http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/09legacies.html

http://likethemthatdream.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/legacy-admissions-a-response-to-richard-kahlenberhttp://education.newsweek.com/2010/11/23/the-case-against-legacy-admissions-preferences.htmlg/

http://www.top-colleges.com/blog/2011/01/16/legacy-status-continues-to-affect-college-acceptance-rates/
http://students.brown.edu/INDY/alpha/article.php?id=21&issue_id=188

http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/20/news/legacy
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Alumni.htm
http://www.gothamgazette.com/commentary/151.kennedy.shtml

http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/

Oh my gosh! You mean there was a scandal, at a California elementary school, about a donor and improper conduct. Well surely we should generalize from that. And it must mean that elite universities admit kids based on undue financial influence. And that the STA admissions committee in particular can be bought! Signing off this crazy thread.

There are trolls on this board whose biggest thrill is to upset people whom they see as more privileged than themselves. You will never convince them of anything positive about a TT school, because that's not consistent with their agenda.

Don't respond to them, that's what they want.

What you asked is whether I encountered any correlation between admission decisions and donations/potential donations. The answer is that I did not, but that I did, of course, see preferences for legacies and other priority groups. Of course many legacies are donors, and many are not, which if course you would know. I did not see any correlation between treatment of legacy applicants based on whether their relatives were significant donors. And why are you being so rude? Just because my experience doesn't reflect all of your assumptions? I am attempting to offer information about what I encountered, that's all.

Reality check:

http://beyondthebrochure.blogspot.com/2009/11/contribution-scandal-hits-top-private.html

What you asked is whether I encountered any correlation between admission decisions and donations/potential donations. The answer is that I did not, but that I did, of course, see preferences for legacies and other priority groups. Of course many legacies are donors, and many are not, which if course you would know. I did not see any correlation between treatment of legacy applicants based on whether their relatives were significant donors. And why are you being so rude? Just because my experience doesn't reflect all of your assumptions? I am attempting to offer information about what I encountered, that's all.

Family legacy you say played a significnant role, you state. I gather these legacy families were not financial donors to your institution?

Did any of the big financial donors you encountered in your extensive experience ever have any children or grandchildren that attended, were attending or planned to attend the school in future?

I've certainly seen family legacy at the university play a significant role, as well other priority characteristics (at that time, family structure diversity, ethnic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, etc.), in choosing among the many qualified candidates. I actually never saw financial giving (or potential financial giving) play a role. There was one case in which an applicant was accepted who wasn't particularly academically or otherwise qualified (my subjective judgment based on limited information), but I think that was due to the fact that he had a parent who had been a long-time professor at the school, though donations could have played a part (I really have no idea). I have seen big donors receive a softer let-down when their kids were not accepted. Advance calls, offers to meet personally, etc.

If there is no relationship to admission selection criteria why not have a strictly

blind

admission's process to variables such as family name, occupation, zip code, legacy, financial donor? This would remove any potential bias.

Ms University Developer,

In your vast experience in university development when a child or grandchild has gained admission to your institution was there ever any relationship between the admission decision and knowledge this applicant is a relation to a big time financial donor?

In other words, are the Directors of Admission and gang blind in the process of candidate selection to variables such as relation to big time donors (or other variables including where parents went to school, parents' occupations, knowledge about whether any other relations attended the school, etc, etc)?

These schools have large data bases populated by information on the application with links to alumni databases and the like. Have you ever taken a look at the candidate's application folder? There's quite a bit of information there (some 'juicy') besides the applicant's application?

Do you actually believe these admission decisions are trully blind (unbiased) to this information and data?

I what was in my folder some 30-40 years ago scribbled on a piece of paper by an AD. "Dad looks like ____? ... Accept"

I saw this much later, after I had graduated.

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, I'm an alum of a well-known private school, and went to one of HYP for both college and law school. Oh, and I worked in university development through college. So, yes, I'm well aware of the environment. But thank you so very much for trying to "educate" me. Seems as though STA has gotten along pretty well so far without anyone making any assertion that any particular child was admitted solely or unduly as a result of financial influence. Perhaps because such as assertion would require facts, not just speculation engaged in either in an attempt to make the school look bad or to make people feel better about outcomes they aren't happy with. Only on DCUM could musings and speculation be dubbed as giving someone an education!

Really...You must be joking?

What am I joking about? Where I went to school? That I've worked extensively in university development? Or that people haven't made any assertions about any particular kid getting into STA solely or unduly as a result of financial influence? If it's the latter, feel free to post that you personally know someone who was accepted in this manner (no names or identifiers of course). That would be a different conversation from the nasty speculation on this thread.

To the PP who believes that he/she is somehow correct in all of her speculations, and who is enlightening the rest of us about how things really work, you're just too much. And your silly one liners responding to other commenters for the most part don't make any sense or wholly lack foundation. Really, why do you feel the need to drive negative speculation about an institution? I have never written anything like the post I'm writing now, but I've read other postings on DCUM lately and I'm pretty sure they are yours (same phrasing, same non-responses, etc.), and you you come across as such an unthoughtful, mean person, with an emphasis on the lack of thought.

Yes, we are sure, you are pretty sure.

Sounds familiar.

Do you also hear voices?

STA has it's share of spoiled brats and some have an attitude of money driven entitlement. Some have a sense of entitlement since they are students at STA. Since you brought up lacrosse I notice Landon has a more successful team than STA in 2010. Why has STA lacrosse changed so radically?

[quote]One of the TRUE beauties of STA is that the school has such a broad definition of what constitutes "strength" and celebrates the various ways in which different boys bring their "strength" to the community. [/quote]

Perhaps the STA admission's office fell asleep at the switch. I'm sure this year's crew is going to widen that lens or "broad definition of what constitutes strength" and fish for some lacrosse ringers for the upcoming years.

Beautiful.

To the PP who believes that he/she is somehow correct in all of her speculations, and who is enlightening the rest of us about how things really work, you're just too much. And your silly one liners responding to other commenters for the most part don't make any sense or wholly lack foundation. Really, why do you feel the need to drive negative speculation about an institution? I have never written anything like the post I'm writing now, but I've read other postings on DCUM lately and I'm pretty sure they are yours (same phrasing, same non-responses, etc.), and you you come across as such an unthoughtful, mean person, with an emphasis on the lack of thought.

Actually, I'm an alum of a well-known private school, and went to one of HYP for both college and law school. Oh, and I worked in university development through college. So, yes, I'm well aware of the environment. But thank you so very much for trying to "educate" me. Seems as though STA has gotten along pretty well so far without anyone making any assertion that any particular child was admitted solely or unduly as a result of financial influence. Perhaps because such as assertion would require facts, not just speculation engaged in either in an attempt to make the school look bad or to make people feel better about outcomes they aren't happy with. Only on DCUM could musings and speculation be dubbed as giving someone an education!

Your gift of logic and argument has just elevated the status of D.C. lawyers.