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

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy. [/quote]

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).[/quote]

Nope. Harvard could never solicit another donation and continue spending and growing at the same rate, adjusted for inflation. Donations are not adding more seats, either.[/quote]

Stanford added 150 seats, permanently, to last year’s freshman class, with plans for more going forward. It’s one of President Levin’s priorities, and enabled in part by - wait for it - private philanthropy.[/quote]

This is not a trend. Elite colleges have barely increased supply since 1970 despite explosive (tax-free until very recently) endowment growth. [/quote]

I don’t disagree with you about that, and I hope more elite colleges will do what Stanford is doing. I will say that elite colleges are more accessible than before to students who could not otherwise afford them, and elite college life seems more amazing than ever. Private philanthropy helps support much-needed financial aid and a universally enhanced student experience.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics