Anonymous wrote:Can't wait until all these first-gen college students realize their own kids will not have the same hook they did, and now they won't have legacy either. And lots less financial aid to go around as well. People really don't think long-term, do they? By the way, this kind of bill can't govern a private institution anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait until all these first-gen college students realize their own kids will not have the same hook they did, and now they won't have legacy either. And lots less financial aid to go around as well. People really don't think long-term, do they? By the way, this kind of bill can't govern a private institution anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What a bunch of crap. There's no guarantee that a legacy student will "carry on the school's esteemed legacy." When I think back to my undergraduate Ivy league degree, some of the students who stand out to me as being particularly among the poorest performers in my classes were legacies and recruited athletes, and those legacies have not been standouts in their careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And I'm a Princeton alum. I can't actually understand your post since there's some words in there that are definitely not in the English language, but donor data is public and heavily skewed to big ticket donations.

take your arrogance and judgment somewhere else Princeton alum! no one cares here about your opinion on an Assembly vote in California

Speak for yourself Harvard. It's not true that alums are donating purely to get their offspring into university. And in fact, some alum think their kids are better off in schools where they can earn their entrance rather than buying a spot.

Big buck donors to Harvard and the other elites are already going away. Harvard's have dropped off by more than 50% after the Claudine Gay embarrassment. I pulled my donation from my will. Most won't return unless their kids get a benefit. Thrre are far better charities to support in the world than a super wealthy school that can't manage its way out of a paper bag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And I'm a Princeton alum. I can't actually understand your post since there's some words in there that are definitely not in the English language, but donor data is public and heavily skewed to big ticket donations.

take your arrogance and judgment somewhere else Princeton alum! no one cares here about your opinion on an Assembly vote in California

Speak for yourself Harvard. It's not true that alums are donating purely to get their offspring into university. And in fact, some alum think their kids are better off in schools where they can earn their entrance rather than buying a spot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.[b]

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

yup. end of private financial aid at Ca privates. And tuition will be hiked over $100k per year next year.

I rather have equality and fairness especially in the education field just like everywhere else in the world.


i hope you are being facetious. The worldis not fair

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT THERE 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.

err ok but this thread isn't about taxes ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Banning donors is stupid. Goodbye financial aid.[b]

Colleges should be smart enough to reject non donor legacies

yup. end of private financial aid at Ca privates. And tuition will be hiked over $100k per year next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And I'm a Princeton alum. I can't actually understand your post since there's some words in there that are definitely not in the English language, but donor data is public and heavily skewed to big ticket donations.

take your arrogance and judgment somewhere else Princeton alum! no one cares here about your opinion on an Assembly vote in California

Anonymous wrote:

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

And I'm a Princeton alum. I can't actually understand your post since there's some words in there that are definitely not in the English language, but donor data is public and heavily skewed to big ticket donations.