how much does having a parent who works at the University of Chicago help?

[MegaraGirl]

<p>how much does this help in getting accepted?</p>

[unalove]

<p>No idea.</p>

<p>Your last name is not O’Neill or Pearson, I take it, otherwise you wouldn’t ask the question ;-)</p>

<p>Children of faculty are probably treated similarly to children of legacies… unless you’re otherwise unqualified for the school, it seems a foolish move for the undergraduate admissions department to war with another university department. Then again, I don’t know if the admissions office feels these political pressures from without. They probably do.</p>

<p>At the same time, make sure your application is in top form.</p>

[MegaraGirl]

<p>yeah, i tried to make my essays and everything on the application be the best. i took the hardest classes and stuff.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>unalove, </p>

<p>You do know that legacies get no special admissions treatment, other than waiving the application fee?</p>

<p>I have no insider knowledge about faculty or staff kids, but I suspect it makes no difference for them either. </p>

<p>Children of powerful, famous or influential folks get breaks, so if the parent happens to be U faculty or staff and happens to be…you get the idea.</p>

[unalove]

<p>That’s the university’s official line about legacies, but I don’t know if that’s true. Granted, we don’t really have the big money donors the way Harvard does, so we have no reason to admit kids because they are legacies… but the info is available to the admissions office on the application, and I’d be surprised if they didn’t pay at least some attention to it.</p>

<p>But because I don’t have concrete evidence of such, I guess you have a better case.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>Unalove, </p>

<p>You could be right, but consider this: In contrast to Harvard and their ilk, Chicago publicly states they don’t give preference. Why would they say they don’t then go ahead and do so? Those that do give preference no doubt gain much of the benefit from the perception of preference. And most of this gain comes curiously before their kids are old enough to enter college. some interesting published research has shown a significant drop-off in donations from alums whose kids have crossed the college threshold. </p>

<p>Also consider UofC’s historic low alum giving rate…</p>

[unalove]

<p>Haha, yeah, that’s definitely part of it. </p>

<p>I know of one person who got in on a legacy/money bump who would most likely not be attending this school otherwise. (The other schools he got into besides Chicago were much less selective). He hates it here, which makes sense: the academic environment here is not right for him. </p>

<p>My initial impression: “We have people like that here?”</p>

<p>I know of a few students whose parents/family members went here, received doctorates here, etc. the kids could have easily gotten in without the connection, so maybe there wasn’t a bump for them.</p>

[Hanna]

<p>It was ~10 years ago, but I’m certain that I got special treatment (double undergrad legacy plus many-times-over grad legacy; parent on the med school faculty). I doubt I would have qualified for the wait list – much less have been accepted off the wait list – without some kind of edge. Plus the whole pattern was very strange. I didn’t hear from them on time, and they eventually gave a decision over the phone when we called to harass them.</p>

<p>Upshot: I think they do care, at least when the connections are very heavy.</p>

[Cosmos]

<p>I have a friend whose dad is a Chicago cop and gets his whole education at U of C for free because of it!</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>So Hanna, did you attend? Did you like it? How did you do?</p>

[GroovyGeek]

<p>Don’t know if this applies to Chicago, but at most universities children of faculty only have to meet the academic criteria and they are in, tuition-free. The tuition counts as a taxable benefit to their parents.</p>

[ArielTriton]

<p>really? is that true?</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>GG, what you say may be true at less selective universities, but I can assure you it is NOT true at places like Chicago or Harvard, both of which I have personal knowledge. </p>

<p>I can also assure you that the tuition benefit you refer to is almost always treated as a tax-free benefit.</p>

<p>Other than that, good post.</p>

[GroovyGeek]

<p>

GG, what you say may be true at less selective universities, but I can assure you it is NOT true at places like Chicago or Harvard, both of which I have personal knowledge.

It may not be an automatic at Chicago or Harvard, but there IS a very strong preference, probably the equivalent of 200 points or so on an SAT. An otherwise unremarkable candidate that is in the middle of the applicant pool academically speaking will almost surely get in as the dependent of a faculty or staff member. Just like you, I have first-hand information about that from a couple of universities, one very selective (Columbia). There is a reason they ask this question on the applications.</p>

<p>

I can also assure you that the tuition benefit you refer to is almost always treated as a tax-free benefit.

There does not appear to be an IRS ruling on the subject, and different universities interpret it differently. I did some Googling, some universities claim that undergraduate tuition is tax free (e.g., Columbia), while others treat it as a taxable benefit (UNM). </p>

<p>[UNM</a> Business Policy 3785](<a href=“http://www.unm.edu/~ubppm/ubppmanual/3785.htm]UNM”>http://www.unm.edu/~ubppm/ubppmanual/3785.htm)

Under current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, the value of tuition benefits received by domestic partners and certain dependents is considered taxable income to the employee. The value of the tuition benefit will be included as compensation on the employee’s W-2 form filed with the IRS

</p>

<p><a href=“Human Resources”>Human Resources;

<p>

If the tuition benefit is for an undergraduate course, it is not considered taxable income unless the student covered by a staff member’s Tuition Exemption Benefit is taking the course as part of a graduate degree program.</p>

<p>If the IRS challenges the University’s interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code with regard to tuition benefits, you may be liable for income tax on the cash value of the benefits, plus any penalty and interest assessed.

</p>

<p>In other words, there are not absolutes, and the “almost always” statement made above is incorrect.</p>

<p>

Other than that, good post.

There really is no need for sarcasm, I stated an opinion that turned out to be partially wrong. Point out my mistakes and let’s move on.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>GG, are you sure you understand this? I won’t debate the fine distinctions in the meaning of “almost always” or other value terms, but do want to deal with some points of substance. </p>

<p>Let’s take tax issues first. You provide two links quotes. The first discusses reimbursement to employees for courses taken by employees. (I doubt our kids would be considered employees. ) The second is directed at “domestic partners and certain dependents”. This is an issue in the tax code, because in some jurisdictions, as I understand it, domestic partners not married are not considered spouses so benefits to them and their children can be taxable. I know of no case where a tuition break to children of employees of a higher ed institution was considered taxable. Some faculty and a very few staff also get a portable benefit where their home institution pays tuition at any other institution. This has had a more controversial tax status, but is still tax free. </p>

<p>Regarding admissions edges, I have first hand knowledge of the results co-workers achieved at Harvard and Chicago, and indirect knowledge of the results at several other elite colleges. Based on my knowledge, as well as the published ed literature I’ve seen, a 200 point benefit is beyond credibility. Even legacy breaks are not of this magnitude. IF you have a published (heck, even a website) to support such a claim, I’d love to see it. I would also love to see some published evidence to back up the assertion you first made about "only have to meet the academic criteria and they are in, tuition-free. "</p>

<p>Happy Thanksgiving…</p>

[GroovyGeek]

<p>

@newmassdad

GG, are you sure you understand this?

</p>

<p>I am no tax accountant, but I can certainly read :-). If you take a careful look at both links I provided, you will see that both deal with the same topic. In particular, here is the text at the top of the link whose relevance you question:</p>

<p>

The Dependent Education Program is designed to provide an opportunity for educational assistance to the spouse, domestic partner, and/or dependent children of full-time permanent faculty and full-time regular staff. Undergraduate tuition for up to eight (8) consecutive semesters, not including the summer session, may be granted to eligible students under this employee benefit program.

</p>

<p>The link definitely does not “discuss reimbursement to employees for courses taken by employees”, as you imply. As far as preference for children of faculty members at elite universities, here is but one example that has stirred the pot:</p>

<p>[Golden</a> assails admissions preferences for the wealthy at bookstore talk - Campus News](<a href=“http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/10/02/CampusNews/Golden.Assails.Admissions.Preferences.For.The.Wealthy.At.Bookstore.Talk-2319118.shtml]Golden”>http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/10/02/CampusNews/Golden.Assails.Admissions.Preferences.For.The.Wealthy.At.Bookstore.Talk-2319118.shtml)
[The</a> Daily Princetonian - Reporter Golden blasts unfair legacy admissions](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/11/16/news/16620.shtml]The”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/11/16/news/16620.shtml)
[A</a> Review of The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden](<a href=“http://calitreview.com/2007/04/24/the-price-of-admission-how-americas-ruling-class-buys-its-way-into-elite-colleges-and-who-gets-left-outside-the-gates-by-daniel-golden/]A”>http://calitreview.com/2007/04/24/the-price-of-admission-how-americas-ruling-class-buys-its-way-into-elite-colleges-and-who-gets-left-outside-the-gates-by-daniel-golden/)</p>

<p>

This includes legacy preference (for) anywhere from 10 percent to 25 percent (of those) admitted, at three to four times the rate of admission…</p>

<p>Children of faculty and staff put the admissions staff in a particularly tough position. Since employees receive a tuition discount, admissions officers are often wary of placing them under financial stress by rejecting their children.

</p>

<p>Here is another one from the WSJ with specific numbers.
[WSJ.com</a> - Many Colleges Bend Rules To Admit Rich Applicants](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Rich_Applicants.htm]WSJ.com”>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Rich_Applicants.htm)</p>

<p>

Under the 150-point “Selection Index” Michigan uses for undergraduate admissions, a review committee may award 20 “discretionary” points to children of donors, legislators, faculty members and other key supporters.

</p>

<p>Let’s do some math with these numbers: 20/150=13% of admissions decision comes from such preference. The median SAT at Michigan is 1980, 13% of that is 256. Voila.</p>

<p>Yet more proof from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
[The</a> Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2005/01/faculty/]The”>http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2005/01/faculty/)</p>

<p>

Anthony P. Carnevale: Our research confirms your more casual findings. There seems to be a pronounced tendency to give preferences to the children of faculty. This was not only true in the most selective 146 colleges but in the next most selective tier of 588 colleges.</p>

<p>The notion that the children of faculty and senior management and the children of nonsupervisory workers have the same chance for admission to selective colleges is either naive or cynical.

</p>

<p>Googling “admission preference for children of faculty” produces many, many, many more links with supporting data.</p>

[newmassdad]

<p>GG, </p>

<p>I stand corrected. Both of your reimbursement links are referring to undergrad reimbursement. And BOTH say it is tax free unless it is to (UNM) “domestic partners and certain dependents” or (Columbia) “same-sex domestic partners and the dependents of same-sex domestic partners is considered taxable income by the federal government”.</p>

<p>So, Tax Free? Please show me.</p>

<p>Regarding the preference, you unfortunately stopped your quote too soon above. So let me repost it with the rest:

Children of faculty and staff put the admissions staff in a particularly tough position. Since employees receive a tuition discount, admissions officers are often wary of placing them under financial stress by rejecting their children. These children, though, are already advantaged because their parents “are highly educated, and studies show that gives a boost to children in achievement,” Golden said.

</p>

<p>Having “highly educated” parents who give their children a “boost” in “achievement” is hardly the same as “but at most universities children of faculty only have to meet the academic criteria and they are in, tuition-free.”</p>

<p>Regarding U Mich, interesting quote. What caught my eye was the part about 20 points to “donors, legislators…and other key supporters”. Guess faculty have lots of company there! In 2003 University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said "It is true that a perfect SAT score yields just 12 points in that system. " Curious how you calculate that a 20 point boost elsewhere then is the same as a 256 point SAT boost, since the most help one could get from the SAT there is 12 points, and these kids get 20.</p>

<p>Carnevale? I totally agree with him, especially when talking about the top 734 universities (146 + 588), which is what HE’s referring to. But I am referring to highly selective universities. If we’re only talking about the Ohio States and such, then OK you win. But that was part of my original point, if you go back and read the post.</p>

<p>So, again, please provide me with some evidence that highly selective universities give “a very strong preference,”. And tax the benefit.</p>

<p>I do not see it from any of your posts.</p>

<p>Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I did.</p>

[GroovyGeek]

<p>NMD,</p>

<p>Goulden’s book is specifically about the Ivies. Yes, it focuses on “development preferences”, but also clearly identifies children of faculty as the recipients of unearned benefits and preferential treatment. Unless you consider the Ivies to be unrepresentative of “highly selective universities”, I would say that this provides “some evidence”.</p>

<p>It seems that we have engaged in a similar discussion before
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/398314-one-my-parents-work-university-chicago.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/398314-one-my-parents-work-university-chicago.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Your position appears to have shifted since last time, when you stated “FWIW, there aren’t too many schools left that give a boost to staff kids”. Now you have backpedaled to limit that to “highly selective universities”, whatever that means. If being the child of a faculty member offers “no advantage,” and since you claim to be on the inside of the process, please explain why highly selective universities explicitly ask this question? Chicago’s links to the paper application appear to be broken so I cannot verify, but Columbia (the most selective school in the land) certainly asks “Is either parent a full-time employee of Columbia?” (bottom of the first white page)
<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/pdf/firstyearapp.pdf[/url]”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/pdf/firstyearapp.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Your response to the limited facts and figures I have provided has been “it ain’t so”, but you have offered no evidence to the contrary. You can choose to believe what you choose to believe, but I suspect that the readers of this board are getting tired of our back and forth. Go ahead and put in the last word with another rebuttal, and we then each go our ways.</p>

[lfan14]

<p>interesting. what are the 146 most selective universities mentioned in that article that give preferences? does anyone have a list of them?</p>

[saeraxD]

<p>A couple of my friend’s parents are UC faculty/professors, and apparently UC will cover tuition for any school (up to UC’s tuition, at least). I know that Argonne employee’s children are entitled to half tuition along with a chance at the “argonne” scholarship (which is…usually only given to 2/3 kids a year, and you can imagine the competition).</p>