Anonymous
03/09/2026 08:28
Subject: Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote:Fencing brings in non-fencing students who want to be fans?
What do you not get? Fencing like other niche sports bring in other students with high academic profiles who also do fencing.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 08:08
Subject: Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Fencing brings in non-fencing students who want to be fans?
Anonymous
03/09/2026 08:04
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.
Those athletes bring in more money for the school than your "brilliant" Larlo with a 4.0 GPA and 1500+SAT. Look at all the schools that most kids are flocking to these days.
Women’s softball ? Fencing? Cross country? And at Ivies. We are talking Ohio State football or Duke basketball. Sports at T10s/Ivies aren’t bringing in $. Big donors are though.
Yes, even those sports. They may not bring in tons of money but they bring in other students.
What about the kids who do have the ivy calibre stats but want to play their sport? You don't offer them, they go elsewhere. These colleges are competing with one another. Why do you think so many D3 schools give scholarships to athletes? Because they attract students who want to play their sport even if they're not the best of the best. Having those students attract other students to the school.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 07:27
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
^aren't talking about men’s football or basketball ….but even at Hopkins or an Ivy they aren’t bringing in $.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 07:26
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.
Those athletes bring in more money for the school than your "brilliant" Larlo with a 4.0 GPA and 1500+SAT. Look at all the schools that most kids are flocking to these days.
Women’s softball ? Fencing? Cross country? And at Ivies. We are talking Ohio State football or Duke basketball. Sports at T10s/Ivies aren’t bringing in $. Big donors are though.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 07:24
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
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.
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!
Your assumptions might hold for power 4 schools and non selective mid majors but not at all for Ivies, Pat League, NESCAC, UAA, etc. You’re rationalizing without any actual knowledge.
We get the sports commit announcements on signing day and they post on Instagram. We can select for individual years. Stanford, SLACs, Georgetown, Duke, etc., the athletes are generally a tier below the regular admits. Some(depending on sport) much lower- test scores and/or gpa.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 07:15
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote:I handle that better than dumb athletes at T10/20/Ivies.
Those athletes bring in more money for the school than your "brilliant" Larlo with a 4.0 GPA and 1500+SAT. Look at all the schools that most kids are flocking to these days.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 05:18
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote: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.
Oftentimes but not always. It's also a function of DNA/luck. IQ / academic ability is a real form of privilege that some people think of as "merit." Money can't buy faster processing speed, only extra time on tests.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 04:43
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote: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.
I disagree with this statement. We all routinely acknowledge here that grades/scores/recs get the student a lottery ticket in admissions. But they need more—luck, money, sport, etc…
So he earned his lottery ticket. Family’s cash just bought him a few thousand more tickets. Good odds!
Personally, I don’t like the system. But I’d rather see a qualified nepo than an unqualified one have their entry bought and paid for.
I just wish we could insist they wear donor label to class each day.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 03:00
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote: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.
I don’t think my nephew needs it. My sib donates because they love their alma mater, and started long before my nephew was even conceived. A natural consequence of this is that their alma mater now considers my nephew an institutional priority.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 02:51
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote: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.
You’re mistaken on several fronts. 1) I doubt my sib needs to donate to get my nephew into their alma mater. Legacy is already a boost. I didn’t donate more than $100/year to my alma mater and my kid got in. 2) My siblings and I were all “commoners” when we matriculated to HYPSM. Our family tends to produce smart kids in the first place. 3) You seem to be conflating me with my sib. I could only dream of being as wealthy, but their wealth wasn’t due to luck as “winning the lottery” implies. It was due to their own genius + drive.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 02:19
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote: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.
I think that you mean to say that you believe that you have SCOIR data for your high school which makes you believe something is true but most likely isn’t saying what you believe it says. Oh, and your kid is an exception.
Fiction.
Recruited by Duke -- 3.00 GPA and never took a standardized test. From our private, that's one of the lowest in history.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 02:16
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
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.
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!
Your assumptions might hold for power 4 schools and non selective mid majors but not at all for Ivies, Pat League, NESCAC, UAA, etc. You’re rationalizing without any actual knowledge.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 02:13
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
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.
I think that you mean to say that you believe that you have SCOIR data for your high school which makes you believe something is true but most likely isn’t saying what you believe it says. Oh, and your kid is an exception.
Fiction.
Anonymous
03/09/2026 02:07
Subject: Re:Why are people mad that kids of principal donors are institutional priorities?
Anonymous wrote:I have less of a problem with it than athletes.
Because their skills fall outside of your preferred skills in no way diminishes their merit. Truth is at an individual level their skills are more of an institutional priority than those of any particular average excellent candidate until that priority is filled. You may not like it but schools have every right to their priorities.