right arrow
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
We’ve got a new look! Walk through the key updates here.

Wealthy Parents?

13»

Replies to: Wealthy Parents?

  • idadidad 4849 replies179 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 5,028 Senior Member
    From what I understand soon after Bush & Kerry (both legacy and name admits), Yale changed its policy, which may be why Jeb went to UT Austin.
    · Reply · Share
  • roaddivergedroaddiverged 3 replies0 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 3 New Member
    I think Jeb went to UT as the "other" brother, sort of like Jenna....There is a legacy deal at every school in the nation, whether it's elementary school straight through grad school, why do you think college and graduate applications ask about a family history at the school, it's not a secret, it's not the end all be all, but definitely nothing anyone's trying to hide. I do think that other factors have become as important, whether it's minority status, financial status (as in poverty being to one's advantage), physical disabilities, etc. I think the power of the person is simply becoming as important as the power of the parent.
    · Reply · Share
  • afanafan 1681 replies5 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 1,686 Senior Member
    Well, once upon a time certainly applied to Prescott, and to George I. By the time of George II, family name, prep school, and money counted for a lot less than in the good old days, but they still counted. As they do now. If Barbara is in the Senate when her kids are applying to Yale, I doubt they will have much trouble being admitted. By the way, I believe UT Austin is a very prestigious destination in the minds of most Texans.
    · Reply · Share
  • CopterMomCopterMom 164 replies3 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 167 Junior Member
    As to Bush and Kerry SAT's - Don't forget scores were recentered in 1995. A 1200 then corollates to a higher score on the test currently being given. Not a blow you out of the water score, but higher.
    · Reply · Share
  • afanafan 1681 replies5 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 1,686 Senior Member
    About a 1300 post recentering.
    · Reply · Share
  • CopterMomCopterMom 164 replies3 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 167 Junior Member
    That sounds about right.
    · Reply · Share
  • HardstyleprepHardstyleprep 232 replies11 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 243 Junior Member
    The Affirmative-Action President's Dilemma
    by David B. Wilkins

    It is common knowledge that President Bush was not much of a student. Although the facts of his lack of academic distinction--at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., Yale University and Harvard Business School--are well known, few people have stopped to ask a seemingly obvious question: How did someone with mediocre grades get admitted to two of this nation's most prestigious universities? With respect to Yale, the answer is plain. George W. Bush was admitted to Yale because his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, were prominent alumni.
    Giving preferential treatment to the children of alumni is standard practice at most elite institutions of higher learning. University officials claim these "legacy admittees" strengthen their schools by creating continuity across the generations and building a loyal alumni base. This justification parallels the most commonly articulated defense for affirmative action in minority admissions. But Bush and many of his supporters have expressed skepticism--and in the case of U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, outright hostility--for affirmative-action policies for minority students while saying virtually nothing about the affirmative help routinely given to alumni children.

    The president's admirers who oppose affirmative action for minorities might try to avoid this uncomfortable analogy by offering a different justification for Yale's decision. During the campaign, those supporting Bush typically chalked up his academic difficulties to youthful indiscretion, emphasizing instead his record in business and as governor of Texas. Judged from the perspective of his post-graduation accomplishments, his defenders implicitly assert, Yale's decision to admit the future president was a wise one.

    The empirical record, however, belies any attempt to distinguish the two forms of affirmative action on the basis of post-graduation success. The overwhelming majority of minority students who benefit from affirmative action in university admissions also go on to become productive and public-spirited citizens. In the most comprehensive study to date, former university presidents William Bowen and Derrick Bok conclude that black students from selective colleges and universities lead successful and rewarding careers that parallel those of their white classmates. A recent study of the University of Michigan Law School's minority graduates reaches a similar conclusion. Indeed, the post-graduation success of minority students who neither enjoy Bush's ready access to circles of power, nor the automatic assumption of competence that still is attached to those who are white and male, suggests that minorities actually get more out of their education than their white peers.

    Rather than seeking to distinguish affirmative action for legacies from other practices designed to tailor admissions policies to meet university objectives, Bush and his supporters would do better to ask what the success of both kinds of affirmative action says about the predictive value of the "standard" criteria used to admit all students. In the Michigan study, for example, researchers found, with only one exception, no statistically significant correlation for any student between undergraduate grades and scores on the Law School Admissions Test and future income or public service. The exception is the inverse correlation between test scores and public service-- the higher a student's LSAT score, the less likely he or she is to engage in significant public service. These findings suggest that law schools and other educational institutions should re-examine their admissions processes for all students.

    President Bush claims he wants to "leave no child behind" and to "improve the tone in Washington." Minorities might take this effort more seriously if Bush were to acknowledge forthrightly the role that legacy affirmative action has played in his own life. Such candor would go a long way toward persuading minorities that the president really intends to move beyond traditional Republican rhetoric that brands any effort to aid minorities as preferential treatment while ignoring advantages routinely given to those already in positions of power.

    Similarly, Bush's pledge to leave no child behind would be more credible if it were accompanied by an explicit promise that the Bush Justice Department will, notwithstanding the views of Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, defend admissions policies that ensure minority students have the same opportunity to succeed as Bush was given when he was admitted to Yale.

    Should Bush yield to those on the right and attack affirmative action for minorities while saying nothing about legacy admissions, he will reveal that compassionate conservatism has almost nothing to do with practices that promote diversity and everything to do with policies that protect the children of privilege.
    · Reply · Share
  • 4thfloor4thfloor 783 replies66 discussionsRegistered User Posts: 849 Member
    "I read a couple of years ago that a child of someone who donated $40 million to the Harvard Medical School got rejected."

    Yikes---40 million certainly SHOULD have done it! Are you sure this story isn't just an urban legend? Then again, Harvard has such a preternaturally large endowment, maybe they can afford to be cavalier about possibly offending such an important donor.


    Sorry for the late reply. I read this report in a main stream news source, not a blog, so I don't believe it is urban legend. There was a name attached to this story; I just don't remember.

    It is also funny that the daughter of former Princeton president Harold T Shapiro was rejected by Princeton while her dad was president. She went to Michigan instead and was reported by her dad to be very happy there.

    Returning to the point of the thread, while it is true that big donors have an easier time getting their offspring into college, they do not have a sure time. It is just a preference. And why not? It is a form of prejudice to jump to the conclusion that all donor kids are stupid and don't qualify for the spot anyway. I am not a rich donor, but I can be fair about this situation, in the sense that I can put myself in the positions of the donor, the school, and the other kids. Think it thru this way: if one donor kid gets in and brings in enough scholarship to fund dozens of other needy kids, or brings in a new building to improve the educational experience of thousands of kids, that is a win-win for everyone!
    · Reply · Share
This discussion has been closed.

Recent Activity