I believe good education is a social good, it might not be the right of everyone to have elite education (it won’t be elite if everyone has a seat!), but good education for the most people benefits everyone, elites or not. And good education promotes social upward mobility. Which is why, it is not a good policy for elite colleges to give preferential treatment for rich donors’ children, they already started ahead in the starting line, give common folks, who often are more driven and equally smart, a fighting chance to narrow the wealth gap.
@ websensation: “I rather have colleges be transparent and reserve let’s say 70% of spots based on merits and 30% to special interests groups to the colleges. That way, normal applicants could care less how the colleges decide on the remaining 30%.”
“Normal applicants”? Hasn’t this already been highlighted up thread somewhere?
Those applicants who may be designated a member of a social interest group, or, as I think someone here put it, 'meets some part of the institutional needs" of a college or uni, perfectly fall within the realm of 'normal. I’m 100% positive of this.
Outside of picking that aspect of the tone of your statement apart, hasn’t it been shown here that there is no consensus on what the unis look for as the one true determining factor for why one or the other student is admitted?
@observer12 I will make my statement clear and not contradictory - Rich people that are willing to give their money and themselves to causes are entitled to perks others don’t get including college admissions. I don’t want to be ambiguous.
I so tire of the complaining by people when they are not even willing to donate $5, $25 or $50 or $1000, etc., to a college fundraiser (that they easily could do) because they expect only the evil rich people to step up and do it. In most situations, (kardashians excluded, ha) those rich people or their family earned it. I thank them for being generous with their riches. I don’t resent their success and contributions to society or others, and hope they are rewarded, yes, even in the college admissions process. There is still a lot of opportunity to be had in this country if people quit looking for someone to blame and are willing to get off the couch and work for it. But if one keeps thinking “the man is holding them down” they are likely to remain on said couch.
@gallentjill
Maybe we need to have more mega donors like Bloomberg then!
And with good education that resulted in upward mobility, in one or two generations, we might be able to increase the majority of American family’s income and thus reduce the number of low SES families.
My kids took the SAT at ages 12 and 11 respectively. Someone who heard that without proper context might put out family in the “starting to cram early” tiger parent bucket. In fact it was to qualify them for a talent contest, which encourages tests before age 13. They took a couple of practice tests to get them used to the format, and then took the SAT.
It was a great experience for them in that having taken it young, they had no fear of standardized tests. They felt no pressure when it was time in junior year to take the PSAT and the ACT, and then later the SAT purely for a confirming score.
If any school system would have the “test cramming mentality”, you would think it would be our local high school, which has a mean SAT in the high 1300s. It might just be the parents I know, but it is not something I see at all. These tests are really just something to get out of the way.
I don’t get this. What is it to you that the donation is a charitable contribution? And, that doesn’t make it public funds. Public funds come from the municipality. The point was made that these donations often come from families that have a connection to the University and care about its mission. This is very different than selling seats to the highest bidder.
Why should they?! This is a private institution and still a fair market system. I would say if the child has the credentials he/she is more entitled to that spot than our progeny are. What makes your children more deserving? Because they are smart and wanting of a spot at an elite University? Join the club…dime a dozen. These families make a commitment to the University. Not just taking.
Actually, there are no formal strings attached, re: admitting one’s child/ren. I don’t think it’s legal, though someone can check the specifics on that. (Big donations are a lengthy process as both sides negotiate and have their lawyers review. Also, most of the biggest occur over a period of time, not an immediate check.) The customary legal wording allows a donor to give to an established program or create something new, subject to it meeting the colleges’ wants and needs, (as well as law.) Then, the U is beholden to that, with an exception. (Famous lawsuit challenged the current use of an old endowment at one Ivy and the plaintiffs/heirs won. All the rich colleges sat up and heeded.)
The exception. The colleges can (and ime, do) tag it all with, “Or as best fits the needs of the university” or words to that effect, which cover the fact that some donor prefs become outmoded, programs evolve or are closed, etc. Or over time, there are no longer kids who match that designation. Or law supercedes. Eg, you can no longer specify funds be used for white kids only.
These big donors get their own senior development rep, obviously. And that person isn’t promising an admit. There are plenty of cases where a donor kid is unsuitable. The bad news falls on that rep to deliver, after a vetting with admissions, another complex process. And this is well in advance of any app deadlines. And delicate. Of course, there can be borderline cases or whatever. But you really are not buying your way in. Not with the certainty some here assume.
Note that the scammers were not giving to a U directly. And frankly, 500k might make the coaches in question swoon, but a direct donation of that size is far from major pull at one of these wealthy colleges.
@blueskies2day “Rich people that are willing to give their money and themselves to causes are entitled to perks others don’t get including college admissions.”
I hope this is not ambiguous. If you are given a “perk” that is worth at least $500,000 (apparently that was just for USC so imagine what an Ivy would cost!) then the “donation” should not be tax deductible because charitable donations are not speeding money in return for a very valuable “perk”.
“Walk on’s” are not given recruited spots. The term “walk on” refers to those who try out to be on the team in the fall and generally fill the lower boats. Every now and then you have a stand out walk on but the top boats will be filled by top rowers who were identified in HS.
My point is the USC incident is an exception in that coxswains are rarely recruited. If they are they have been stand out Coxs from HS. Most Cox are the walk ons you keep mentioning. And the two women who were recruited as Coxs who never even set foot in a boathouse should have given the AD pause. That’s on USC but it’s not a widespread issue in the sport nationally.
This theme is not new on CC. Back in 2004-5, there were parents railing at how rigged the system supposedly was, while at the same time lamenting how much they wanted their own children to be admitted to this supposedly rotten system. I don’t know how true that is of anyone here, this year (maybe not true at all), but it strikes me as rather illogical that so many people – on and off CC – will do both legal and illegal, moral and immoral, things to obtain an “elite” ticket.
I’ve always been too logical for my own good. If I hate a system – and if there are all alternatives to that system to accomplish the same or similar goal – I choose the system I despise less (or like more). Most of us are kind of “bound” to particular monopolies, loosely – one federal and one state tax agency, one major utility, maybe fewer than a handful of high-speed internet connections. But there are dozens of high quality – excellent to outstanding – colleges and college systems, each with various ways of determining admission and various pathways to be admitted.
My daughter’s education at one of the three top elites was funded by rich alumni of that university. Each year the financial aid office contacted me and her to let us know the names of those generous givers, and each year I made sure she wrote them thank-you letters.
I am still thankful, and I’m sure there are lots of parents like me.
I have a suggestion (tongue-in-cheek…almost).
Let’s create an actual University of Spoiled Kids (of course, we’ll call it a different name, say “Hugward”) for kids of those rich and famous who are bent on prestige and rubbing shoulders with other rich and famous. It will have posh dorms, easy and fun classes, and admission spots will go to the highest bidder. Money earned this way (presumably a lot) will go to a scholarship fund for applicants to top colleges, awarded exclusively on financial need and merit - and merit will consider all meaningful ECs equally. Then if colleges will have institutional needs to accept fencers with subpar scores, celebrity kids for publicity, or oboe players from Kentucky, they can give them their own scholarships.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Your kids didn’t cram for the SAT. Mine didn’t either. That doesn’t invalidate the point that many people are doing this. There are signs for SAT camp all over our town. My point is that the test score arms race is already here and it isn’t going away. Limiting test takers to one test is only going to make that worse, not better.
By the way, your experience of having ridiculously gifted and talented children is not the norm. It may seem like the norm on these boards where apparently everyone came out of the womb doing calculus, but it simply isn’t. It is also the reason I’m very glad my kids never got addicted to CC. This place makes me feel like a dunce. I can only imagine what it does to anxious teens.
@epiphany “My daughter’s education at one of the three top elites was funded by rich alumni of that university. Each year the financial aid office contacted me and her to let us know the names of those generous givers, and each year I made sure she wrote them thank-you letters.”
That is fantastic! I’m so glad your daughter appreciates those rich alumni funded it!
I do not understand why that is relevant unless your point is that those rich alumni would NOT have funded her scholarship had the university just put their children in the same pile as everyone else instead of giving them a special preference. That seems cynical. Why not choose to believe they donated because they loved the school and appreciate the education they received there? (Like the alums who can only afford to donate $50 do.) That is what makes a donation “charitable”. That it is not because they expect to get something in exchange.
I am suggesting having the children of rich donors’ application treated like everyone else’s. Why is that controversial unless people believe they would not donate if their children were not admitted if they hit some low bar in admissions. In which case it is not really a donation, in my opinion, because they expect something in return.
This is all very simple. Everyone wants the educational Masserati.
No one wants to settle for the practical Camry education. It’s doesn’t convey the same accomplishment, status and envy among our peers.
Although they can both safely help you travel to the same exact spot in life.
But they seem to say different things to the world.
And we are mad that some rich people can buy these, some great athletes, friends of the Masserati dealer get a better deal and some are donated to people who can’t even a afford a car at all. And the rest of us are just mad.
And everyone who wants the Masserati has equal credit scores. Regardless of abiiity to pay for one.
When offered the Camry and many times for much less than book value, it’s just not that cool.
Works well in Canada, where consistency of high school courses and grades within provinces is trusted, and the UK, where high school courses have embedded standardized final exams. So no extra standardized tests are needed.
Places where high school records are very untrusted do the opposite, basing university admission on tests only.
The US is in between in this respect, with partially trusted high school records, so standardized tests help measure the high school records. Note that US students applying to universities in Canada and the UK need external standardized tests.
This situation focuses on wealthy parents bribing their kids into elite schools. There is also the issue of politically connected people (not politicians necessarily) calling up their state rep and asking if s/he can pull some strings and get their denied snowflake into the state flagship.
