" I am sure if the person who just donated $250 million toward the two new residential colleges at Yale had a kid who was applying, I am sure they would get in (disclaimer - I don’t even know who this person is or if they have kids). It would not bother me one bit to have this kid, however smart or talented they might be, sitting next to mine in class. "
The point is really that if someone donates $250mm, their family members are getting in - and it is completely irrelevant whether the donor himself or herself actually went to that particular school.
As I think they should. I think there’s a certain level of “payback” that’s appropriate. I have an acquaintance from college who, with her husband (also an alum) donated $40mm. He owns a major league sports team. I’ve got no problem if their currently-middle-school-age daughter is “guaranteed” a spot in. That $40mm does so much for the school.
"It would not bother me one bit to have this kid, however smart or talented they might be, sitting next to mine in class. "
Well, one would hope that the student would be somewhat competitive for admission on his/her own merits. I know some students of very wealthy parents, who are extremely bright, motivated and accomplished. I’d be very happy to have my child sitting next to them.
I think you (generic you) use every advantage that you have (ethically, of course). Whether that’s natural inborn talent or affinity for a certain skill area (music, math, art, athletics), whether that’s family resources at your disposal, or whether that’s anything else.
I think it’s the very definition of smart to leverage what you have available to you.
When my twins were in high school, they often took the same class but in different periods. They’d sit independently in their rooms and struggle with a problem and I’d say - look, you guys have each other. Why not work together and leverage the fact that your twin is right here with you to talk through and solve the problem? I suppose that’s “leveraging an unfair advantage” but I don’t see a thing wrong with it. If one’s parent is a mathematician, scientist, historian, whatever, is that “unfair” to talk to one’s parent to get help in a certain area? I’m not talking about having Dad the Scientist do your science fair project, but I see nothing wrong with leveraging available resources.
It’s not simply legacy, it’s the level of ongoing donations to the school. Stanford readily admits to legacy (read donations). A family we know probably donated anywhere from $70-100 million to Stanford over the years. They have scholarships and a fellow named after them. Both parents Stanford grads. Their son did not get in. Boy, I’m sure Stanford tried everything in the book to swing it and were sweating bullets as regards future donations, but that kid must have really really really been below the threshold.
“A family we know probably donated anywhere from $70-100 million to Stanford over the years. They have scholarships and a fellow named after them. Both parents Stanford grads.”
If this family has truly donated that kind of money to Stanford over the years, it doesn’t matter one whit if both parents actually went there or not.
At one college, I hear the admissions staff is not informed about donations by parents of applicants. However, towards the end of the process, the admissions director and the development director go over the tentative admissions decision of certain applicants of particular interest to the development office. In addition to current big donors, I imagine this could also include children of very powerful people, as well as families that the development office has targeted as likely sources of new large donations.