When DC doesn't get into your alma mater

[Anonymous]

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.

Wow- Princeton alum here and that’s pretty surprising. I have no illusions that my kids (who are good but not stellar students) have any chance whatsoever of getting in, but in his case I’d be incredibly pissed off too.

[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.

Everyone is entitled to a proper defense. Keeps the government honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I actually do defend the type of people you are referring to. I was calling out pp for their ridiculous trolling and nasty name calling.

[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.

Ipse dixit.

[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.

Wow- Princeton alum here and that’s pretty surprising. I have no illusions that my kids (who are good but not stellar students) have any chance whatsoever of getting in, but in his case I’d be incredibly pissed off too.

NP. What's pitiful about that Princeton dad story is that he felt he was owed admission for his kids. Not that they were owed it. That HE was owed it. That PP didn't say if the dad had contributed loads of money to Princeton with the expectation of getting a kid into the college, but even if the dad did so -- surely, as a Princeton double grad, he should have been intelligent enough to know that donations were not a magical guarantee of admission?

The dad also was so fixated on his own alma mater owing him an admission that he chose to waste his energy on being "really bitter ever since." His kids are all phenomenal successes by the world's standards. He could be celebrating them, and I figure he probably does, but instead of shrugging and saying, "Princeton's loss!" years ago, and forgetting the whole issue, he chooses to be bitter and apparently still talks to friends about how bitter he is, since that PP knows all the details. We've only got so much mental real estate in our heads; if the dad lets bitterness over something that had zero impact on his kids' incredible success take up much of his own mental real estate, that's just sad for him, and for his children too.

[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.

Wow- Princeton alum here and that’s pretty surprising. I have no illusions that my kids (who are good but not stellar students) have any chance whatsoever of getting in, but in his case I’d be incredibly pissed off too.

NP. What's pitiful about that Princeton dad story is that he felt he was owed admission for his kids. Not that they were owed it. That HE was owed it. That PP didn't say if the dad had contributed loads of money to Princeton with the expectation of getting a kid into the college, but even if the dad did so -- surely, as a Princeton double grad, he should have been intelligent enough to know that donations were not a magical guarantee of admission?

The dad also was so fixated on his own alma mater owing him an admission that he chose to waste his energy on being "really bitter ever since." His kids are all phenomenal successes by the world's standards. He could be celebrating them, and I figure he probably does, but instead of shrugging and saying, "Princeton's loss!" years ago, and forgetting the whole issue, he chooses to be bitter and apparently still talks to friends about how bitter he is, since that PP knows all the details. We've only got so much mental real estate in our heads; if the dad lets bitterness over something that had zero impact on his kids' incredible success take up much of his own mental real estate, that's just sad for him, and for his children too.

I don’t think you appreciate how big a part of a family’s life and traditions it can be to share an alma mater. For example, at Princeton, reunions are huge and many alumni go back every year, not just every five years. So it can be a big deal and really fun to share that tradition with your kids. I didn’t see pp say anywhere that the dad thought he was owed something. Just that he was bitter that Princeton did not admit any of his kids who were clearly qualified to attend. And I’m guessing that he was probably bitter about missing out on the chance to have that shared Princeton experience with at least one of his kids, which IMO is totally understandable.

[Anonymous]

I was just coming to post this. The Alumni experience for Princeton is unique. I have family that went there and have been to a few P-rades, but I had no illusion that any of our kids had a chance, even though they had great records and scores. Just wasn't worth the brain damage to apply knowing that my kids demographics were not what they are looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was pissed when my kids didn't get into Sidwell, and stopped giving them money. For college I didn't take it personally and both kids ended up at great schools.

Did you mellow out on it? Or do you still feel the same about Sidwell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nothing predictable here. Three kids in DC's class applied to Princeton. All three were very good students, two were top top, and one of them was legacy and URM. The two top top were deferred and the very good one - white male - got in. Legacy kid was devastated but put on a brave face. DC's heart just broke for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow- Princeton alum here and that’s pretty surprising. I have no illusions that my kids (who are good but not stellar students) have any chance whatsoever of getting in, but in his case I’d be incredibly pissed off too.

NP. What's pitiful about that Princeton dad story is that he felt he was owed admission for his kids. Not that they were owed it. That HE was owed it. That PP didn't say if the dad had contributed loads of money to Princeton with the expectation of getting a kid into the college, but even if the dad did so -- surely, as a Princeton double grad, he should have been intelligent enough to know that donations were not a magical guarantee of admission?

The dad also was so fixated on his own alma mater owing him an admission that he chose to waste his energy on being "really bitter ever since." His kids are all phenomenal successes by the world's standards. He could be celebrating them, and I figure he probably does, but instead of shrugging and saying, "Princeton's loss!" years ago, and forgetting the whole issue, he chooses to be bitter and apparently still talks to friends about how bitter he is, since that PP knows all the details. We've only got so much mental real estate in our heads; if the dad lets bitterness over something that had zero impact on his kids' incredible success take up much of his own mental real estate, that's just sad for him, and for his children too.

I don’t think you appreciate how big a part of a family’s life and traditions it can be to share an alma mater. For example, at Princeton, reunions are huge and many alumni go back every year, not just every five years. So it can be a big deal and really fun to share that tradition with your kids. I didn’t see pp say anywhere that the dad thought he was owed something. Just that he was bitter that Princeton did not admit any of his kids who were clearly qualified to attend. And I’m guessing that he was probably bitter about missing out on the chance to have that shared Princeton experience with at least one of his kids, which IMO is totally understandable.

OP Princeton poster here: this is exactly the alum dad's disappointment. He's incredibly involved with his alumni group, the family had attended P-rade every year since his adult kids were born. The dad now takes his grandkids. The dad has donated a lot more time than money to Princeton.

It was more about wanting to continue the family tradition's w/r/t Princeton for another generation. Those traditions are basically ending with our family friend, given that none of his well-qualified and successful adult children are Princeton alums because none were admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was pissed when my kids didn't get into Sidwell, and stopped giving them money. For college I didn't take it personally and both kids ended up at great schools.

Did you mellow out on it? Or do you still feel the same about Sidwell?

Still pissed, but separately came to the conclusion that donations to private schools are really the responsibility of those who are benefitting from it. Sidwell has plenty of very wealthy parents who should be (and are) making the contributions that benefit their kids. We chose to support the schools our kids attended instead.

[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?

Sorry, no. The applicant didn’t earn the thumb on the scale. More likely, other non-legacy applicant had to overcome more to get where they are rather than having the road plowed so clean by their family connections. Tie should go to the kid who worked harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Sorry, no. The applicant didn’t earn the thumb on the scale. More likely, other non-legacy applicant had to overcome more to get where they are rather than having the road plowed so clean by their family connections. Tie should go to the kid who worked harder.

Why are you spending so much energy arguing something for which you almost certainly don't have all the facts?

[Anonymous]

I expect this. Kids with similar stats to me and my husband don’t get in to the schools we went to now.

I did entry level interviews for my company on campus a few years ago and I was blown away by the polish and accomplishment of some of these kids.

[Anonymous]

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.

Don't feel so bad. They have at least one dumb parent, too.