Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

That’s not going to stop DCUM from crying that athletic recruiting is wrong, unfair, and racist. 🙄

(Haters, sorry your young nerd sucked at sports.)

The right question to ask is not whether athletes met the academic requirements but whether they displaced the nerds who exceeded the academic requirements. They took the place of others who are more deserving academically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A pre-read in and of itself is a huge advantage. Every other applicant has no clue how they come across to admissions until it’s too late to make changes to their application strategy - especially what is more and more a crucial decision, where to ED.

The biggest takeaway from this thread, for me, is the parents of athletes whose kids clearly got an admission preference of some sort but are in denial about it. It seems that the academic apple does not fall far from the tree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t colleges fighting back against the recent SCOTUS decision saying they are entitled to put together any kind of diverse class they want? They don’t just want high stats, they want a kid who is going to contribute in some way to a diverse community? Well, athletics is one way, music/theater another etc.

The vast majority of athletes at the most selective schools — especially Division 3 — are rich (as in, no financial aid needed) white kids. Music and theater is treated like any other extracurricular for admissions. Athletics is not. In NESCAC, most schools have 1/3 of their admission spots set aside for athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

ie, as a wealthy person, I should be able to bribe my kid's way into the school.

[Have you noticed that schools are not charitable enterprises, but businesses? As such, it should not surprise you that you should be able to buy your kid a spot.]

Legacy is just affirmative action for the rich, and you are using poor kids as an excuse to hoard opportunity.

[Legacy is very different from rich. Most legacy students are nowhere near rich enough for schools to give them an admissions edge. And the donors who are rich are not "hoarding" opportunity, they are creating opportunity. Each rich kid who is admitted enables much more than one poor kid to attend the school.]

It doesn't have to cost so much to run a school. Have you looked at the rise in college costs in relation to wages? It's ridiculous. Some of these schools have very large endowments, and they spend the money on non academic related expenses. Maybe if they lowered the tuition then more MC kids could afford to go there without needing aid (which you seem to think you're paying for) or loans.

[If you are waiting for a world where schools become affordable because they dramatically cut their costs... don't hold your breath.]

Anonymous wrote:good for Wesleyan!

I know some SLACs are looking to see what other ones will do first to follow them but this is leadership.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

You sound slightly unhinged. Who suggested legacy preference is unconstitutional? And, by the way, your alumni contributions are not large enough to matter at all. - Signed an Ivy alum who donates AND supports eradication of legacy preference

Remember, your kids don't have to add where you went to school! You can control that if you want to ensure nothing you think is unfair could happen.

That’s a pretty small-minded approach. My DC is not applying but would you have said that to others who might have met another category of preference? Yuck. And that does absolutely nothing to address the issue. We need systemic change. And we need to stop giving extra voice and power to a certain ilk of alumni.

Anonymous wrote:Awesome! Get rid of all backdoors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

You sound slightly unhinged. Who suggested legacy preference is unconstitutional? And, by the way, your alumni contributions are not large enough to matter at all. - Signed an Ivy alum who donates AND supports eradication of legacy preference

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

You sound slightly unhinged. Who suggested legacy preference is unconstitutional? And, by the way, your alumni contributions are not large enough to matter at all. - Signed an Ivy alum who donates AND supports eradication of legacy preference

Remember, your kids don't have to add where you went to school! You can control that if you want to ensure nothing you think is unfair could happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

You sound slightly unhinged. Who suggested legacy preference is unconstitutional? And, by the way, your alumni contributions are not large enough to matter at all. - Signed an Ivy alum who donates AND supports eradication of legacy preference

Anonymous wrote:Legacy preference is NOT Unconstitutional!! What part of this is not clear to posters here. There is no mention of Legacy in Title VI or VII.
We didn't fight a civil war for legacy!!!
This "If, I can't have my special unconstitutional preference, then you can't have any yourself, even if it is constitutional" is just rage induced vindictiveness and will be thrown out of court.

So leechers want other folks to donate to the schools to build the endowment and will gladly use that endowment to get financial aid from the schools for their kids, but don't want the donors to GET ANY BENEFIT for their donations for their kids, even though many legacies have excellent grades and scores?

Do they think that tuition alone is enough to run these schools?

I have donated regularly to my alma mater and my kids are in the sweet spot for admissions in the unhooked category there based on their academics.

I fully expect the school to give my kids a tip. If they instead publicly announce that they will no longer support legacy admissions, I will be damned if I contribute a single additional dollar to them. They can look elsewhere to build up their endowment and support their expensive administrative bloat.

And if that pisses you off, you're welcome. C'est la vie

Anonymous wrote:"The right question to ask is not whether athletes met the academic requirements but whether they displaced the nerds who exceeded the academic requirements. They took the place of others who are more deserving academically. So, yes athletic recruiting is biased. Is it wrong? That depends on what the sport bring to the school. I agree that "minor" sports that no students go watch in big numbers, or help with school spirit should be dropped from recruiting. It costs the school, and hence our tuition dollars, a lot of money to run these "minor" sports."

+1