Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty here trying desperately to pull up the drawbridge & get the peasants away from the moat. But when they advise us to quit focusing on the top colleges & be satisfied with the fine opportunities at lesser schools, we might ask them if they would like to relinquish their advantages & join us at those lesser schools.

Damn you sound paranoid - and inaccurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, people are getting a little tired of those with the advantages patting them on the head & saying “don’t worry about it—the advantage is way overrated.”

Stop focusing on elite, highly rejective Universities and find the right fit outside T25 schools. There are literally plenty of excellent schools, many that give good merit to top students.
Someone will always "have it better than you" unless your last name is Bezos or Gates or Musk.
But the notion that attending Harvard is going to give you some magical advantage is ridiculous. Use your smarts (apparently you are so smart) and get a great education and do something with it. That is what literally 99% of kids do---majority of successful people in life did not attend a T25 school, yet somehow are very successful. If you focus on the end goal--getting an education and doing something with it, you will achieve great things. If you focus on complaining that you didn't get into a T25 and "it's not fair" you might not go as far in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, the very benefits that suddenly nobody ever heard of, nobody ever received, and even if they do exist are grossly overrated . . . are also the ones that professors here are clinging to like Charlton Heston hanging onto a deer rifle.

Yeah, not really. Pretty much the only thing I’ve seen vigorously defended here is the tuition reduction. Sorry that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Anonymous wrote:Right, the very benefits that suddenly nobody ever heard of, nobody ever received, and even if they do exist are grossly overrated . . . are also the ones that professors here are clinging to like Charlton Heston hanging onto a deer rifle.

Anonymous wrote:Faculty here trying desperately to pull up the drawbridge & get the peasants away from the moat. But when they advise us to quit focusing on the top colleges & be satisfied with the fine opportunities at lesser schools, we might ask them if they would like to relinquish their advantages & join us at those lesser schools.

Anonymous wrote:I was a faculty brat and didn’t get a bump. I was admitted summer-jan as anyone with my application would have been.

I think a lot of you have fantasies that everyone has it better than you and is getting something you think you’re entitled to.

You’re also focusing on schools that have single digit acceptance rates where thousands of kids with the same stats are denied all the time. No one is “taking your spot.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't have a problem with the Children of Faculty admissions and/or tuition perks particularly for private institutions. I think it much the same as any business that offers an employee preference and/or discount. I have worked for both kinds: ones that allowed employees first dibs on a new product or service (often at a discount) and ones that specifically prohibited it. Items or services with limited runs, much like a hard cap on enrollment might be, c/would often sway whether or not employees benefited. What I have never seen (nor am I suggesting college do), is treating one employee differently than another of the same employment level. So, for example, all tenured professors dependents get in but not just Prof A's does while Prof B's doesn't.

At least that's where I sit at the moment but could, as most times, be convinced otherwise. The one (private) university I know of with such a tuition policy has it apply to all full-time employees after a three-year waiting period. And, yes, that includes everyone down to the (full-time) cafeteria and maintenance crew. To the best of my knowledge, though, the dependent must be admitted on their own merits (but I sincerely guess they receive a substantial and positive head-start).

Why should the child get a boost against their peers for their parent's accomplishments?

The whole point of getting rid of AA and legacy boosts are to not discriminate based on immutable characteristics. Parental employment is an immutable characteristic for the child.

What private business do is irrelevant here. Universities are bound by federal law as they take millions in tax money every year in the form of student loans and research grants.

It’s not for their parents accomplishments, it’s for their employment. If you want the benefits of being employed at a university, work for the university. But let me guess, you wouldn’t be willing to take the pay cut.

+1

Not to mention, everyone is arguing as if this is a big deal---it is not. Majority of universities, especially Elite/T25, require the students be admitted on their own merit. The only perk is the tuition reduction. That is why many offer the tuition payout for a long list of accredited universities---to provide the benefit no matter where the kid is going.

Harvard/Stanford/Columbia/Northwestern/Duke are not taking a kid with a 1200 SAT/3.5UW just because their parent works there. And for faculty member's kids, those kids are likely smart and highly qualified because they grew up in a home that valued education and those kids always knew they were heading to college. So they are likely highly qualified admits

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, people are getting a little tired of those with the advantages patting them on the head & saying “don’t worry about it—the advantage is way overrated.”

Anonymous wrote:I was a faculty brat and didn’t get a bump. I was admitted summer-jan as anyone with my application would have been.

I think a lot of you have fantasies that everyone has it better than you and is getting something you think you’re entitled to.

You’re also focusing on schools that have single digit acceptance rates where thousands of kids with the same stats are denied all the time. No one is “taking your spot.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't have a problem with the Children of Faculty admissions and/or tuition perks particularly for private institutions. I think it much the same as any business that offers an employee preference and/or discount. I have worked for both kinds: ones that allowed employees first dibs on a new product or service (often at a discount) and ones that specifically prohibited it. Items or services with limited runs, much like a hard cap on enrollment might be, c/would often sway whether or not employees benefited. What I have never seen (nor am I suggesting college do), is treating one employee differently than another of the same employment level. So, for example, all tenured professors dependents get in but not just Prof A's does while Prof B's doesn't.

At least that's where I sit at the moment but could, as most times, be convinced otherwise. The one (private) university I know of with such a tuition policy has it apply to all full-time employees after a three-year waiting period. And, yes, that includes everyone down to the (full-time) cafeteria and maintenance crew. To the best of my knowledge, though, the dependent must be admitted on their own merits (but I sincerely guess they receive a substantial and positive head-start).

Why should the child get a boost against their peers for their parent's accomplishments?

The whole point of getting rid of AA and legacy boosts are to not discriminate based on immutable characteristics. Parental employment is an immutable characteristic for the child.

What private business do is irrelevant here. Universities are bound by federal law as they take millions in tax money every year in the form of student loans and research grants.

It’s not for their parents accomplishments, it’s for their employment. If you want the benefits of being employed at a university, work for the university. But let me guess, you wouldn’t be willing to take the pay cut.