Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those athletes bring in more money for the school than your "brilliant" Larlo with a 4.0 GPA and 1500+SAT. Look at all the schools that most kids are flocking to these days.

Women’s softball ? Fencing? Cross country? And at Ivies. We are talking Ohio State football or Duke basketball. Sports at T10s/Ivies aren’t bringing in $. Big donors are though.

Yes, even those sports. They may not bring in tons of money but they bring in other students.
What about the kids who do have the ivy calibre stats but want to play their sport? You don't offer them, they go elsewhere. These colleges are competing with one another. Why do you think so many D3 schools give scholarships to athletes? Because they attract students who want to play their sport even if they're not the best of the best. Having those students attract other students to the school.

Women’s softball, fencing are attracting other students?

water polo? skiing? sailing?

Where do you think our Olympic athletes come from?

[Anonymous]

As shown by all of the responses, people get upset at any perceived admissions advantage. Perception seems based on each person’s priorities. The sports haters hate athletes, the people without connections hate everyone with connections and so on.

The reality is admissions, like many things in life, aren’t fair. Some people will always have advantages and some people can work hard and not get the same opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those athletes bring in more money for the school than your "brilliant" Larlo with a 4.0 GPA and 1500+SAT. Look at all the schools that most kids are flocking to these days.

Women’s softball ? Fencing? Cross country? And at Ivies. We are talking Ohio State football or Duke basketball. Sports at T10s/Ivies aren’t bringing in $. Big donors are though.

Yes, even those sports. They may not bring in tons of money but they bring in other students.
What about the kids who do have the ivy calibre stats but want to play their sport? You don't offer them, they go elsewhere. These colleges are competing with one another. Why do you think so many D3 schools give scholarships to athletes? Because they attract students who want to play their sport even if they're not the best of the best. Having those students attract other students to the school.

The only students they attract are the recruits themselves. You're nuts if you think any kid is attracted to an ivy or a SLAC because the school is good at softball or fencing or cross country (or dozens of other sports, including football and basketball). I am fine with schools prioritizing whatever they want; it's their right. But the statement that it attracts non-athletes makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

Nope. Majority of athletes at top
Schools are told do not major in science, math, engineering, econ. The courses are graded on a curve such that the median is assigned a B or B+ for intro courses. Some athletes can hack it trying to be average compared to the non athletes who got in on merit. Most cannot. They are rightly pushed to grab an easier major!

Your assumptions might hold for power 4 schools and non selective mid majors but not at all for Ivies, Pat League, NESCAC, UAA, etc. You’re rationalizing without any actual knowledge.

We get the sports commit announcements on signing day and they post on Instagram. We can select for individual years. Stanford, SLACs, Georgetown, Duke, etc., the athletes are generally a tier below the regular admits. Some(depending on sport) much lower- test scores and/or gpa.

They aren't for the SLACs, Ivy, and Patriot League schools. There are specific rules to prevent wide drift. The rules are looser in the D1 schools and tighter in the D3 schools. NESCAC rules ensure that the majority of athletes are above the school median so they actually raise the bar.

The P4 schools whioch you mention above are a completely different situation. They aren't students, they are employees.

This is largely true - although keep in mind that Ivys are DI. But, there is a reason the Ivys aren't sports powerhouses for the most part. The athletes have to not upset the averages. They don't have to necessarily bring them up, but they can't bring them down. In the cases of selective schools, the complaints about athletes lose credibility somewhat. Haters get annoyed because of non-athletes with great ECs, but the fact is that athletes have great ECs too. Those ECs just happen to be athletics. There are a number of athletes who are also very good students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

[Anonymous]

Life isn’t fair. The money from big donors can fund scholarships and make the opportunity accessible to more students. Once those students arrive on campus, that money can help fund opportunities such as unpaid internships, study abroad programs, travel expenses to go home, etc.- things for which full pay families pay extra. I prefer to see preferences for big donor kids as “lifting all boats”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

[Anonymous]

I wonder that it isn't like what some people say about Affirmative Action - that it puts people's qualifications in question. Like if I was hiring a kid I knew was grandson of the guy with the name on the building, would I expect he would actually know how to work, or would I think the opposite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

Or you could say they have different athletic standards for some kids. If you can't throw a ball, kick, run, or shoot baskets you better have high test scores. They are allowed to have different priorities for a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

Actually you are missing the point. They are qualified for admissions and that is all that matters. There are thousands of qualified applicants turned away every year in favor of other qualified applicants who have lesser stats but stand out in some other way. That is how holistic admissions works. Have the decency to treat all of those admits including those who are athletes with the respect that they deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those athletes bring in more money for the school than your "brilliant" Larlo with a 4.0 GPA and 1500+SAT. Look at all the schools that most kids are flocking to these days.

Women’s softball ? Fencing? Cross country? And at Ivies. We are talking Ohio State football or Duke basketball. Sports at T10s/Ivies aren’t bringing in $. Big donors are though.

Yes, even those sports. They may not bring in tons of money but they bring in other students.
What about the kids who do have the ivy calibre stats but want to play their sport? You don't offer them, they go elsewhere. These colleges are competing with one another. Why do you think so many D3 schools give scholarships to athletes? Because they attract students who want to play their sport even if they're not the best of the best. Having those students attract other students to the school.

D3 is not allowed to give athletic scholarships

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fencing brings in non-fencing students who want to be fans?

What do you not get? Fencing like other niche sports bring in other students with high academic profiles who also do fencing.

I don't know anyone that chose columbia over harvard my year because of columbia's significantly superior fencing program.