Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.
I was an athlete. Educate me, what is the importance of donating to a school with an enormous endowment when there are other causes I can support?
Being grateful for the education you received and wanting to pay it forward.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.
I was an athlete. Educate me, what is the importance of donating to a school with an enormous endowment when there are other causes I can support?
Anonymous wrote:Why it is in the interest of the university for legacy admissions to continue - outside of donations?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The whole point of legacy preferences is to attract donations. The schools that have parted ways with it are so loaded that annual gifts from alums don’t really matter now. I do wonder if “development” cases are considered something different from legacy for those schools that no longer give legacy preference - normally a legacy edge is associated with generous giving. Schools also see legacy preference as preserving the culture.
I think most schools esp schools that rely heavily on fundraising and don’t have oversized endowments will be very loathe to give it up if not legally required
The schools that don’t have big endowments and need lots of little alumni donations are the ones generally with high acceptance rates where being a legacy doesn’t matter as much.
I’m involved in collecting “little alumni donations” at a school with an egregiously large endowment and egregiously low acceptance rate. Greed is never satisfied.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The whole point of legacy preferences is to attract donations. The schools that have parted ways with it are so loaded that annual gifts from alums don’t really matter now. I do wonder if “development” cases are considered something different from legacy for those schools that no longer give legacy preference - normally a legacy edge is associated with generous giving. Schools also see legacy preference as preserving the culture.
I think most schools esp schools that rely heavily on fundraising and don’t have oversized endowments will be very loathe to give it up if not legally required
The schools that don’t have big endowments and need lots of little alumni donations are the ones generally with high acceptance rates where being a legacy doesn’t matter as much.
Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes are more likely to donate. Grads who don’t fall into those categories don’t understand the importance of donating.
Anonymous wrote:The whole point of legacy preferences is to attract donations. The schools that have parted ways with it are so loaded that annual gifts from alums don’t really matter now. I do wonder if “development” cases are considered something different from legacy for those schools that no longer give legacy preference - normally a legacy edge is associated with generous giving. Schools also see legacy preference as preserving the culture.
I think most schools esp schools that rely heavily on fundraising and don’t have oversized endowments will be very loathe to give it up if not legally required
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why it is in the interest of the university for legacy admissions to continue - outside of donations?
People like the prestige that goes along with being on the same dorm floor as a Kennedy or Biden, or to attend class with Sarah Jessica Parker’s kid, or Bill Gate’s kid. You get it, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Soon, I hope, especially if the SC strikes down affirmative action.
Very difficult to rationalize giving a thumb on the scale to children of alumni (who generally skew wealthier and have received more advantages) than to underrepresented minorities.
Last year a lawmaker in NY introduced a bill that would ban legacy preferences at all NY colleges (public and private) but a quick Google search doesn't bring much up, so I guess that's dead or stalled.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S8498
I kind of wonder that if affirmative action is illegal (rather than just not mandated), how it is that legacy admissions (which are also naturally based on origin) are legal? I'd love to hear a lawyer explain that one (clearly I'm not a lawyer).