Anonymous wrote:The legacies I see get in are, aside from mega donors, either double legacies (both parents) or kids of super volunteers. I’m convinced the high level volunteering matters at my alma mater.

That's what I see at my alma mater too, and a friend says she sees the same thing at Penn.

The legacies I see get in are, aside from mega donors, either double legacies (both parents) or kids of super volunteers. I’m convinced the high level volunteering matters at my alma mater.

Anonymous wrote:I have always donated a small amount to my SLAC's annual fund, since I loved my experience there and wanted to support it, even if at a low level. I didn't have any illusions that my meager donations would help my kids get in. However, once my older child was applying to college and saw this same school as a strong option, I was glad for my own peace of mind that I had a consistent giving record.

Op here. I guess this gets to my feeling that at a 5 percent admissions rate, or something like that, my kids probably won't get in anyway, but if at least I start giving more consistently I won't feel extra guilty that I harmed them.

Some reports say schools look for a potential of a $500,000 donation or more to have a meaningful impact.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-help-college-applications

Small donations with neither hurt nor help your child with admissions. AO's may be aware of donors making large contributions to the institution - and its possible it will sway decisions - especially at private colleges/universities. But large state institutions are unlikely to be swayed.

At Emory University they apparently don’t!

Anonymous wrote:No. I work in higher ed philanthropy, and at least at big-dollar-fundraising institutions, it will absolutely not hurt you in admissions.

What does this mean? It's slightly helpful to give at small levels or completely meaningless?

No. I work in higher ed philanthropy, and at least at big-dollar-fundraising institutions, it will absolutely not hurt you in admissions.

I would definitely recommend being a consistent donor. Legacies get some preference but if you have been a complete Scrooge it’s a bad look. Almost worse than not being an alum. Plus maybe they figure you will become more generous. There is no risk to this and it’s tax deductible and generally speaking a worthy cause if you respect the school enough to send your kid there. If we are talking about a smaller LAC I would definitely recommend being as generous as you reasonably can be. You would be surprised how little most alumni give even at schools with loyal alumni.

I have always donated a small amount to my SLAC's annual fund, since I loved my experience there and wanted to support it, even if at a low level. I didn't have any illusions that my meager donations would help my kids get in. However, once my older child was applying to college and saw this same school as a strong option, I was glad for my own peace of mind that I had a consistent giving record.

Definitely not. We've tried and it's had no impact. In fact after that high profile CA admissions scandal a few years ago AOs have run in the other direction.

No
Absolutely no.

There is no college that this affects admissions.

Now if you buy a building maybe.

Not at all. Save your money for worthier causes.

Rarely. Most AOs don't care and wouldn't have access to that kind of information.

I'm not consistent about donating to my alma mater, but when I do it's just a comparatively small amount to help participation quotas (like $25/year right out of college working a public interest job and paying student loans to something like $100-250 now because I donate more to other causes that need more help than my top tier school with a massive endowment).

If any of my kids ever wanted to attend and were qualified to apply, I realize these relatively tiny amounts won't help them, but could it hurt them if somehow admissions saw they were legacies but their parent did NOT donate?