Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+1 This mostly affects Stanford and USC. Sorry rich white people! Your affirmative action is ending in California.
Stanford is 21% white, and 26% Asian.
Compared to 35% of California's population overall being white.
https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.
Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies
No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.
Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.
This. The big ticket donations ($20 million+++) that move the needle at elite schools come from those who put their names on buildings/research centers etc. Treating every legacy as a potential cash cow is imprecise.
utterly false. I'm a Harvard alum. All of us give ONLY to get our kids. (an yes we co
oare figures out to 8 digitd
s). You take that perq away and we go back to funding true charities for the needy
Anonymous wrote:excellent news!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.
Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies
No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.
Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.
This. The big ticket donations ($20 million+++) that move the needle at elite schools come from those who put their names on buildings/research centers etc. Treating every legacy as a potential cash cow is imprecise.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WHATTHERE WERE PEOPLE STRONGLY CLAIMING THAT PRIVATE COLLEGES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO SINCE THEY ARE PRIVATE
![]()
Racial discrimination is banned and now legacy is banned.
Progress![]()
+1. Private colleges are still living off our dime by not paying any taxes, in many cases also get government funding for research, and federal student loans for their students to milk their students of money. They cannot and should not be able to do whatever they want.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.
Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies
No one gives money just so they can get a seat. Most donors are megalomaniacs who like to die happy that their name will live on for posterity on the face of a building or some such. Donations will not stop.
Your argument is similar to the anti-tax people make. OMG, rich people will leave if you raise taxes too much. Guess what, we did have high taxes and everyone was fine and happy back then.
Anonymous wrote:Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.
Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That's great. Hope this happens in the rest of the country as well.
The irony is that donations to these private campuses would not exist if not for some kind of implied payback in the form of legacy admissions. Like all sought-after recruits (including first gen students and URMs), even legacies have to meet a certain minimum standard—but to say that legacies should not get a preferred look is to ignore the “known” factor that they bring to the table. Take Yale for example….Legacy status tells the school “this family knows what it takes to be a Bulldog and will have the family’s support to accept admission (yield), succeed as a student, and carry on the school’s esteemed legacy” ….and that’s a nice safe bet for a school.
The other thing it does is reward its donors. And these schools desperately need donors.
The blue haired burn-it-all-down egalitarian protest crowd is going to learn soon enough that they can’t have nice things without donors.
Anonymous wrote:WHATTHERE WERE PEOPLE STRONGLY CLAIMING THAT PRIVATE COLLEGES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO SINCE THEY ARE PRIVATE
![]()
Racial discrimination is banned and now legacy is banned.
Progress![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+1 This mostly affects Stanford and USC. Sorry rich white people! Your affirmative action is ending in California.
Stanford is 21% white, and 26% Asian.
Compared to 35% of California's population overall being white.
https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/
+1. Truth! Schools have gone too far and that includes Princeton
They've gone too far because they're accepting the best candidates according to merit? My my, how people who whined incessantly about getting rid of affirmative action are changing their tunes now that college admissions are getting much more competitive for them.
Anonymous wrote:That's great. Hope this happens in the rest of the country as well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
+1 This mostly affects Stanford and USC. Sorry rich white people! Your affirmative action is ending in California.
Stanford is 21% white, and 26% Asian.
Compared to 35% of California's population overall being white.
https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/
+1. Truth! Schools have gone too far and that includes Princeton
Anonymous wrote:[/b]Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.[b]
Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies