Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Approx 1% of each class at UVa are the children of faculty.

This is not a small number at many schools.

I guess then feel bad for any other kids in Charlottesville who apply!

And professors’ kids are typically going to have a competitive application anyway. They’re often married to another professor and if you’re born and raised in an intellectual household with parents who value education and have natural ability and advanced degrees, chances are you will too. It’s not like their 2.0 kid is taking “your kids spot.” The outrage is silly.

If they’re so great, then they don’t need any admissions advantage.

People keep saying there is no admission advantage. There is a tuition benefit. Those are two different things. But even if there is, you’re aware that thousands of kids get rejected with competitive stats every year because they simply can’t take everyone with a great application.

If you’re so hung up on this, become a professor. Good luck with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Approx 1% of each class at UVa are the children of faculty.

This is not a small number at many schools.

I guess then feel bad for any other kids in Charlottesville who apply!

And professors’ kids are typically going to have a competitive application anyway. They’re often married to another professor and if you’re born and raised in an intellectual household with parents who value education and have natural ability and advanced degrees, chances are you will too. It’s not like their 2.0 kid is taking “your kids spot.” The outrage is silly.

If they’re so great, then they don’t need any admissions advantage.

Anonymous wrote:Huh?

Children of faculty get a tuition discount. I’ve never heard of an admission advantage.

It's one of the biggest admission boost even more than legacy donor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d argue that there is a much more direct benefit to the university from admitting children of faculty and staff at a higher rate. It’s a perk that helps make up for the relatively low pay that many faculty members receive, so it’s a great faculty recruitment tool. I’d rather see faculty and staff kids get in because of that connection than a legacy.

Nope. Faculty kids and legacies should get nothing.

Nope. They will continue to receive the admission advantage. Seethe.

Many of the arguments on this thread could also be applied to legacy admissions.

If Legacy goes, then faculty should start assuming that the perks for their kids are next.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Approx 1% of each class at UVa are the children of faculty.

This is not a small number at many schools.

I guess then feel bad for any other kids in Charlottesville who apply!

And professors’ kids are typically going to have a competitive application anyway. They’re often married to another professor and if you’re born and raised in an intellectual household with parents who value education and have natural ability and advanced degrees, chances are you will too. It’s not like their 2.0 kid is taking “your kids spot.” The outrage is silly.

Anonymous wrote:Approx 1% of each class at UVa are the children of faculty.

This is not a small number at many schools.

I guess then feel bad for any other kids in Charlottesville who apply!

University of California doesn't have an admissions bump for faculty. There are obviously faculty kids who go to UC schools because they are in-state and the schools are high caliber, and those kids might have access to things that improve their applications, but there's no program for an admissions bump or faculty discount.

The admissions preference that is crazier to me is the celebrity child bump. Why should Harvard or Yale care about the publicity a celebrity kid will bring to the school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The outrage toward academics is such a pathetic sign for our country. Read history and you’ll see you’re being manipulated for someone else’s gain.

First of all, you’re talking about a tiny number of people. And universities are using more adjunct professors who are exploited and don’t receive benefits at all.

If you want the perks of a job, you can get the job. Being bitter that military people get a GI Bill or professors’ kids get a break at their school is immature and ignorant. None of you whiners would do either one of those things because all that matters to you is money and prestige.

Gee maybe academics should stop doing things that create outrage then.

When the issue is admission to very selective colleges, even a tiny number of unearned privilege admissions makes a difference.

Insisting that professors kids should be allowed to hoard privilege is immature and ignorant. There is simply no good reason to sustain this job perk.

Reads like: What did you say to upset your husband that made him hit you?

You anti-academic people are Fox robots. I would love for business schools to be separate entities like vocational schools so you entitled, money-hungry, anti-intellectuals could stop ruining higher education.

Approx 1% of each class at UVa are the children of faculty.

This is not a small number at many schools.

Anonymous wrote:
All the other unearned admissions should be done away with before they tackle children of faculty, just because that category seems slightly less unfair to me. After all, these families are usually not wealthy, and you'd expect children of faculty to be reasonably academic.

But yes, in the end, they all have to go.

And at elite/high stats universities, the kids typically still have to gain admissions---they don't just automatically get in. I have family member employed by elite university. First kid did not apply because they did not have the stats to get in and knew there is no preference given to faculty/staff kids. 2nd kid did get in, but they had the stats to be competitive. Also this family member works for one of the top faculty members at the university---there are buildings on the campus with this faculty members name on it because they have donated millions from research results that made them wealthy. So if anyone could get a kid with "lower stats" in it would be this situation. If the faculty member said "admit this kid" it would probably happen if allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You may argue about the admission advantage. But the tuition discount, which is usually part of the faculty contract or employment letter, is a different story. If a school ends the tuition discount, it is a breach of contract that could trigger many lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:Children of faculty are lucky because they get an advantage getting in and also a big tuition discount

For tenured faculty. For everyone else, it's a change in benefits and they are free to reject it and quit

Which many people would do. As a non-faculty university employee with a tuition benefit, I can say with certainty that I would look for other jobs immediately if it went away. The tuition benefit is a huge part of the comp/benefits package, helping to make up for salaries that are generally on the low end of the market.

+1
And if you are not at a highly competitive uni, your college savings plans were likely based around the assumption your kid would be attending school where you work.

Anonymous wrote:Huh?

Children of faculty get a tuition discount. I’ve never heard of an admission advantage.

Among the most ridiculous comments that I have ever read on any college website.

I think companies then have to stop letting friends/families have a boost in internships. Unfair, discriminatory practices!

Schools should generally admit people who can keep up with the rigor of the courses. Make it academic/social/values-based only.