Anonymous wrote:I’m OP. My siblings and I went to H,Y, and S with no hooks (back when it was easier, of course). Two of us became lemmings in Big Law and at MBB (not a complaint - we do just fine), while the other became an entrepreneur, selling their first company in their 20s for a couple hundred million and leveling up thereafter. This sib donates a ton to their alma mater and I can’t imagine my nephew not getting in if he wants, but here’s the thing - he’s academically qualified, he’ll occupy just one seat, and my sib has supported many thousands of other students with their philanthropy. Why would anyone resent this?

If the nephew is truly qualified, he doesn’t need his dad’s money to buy access.

Anonymous wrote:I’m OP. My siblings and I went to H,Y, and S with no hooks (back when it was easier, of course). Two of us became lemmings in Big Law and at MBB (not a complaint - we do just fine), while the other became an entrepreneur, selling their first company in their 20s for a couple hundred million and leveling up thereafter. This sib donates a ton to their alma mater and I can’t imagine my nephew not getting in if he wants, but here’s the thing - he’s academically qualified, he’ll occupy just one seat, and my sib has supported many thousands of other students with their philanthropy. Why would anyone resent this?

This is your insecurity, OP; Sounds like you and your sib already won the lottery. If the world were just, your sib wouldn’t have to donate so Larlo can “get in.”

I suspect her “leveling up” bought Larlo a cushy life and private schooling from pre-k to 12th, which would of course make him “academically qualified.” If not, he’s either a moron or an over entitled brat. But hey, a little donation here and there helps to sweeten the deal, amirite? As we know, in this country “academically qualified” is a function of wealth - if not, the janitor’s kids would be running intellectual circles around you…

Since this is how the world works, I suspect if we could all donate to guarantee junior gets in, we would. But to your point “back when it was easier” the H,Y, and S schools will eventually catch on and just do what they always do - jack up the price even higher so they will always be out of reach for commoners.

You can rest easy, OP - most people are too busy keeping their heads above water, to side-eye you over buying your way into admission.

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.

Nope. Majority of athletes at top
Schools are told do not major in science, math, engineering, econ. The courses are graded on a curve such that the median is assigned a B or B+ for intro courses. Some athletes can hack it trying to be average compared to the non athletes who got in on merit. Most cannot. They are rightly pushed to grab an easier major!

I am just waiting for the tipping point. Nothing to worry about. Every knows it is not merit based

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.

What a weird post.

Ha! True. Perhaps some—but I have the SCOIR data for the past 5 years and the athletes are very very far below the regular admits in gpa and abysmal test scores. Sure- you have some that have both (my own kid), but it’s the exception in many sports (make and female), not the norm.

B/c everyone knows that kids with higher test scores will be more successful in life than student- athletes with lower test scores.

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.

What a weird post.

Ha! True. Perhaps some—but I have the SCOIR data for the past 5 years and the athletes are very very far below the regular admits in gpa and abysmal test scores. Sure- you have some that have both (my own kid), but it’s the exception in many sports (make and female), not the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).

Nope. Harvard could never solicit another donation and continue spending and growing at the same rate, adjusted for inflation. Donations are not adding more seats, either.

Stanford added 150 seats, permanently, to last year’s freshman class, with plans for more going forward. It’s one of President Levin’s priorities, and enabled in part by - wait for it - private philanthropy.

This is not a trend. Elite colleges have barely increased supply since 1970 despite explosive (tax-free until very recently) endowment growth.

I don’t disagree with you about that, and I hope more elite colleges will do what Stanford is doing. I will say that elite colleges are more accessible than before to students who could not otherwise afford them, and elite college life seems more amazing than ever. Private philanthropy helps support much-needed financial aid and a universally enhanced student experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).

Nope. Harvard could never solicit another donation and continue spending and growing at the same rate, adjusted for inflation. Donations are not adding more seats, either.

Stanford added 150 seats, permanently, to last year’s freshman class, with plans for more going forward. It’s one of President Levin’s priorities, and enabled in part by - wait for it - private philanthropy.

This is not a trend. Elite colleges have barely increased supply since 1970 despite explosive (tax-free until very recently) endowment growth.

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.

What a weird post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).

Nope. Harvard could never solicit another donation and continue spending and growing at the same rate, adjusted for inflation. Donations are not adding more seats, either.

Stanford added 150 seats, permanently, to last year’s freshman class, with plans for more going forward. It’s one of President Levin’s priorities, and enabled in part by - wait for it - private philanthropy.

Affirmative Action for rich people is still affirmative action.

And it's also tax evasion. Purchasing admission is not a charitable donation.

People have seep seated instincts to hate frauds and hypocrites.

Nepo babies are frauds enabled by hypocrites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).

The ultra rich want exclusivity, not more seats. There’s a reason most elite schools don’t double their student body, even though they could fill whole classes with highly qualified, full-pay students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it shows “need-blind” admission is complete BS. It’s a zero-sum game. If you give preferential admissions to the ultra rich, then that means there are fewer seats open to people who need aid. If a school was really need-blind, there would be no preferential treatment to the ultra wealthy.

Actually, without ultra rich donors, there’d be fewer seats from the get-go. Ultra rich donor kids don’t so much take up a seat as they create additional ones (including one for themselves).

Nope. Harvard could never solicit another donation and continue spending and growing at the same rate, adjusted for inflation. Donations are not adding more seats, either.

Colleges should auction off seats to keep things transparent, and it would probably earn more money sue to parents not having to worry about making a massive donation only for their kid to be rejected