Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Except they did, according to the college in question, who also makes this determination for athletes, underrepresented minorities, kids from random geographic regions, trombone players when the orchestra has none, etc. If you don’t like it, opt out. You’re not entitled to anything more.

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

I think people want every kid at top schools to have earned their spot and you nephew did not in most peoples mind. There are very few spots at the top schools and their endowments are large enough that they should stop caring about donors, yet they dont. There is no institution in this country that is a true academic meritocracy and I think they should have such places (MIT is probably one but even there you have athletes).

Really?
Only 6 colleges have endowments above $20 MM
I don't know if you could sustain your endowment without donations much below that.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.

MIT has a huge athletic preference. You need the academics but if you have them you have a chance that is 20x the typical admit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

I think people want every kid at top schools to have earned their spot and you nephew did not in most peoples mind. There are very few spots at the top schools and their endowments are large enough that they should stop caring about donors, yet they dont. There is no institution in this country that is a true academic meritocracy and I think they should have such places (MIT is probably one but even there you have athletes).

Really?
Only 6 colleges have endowments above $20 MM
I don't know if you could sustain your endowment without donations much below that.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.

This is waaaay wrong. Do you mean billion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Except they did, according to the college in question, who also makes this determination for athletes, underrepresented minorities, kids from random geographic regions, trombone players when the orchestra has none, etc. If you don’t like it, opt out. You’re not entitled to anything more.

Are you seriously equating donor/legacy admits to other institutional priorities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Except they did, according to the college in question, who also makes this determination for athletes, underrepresented minorities, kids from random geographic regions, trombone players when the orchestra has none, etc. If you don’t like it, opt out. You’re not entitled to anything more.

Anonymous wrote:Lack of transparency.

They should advertise if a certain number of seats in each class are for sale.

Of course it would tarnish the image of the school and the family.

But their kid did not earn their place, which future employers have a right to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll bite... it's because it makes it obvious that getting into said school is not and is rarely based on merit. So the fail-upwards spawn gets into the "highly selective" school because mom and dad funded a serenity park on the quad. Said spawn goes on to become senator because his/her parent's name carries a lot of weight in all the right circles; and those are just the more blatant types of pay to play...

Meanwhile the rest of our children are busting their butts, taking on summer jobs, volunteering, losing sleep over grades; watching mom and dad not take a vacation, in the hopes they get into that special school...

We know it's all a lie; there are genius children who never get a chance, because they don't have the resources.

Sadly, Senator Fail-Upwards will sponsor a bill criminalizing his fellow poorer citizens.

If only we could pull ourselves up with our bootstraps with a million dollar loan from mom and dad - think of all the casinos we could bankrupt...

Who said it was about merit?

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll bite... it's because it makes it obvious that getting into said school is not and is rarely based on merit. So the fail-upwards spawn gets into the "highly selective" school because mom and dad funded a serenity park on the quad. Said spawn goes on to become senator because his/her parent's name carries a lot of weight in all the right circles; and those are just the more blatant types of pay to play...

Meanwhile the rest of our children are busting their butts, taking on summer jobs, volunteering, losing sleep over grades; watching mom and dad not take a vacation, in the hopes they get into that special school...

We know it's all a lie; there are genius children who never get a chance, because they don't have the resources.

Sadly, Senator Fail-Upwards will sponsor a bill criminalizing his fellow poorer citizens.

If only we could pull ourselves up with our bootstraps with a million dollar loan from mom and dad - think of all the casinos we could bankrupt...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really bother me. It’s a few seats na enables them to find a lot of other kids. It’s icky but whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

I think people want every kid at top schools to have earned their spot and you nephew did not in most peoples mind. There are very few spots at the top schools and their endowments are large enough that they should stop caring about donors, yet they dont. There is no institution in this country that is a true academic meritocracy and I think they should have such places (MIT is probably one but even there you have athletes).

Really?
Only 6 colleges have endowments above $20 MM
I don't know if you could sustain your endowment without donations much below that.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.

MIT has a huge athletic preference. You need the academics but if you have them you have a chance that is 20x the typical applicant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a dog in this fight. I do think middle class Americans hate this, because I don’t think middle class Americans want to be middle class. I think they want to be elite. And I think they want the elite to have the same middle class values they have—work hard, be a good person, be rewarded for it.

But the elite have their own values.

OP here. Our family went from lower class fresh off the boat immigrants to UMC (UHNW for my one sib) in one generation through hard work and high IQ. We are literally examples of the concept of “be[ing] rewarded” for “middle class values.”

Yet when you “make it”, you sell out by insisting that inherited wealth trumps merit. Pay-to-play is not a middle class value, and you should know that.

I never once said that inherited wealth trumps merit, much less insisted. I asked why people are mad that donors who lift all boats are an institutional priority. My siblings and I weren’t mad about that when we were applying to college ourselves. We recognized what philanthropists brought to the table, and just worked that much harder to get a seat too. Since then, my sib has helped many thousands of students who couldn’t otherwise afford it to also attend their alma mater. My sib isn’t the one asking for my nephew to be an institutional priority - the University is the one that will make my nephew an institutional priority regardless.

A lot of people take this pragmatic view. Other people have a more idealistic view of colleges and universities. Donor privilege shows that, for all their pretty rhetoric, colleges themselves are happy to take the pragmatic view. This angers idealists.

Why is that surprising to you? Are you surprised to discover that idealists exist?

I’m surprised at the vitriol, that’s all.

I think people want every kid at top schools to have earned their spot and you nephew did not in most peoples mind. There are very few spots at the top schools and their endowments are large enough that they should stop caring about donors, yet they dont. There is no institution in this country that is a true academic meritocracy and I think they should have such places (MIT is probably one but even there you have athletes).

Really?
Only 6 colleges have endowments above $20 MM
I don't know if you could sustain your endowment without donations much below that.

MIT does not have much of an athletic preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.

Those dumb athletes are both smarter and more successful than your children. Was just hanging out with some Cal and Stanford volleyball players this morning. They would eat your kids as snacks.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are not as smart or academically qualified as other non-athlete applicants who are denied admission. Schools have different academic standards for recruited athletes. Have the decency to admit it.

Or you could say they have different athletic standards for some kids. If you can't throw a ball, kick, run, or shoot baskets you better have high test scores. They are allowed to have different priorities for a class.

This is not true because athletic preferences are almost binary. A 3 sport high school student that is not recruitable has no advantage over a kid in a wheelchair.

That's true but we're talking about recruitable ones. If you're not a stand out in your sport then it's not going to help. That's why it doesn't really matter what you do in HS as long as you do something. Very few kids are good enough athletes to be recruited and non athletes aren't competing with them in anyway. They are different pools.

The initial argument was that these schools have lower academic standards for recruited athletes.
The post I am responding to tries to reverse the argument saying that we could just ass easily see it as much lower athetic tandards for kids with high academics.
That's bad logic

Pick your poison. The kids must meet hight standards in one or the other area but not necessarily both.

Is the school an academic organization or an athletic one? These two things are not co=equals in the school's mission.
The overwhelming majority of these recruited athletes are not extraordinary athletes. They are being recruited for some country club sport that most kids have no access to or interest in.