I was with you until this. Yuck. Do you think you’re better than lawyers who defend poor people accused of crimes—the people most likely to get railroaded into accepting bad pleas because they can’t afford someone like you? Truly gross.

[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.

MIT doesn’t consider legacy status in admissions.