When DC doesn't get into your alma mater

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree all the way. (And my DC did get in my alma mater but has chosen not to go there, which is fine.)

[Anonymous]

Someone said it best - When there is a disconnect between development and admissions... there will be a similar disconnect from my wallet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many generations of legacy are we talking about? If great grand pa went to the school as well as granddad, uncle bob, dad, aunt sue.... then at a certain point, yes

[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.

Princeton was the first Ivy to completely eliminate loans for those with financial need, thanks to its massive level of alumni giving. If they do move away from incentivizing alumni engagement they’re going to have a much harder time continuing to provide this level of aid.

[Anonymous]

I’m fine with it. My school went from like 100th to 40th over the past 30 years and there would be a snowballs chance in hell I’d get in now. I also don’t value name brand prestige any longer. Go to an appropriate undergrad that doesn’t break the bank, be at the top of the class and go to any grad school you want… grad school is what matters now anyway. If my kids can get a 4.0 at Umbc or JMU or u of wv (they’ll still need to work hard for that but it’s possible) they’re better positioned to get into business/med/law school than with a 3.2 from bu and a ton of debt.

[Anonymous]

Oldest didn't apply. Poor fit and almost zero chance of getting in. Youngest might, if recruited as an athlete.

[Anonymous]

I only give to pay for scholarships for high need students for this reason. It’s a reason I can get behind and I won’t feel bitter about it even if they deny my kid.

[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.

I thought it was funny!

+1

[Anonymous]

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.

Lol. The difference is that the latter donation won’t get the deal done. Live in the land of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is your reaction? I'm annoyed more than I thought I would be. Not that I've ever been a huge donor, but believe me, they'll never see another dime from me.

Any other more rational thoughts?

This happened to me but with my high school, one of the ones that’s worshipped on this site. I was really angry for about a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your reaction? I'm annoyed more than I thought I would be. Not that I've ever been a huge donor, but believe me, they'll never see another dime from me.

Any other more rational thoughts?

This happened to me but with my high school, one of the ones that’s worshipped on this site. I was really angry for about a year.

PP again, hit submit too soon. She didn’t apply to my college, she didn’t want to be in the middle of nowhere and had no chance of getting in (neither would I in today’s environment.) But she did just get into my DH’s alma mater and we are all pretty excited about it. Might go, might not, waiting on results from two others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is a lot of detailed info to share about your kid

No chance that's a real kid.

It really is real. She’s a prolific poster. I recognize the kid.

[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?

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.

NP here. PP is mentally ill, probably born with FAS. There is no way someone mentally heathy can be so incoherent.

[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.

You are not understanding. The schools take legacy kids FROM OTHER IVIES, just so they don’t have to admit their own legacy kids. These kids have the same advantages as the legacy who was rejected and are full-pay. But now the school can claim they are pursuing equity and not taking legacies. It is spiteful and counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

I went to an admissions session given by my alma mater for alumni who have children applying to the school. What really struck me is that they emphasized that kids with lots of advantages have to stand out more to get in. Which I get. But, it does sort of rankle that the school touts the success of its alumni but then the legacy kids are then deemed to have too many advantages because of their parents’ success.