One family I know has buildings named for them on many prep school and college campuses and also is the name of a school at a major university. Their kid’s one requirement that could not be breached was not going to any prep school and college or university that had his last name on anything.
He went to an excellent college and it’s possible just his last name could have helped him get in anyway, but he did have the grades, stats, etc., that made him an attractive candidate regardless.
Sorry, but that is just unrealistic, as it depends on each application. Child of a President probably outweighs every other factor. A $10M donation outweighs a <1200 SAT. Most athletic hooks are really just tips. The rev/helmet sports get a lot more hook-ish for a handful of apps each year, but even then the football/hockey coach only gets a few of his top recruits at below academic standards. Other athletes, including walk-ons, better have at least one ‘academic’ factor, such as at least one 700 score, and/or good grades.
Regardless, what if selective college actually said, 'in the past five years, on average, we have admitted:
(just making numbers up)
10% Development
10% URM
20% legacy
5% faculty brats
10% athletic recruits
5% geographic diversity (US)
10% international
Thus, 30% no tips, no hooks. Altho, more like 45% if one includes the geo preferences.
Do you really believe that would make any difference to their application pool?
(Sorry, just not seeing it. We have kids at our HS who apply to H every year when they are barely in the top quartile…even though, H only accepts our Val most years.)
Not all states have widely affordable public options. For example, a student from a low-to-middle income family in rural Pennsylvania may find it difficult to afford any in-state public option there.
Exactly. But those PA residents/taxpayers should take that up with their state representatives, instead of focusing angst on the NE private colleges…
However, when students and parents realize the problem when the student is a high school senior, it is not likely that the problem can be solved legislatively in time for the student. So the student now, regardless of any political activism (often futile against entrenched interests and/or gerrymandered districts), will be applying in search of financial aid and/or scholarships, knowing that s/he does not have any financially realistic in-state public options. I.e. “because your college gives good financial aid and has my intended majors” may be the true answer to a “why [this college]?” question.
Also, legislative solutions, like many other things, are more likely to be available for those with large amounts of money, who can “purchase” legislators with campaign donations, or use money otherwise to influence legislators or stir up popular opinion on the subject that legislators may hear.
@lookingforward " I just don’t see the widespread abuse of admissons that others assume. An unqualified mega donor kid is zero shoo-in. Not accepted."
I already know that an unqualified mega donor kid is a zero shoo in. This is not about students who are “unqualified”. My example is not about a parent giving a $2 million donation to a coach so that so his kid who has never played that sport can get a recruiting spot. We both agree that is wrong.
But you seem to believe that putting the recruit applications of donors who give $2 million to the athletic department into a separate pile from the recruit applications of all the other students is fine as long as the recruit applications of donors who give $2 million who get admitted are still somewhat talented in the sport. Even if they aren’t nearly as talented or their academic records nearly as strong as half the aspiring recruits whose application goes in the non-$2 million donor pile and get turned down.
That’s also what colleges do for big donors – put their children in a separate admissions pile where they are admitted on standards other than merit. They are buying that advantage. We all know that. I’m just pointing out that the taxpayers are footing the bill for that advantage because it is considered a charitable donation with nothing given in return.
I think we can all agree that if a student is told that all he has to do to be admitted to this super elite school is have a 1400 SAT score, good grades, and play varsity sports they would love that because it would take a lot of the pressure off. But if they learned that actually, you also have to have parents willing to donate $2 million to the athletic department and if not, the likelihood of you being admitted to that super elite college with those stats is nil, they would probably not think of that $2 million “donation” as strictly “charitable” the way you do. It buys something that has such a clear value that people were willing to illegally bribe coaches for it (at a cut rate price!)
Again, you keep insisting these children of donors who DO get admitted are “qualified”. Then why not prove it by just putting their application in the general pool? Every time you post you avoid that question to tell me that the college won’t admit “unqualified” applicants. I know that. That’s why I used the athletic recruit example. The athletic department can accept a $2 million donation and say that the student is “qualified” because he lettered in the sport for his high school team so it is perfectly reasonable to give him a recruit spot over an all-state athlete from his school with better grades and standardized test scores. You seem to agree. The donation pays to get a kid who is “qualified” a spot that he would not get if he were in the general pool of admits. If it didn’t, there would be no need for a special pool for them.
When defenders of “hooks” point out that the “hooked” students are “qualified”, that presumably means that these students are able to do the work and graduate, which is different from being competitive for admission in the general applicant pool if they were “unhooked”.
They could state:
(1) Any special scoring systems that are in use of the kind that came out in the Harvard AE lawsuit.
(2) The number of donor admits and the GPA/SAT/ACT stats/scoring system breakdowns for donor admits
(3) The number of legacy admits and the GPA/SAT/ACT stats/scoring system breakdowns for legacy admits
(4) The number of athletic admits and the GPA/SAT/ACT stats for athletic admits
(5) The number of URM admits and the GPA/SAT/ACT stats for URM admits
(6) Whether and to what extent ability to pay (financial aid status) is functioning as a criterion under the guise of extracurricular activities/athletics/legacy. In this case it would be interesting to see the number of admits and amount of financial aid for students who are not athletes or URM.
This depends upon what you mean by “difference.” Knowing the truth is itself a very important difference. How families might act differently given their knowledge of truth would be for them to determine.
@ucbalumnus “When defenders of “hooks” point out that the “hooked” students are “qualified”, that presumably means that these students are able to do the work and graduate, which is different from being competitive for admission in the general applicant pool if they were “unhooked”.”
I agree! And if a student is such a superb athlete that the coach really wants him on the team, then nothing of value is exchanged for that “hook”.
But when that hook is achieved by a tax deductible donation being made, should that donation really be considered “charitable”?
College admissions officers may give some advantage to a student who is full-pay versus ones who needs a lot of financial aid, but the parents of the full-pay student isn’t making a tax deductible donation to purchase that advantage.
College admissions officers may give some advantage to students who are first generation or from poor backgrounds, but they don’t go into that pool because their parents make a tax-deductible contribution.
That’s my only point. One pool is something a parent can purchase for their child. And even get a tax-deduction.
I imagine that USC has much larger rosters and coaches have more leeway than the Ivies, so to lump sports at USC with Ivy League sports is not apples to apples. And I don’t really consider USC to be an “academic elite school.” This is what I know about Ivy League athletics, based on my experience with my son who plays a popular team sport at an Ivy: roster spots are quite limited for most sports and range from 6 to 16, depending on the team. There is significant attrition from teams due to injuries or overload (juggling athletics and academics are too much for some) and up to 40% leave the team by the end of sophomore year. This creates a problem for coaches who need to field a roster with enough athletes - there is just no room for fake athletes or those who cannot play well enough.
A LOT of parents travel with the team - almost everyone knows everyone else from parents, siblings, grandparents, etc., and we all spend days on end together, especially at away games. We all know each other and we know everyone’s background. It’s an extremely close-knit environment, so the notion that there are a few athletes who were accepted because their parents are big donors and not because of their athletic/academic ability is difficult to imagine. I have not seen it in my experience, which is why the situation at Yale is so surprising, but also, I believe, very unusual.
Why private college cost isn’t tax deductible?
Olivia Jade lost her Sephora makeup deal and mom lost Hallmark. Those will hurt.
What value would you get from knowing the GPA, ACT/SAT and scoring systems from the “hooked” groups you refer to in post #2907? If you want to know the number of admittees so you can make a calculated (whatever that might be) decision to have your student apply, or not, that is one thing. You seem to want certain hooked groups data, and for what? Is it so you can have an AHA! moment, as if you caught them in something? Knowing personal data breakdowns of each hooked group is frankly nobody’s business.
According to your argument you consider all Internationals admitted to be Hooked.
Well, in fact to be an International is rather an Anti- Hook at these elite colleges.
Two good examples are MIT and Dartmouth. Both schools publish the number of International applicants and admittances in their fact books.
Last year MIT made about 140 offers out of about 4.500 applicants ( 3.1% acceptance vs 7% of the overall pool).
Similarly , Dartmouth offered 150 spots out of 4,300 applicants ( 3.5% acceptance vs 8,6% of the overall pool).
What is more important both schools gave very generous FA, almost full ride, to the 75% and 63% repectively of the Internationals admitted ( despite the fact that Dartmouth is need aware for Internationals).
That shows that both school are looking for academic talent and the admitted students will definitely contribute to the high stats of the schools.
@bluebayou ,
Above post was a comment to your post.
“which is why the situation at Yale is so surprising, but also, I believe, very unusual.” Well it also happened at U Penn.
"We all know each other and we know everyone’s background. It’s an extremely close-knit environment, so the notion that there are a few athletes who were accepted because their parents are big donors and not because of their athletic/academic ability is difficult to imagine. "
Since there is no requirement for an athletic recruit to play, how would you know whether there are other students who aren’t with the team who got it? And that is exactly what people say about the students who get in because their families donated or for other reasons. Jared Kushner graduated from Harvard cum laude and the Trump children all have proven by their success that they deserved their seat. (Actually, having famous parents is not tax-deductible so a college admitting students for that reason isn’t pretending there is a charitable purpose to a donation so your child gets a special consideration pile instead of having to compete against all the students in the regular pile.)
The point is that it is highly unlikely that Kushner or Trump himself would have been admitted if they were in the regular pile. The donation bought them the special pile. That’s why colleges insist those children be in that special pile. Why all the effort to pretend that “qualified” means anything but “we know it is so unlikely that you would be admitted if you were compared to the students in the general pile that we need to put your application into a separate pile”? Isn’t that the reason those back doors exist? Because they serve an institutional purpose?
I came across two articles concerning former admissions officers and their reaction to the “story”:
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a26801977/admissions-counselor-interview-college-exam-scam/
Enlightening but not surprising, I would say.
It’s a payment for a service. However, it IS deductible, in part - public or private.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-benefits-for-education-information-center
@OHMomof2 Well, same service which is provided to others free of cost.
Is dropping a forgotten assignment off at school really evidence of helicopter parenting? Well, count me as guilty. By the way, I very clearly remember my own mom occasionally bringing me something that I forgot and I grew up pretty well.