@dolemite almost similar to how people can get tickets to see Hamilton. But that truly is a lottery.
In your suggested method are the results publicly announced?
Winners not publicly named so Richie can attend stigma free. Could be a running high-bid auction ending at a specific time or better you only get to submit 1 bid - if there are 5 slots then the top 5 bids win a slot. No need to announce what the winning bids were so as to maximize highest bids from many people for many years.
Yes, to an extent, but I think people already try to game the system with information gleaned from access to alumni networks, top notch GC, and expensive private college counselors and consultants.
Or if they are endowing scholarships shouldn’t they be named?
There are plenty of scholarships endowed by individuals and organizations and the recipients of finaid know the names and are usually asked to thank the benefactors or even meet with them.
Perhaps the excessive focus on elite universities has to do with the perception that the US is moving in the direction of becoming a Wall Street plutocracy, and attending an elite university is the most obvious gateway to entering the ruling class of such (i.e. the top 0.1%), as opposed to becoming a peon (i.e. the bottom 99%) in an economy where peons face declining economic prospects. Of course, the perception that admission to elite universities is not “fair” (i.e. heavy overrepresentation of inherited wealth, leaving only about half of the space available for those from peon families) does not help.
Whether or not these perceptions are or become true, they may have significant influence over some students and parents who have an “elite or bust” mentality, and are more prone to complain about any unfairness they may see.
I agree in significant part with ucbalumnus, but not entirely. “The perception that the US is moving in the direction of becoming a Wall Street plutocracy”–perhaps exaggerated, perhaps the current situation has always been the case (and I was just less aware of it), but it does seem to me that power and wealth are aggregating more than they had in many eras in the past. Casual reading suggests that in the “Age of the Moguls” and in the 1920’s there may have been a similar aggregation of wealth, but I am no economist. Others who know might post on this issue. I am concerned for my young relatives’ future, since they have not entered the “Masters of the Universe” class.
Elite universities as the most obvious gateway to entering the ruling class: check.
Elite or bust mentality: I don’t have that. To the extent that my previous posts give the impression that I do have it, on behalf of a young friend–borrowing from the restaurant analogy, it’s the food in his case, not the A-list celebs and the super-rich who also dine at Harvard. (And he did not apply to Harvard, in any case.)
Being more prone to complain about unfairness: I think that at least LadyMeowMeow will agree with me here. It’s not the “elite or bust” mentality that causes our complaints. Harvard’s institutional motto is “Veritas.” So we expect some “Veritas” out of it. As it stands, I at least am reminded somewhat of the remarks of the chorus of the Mikado, about Pooh-Bah, “This haughty youth, He speaks the truth, Whenever he finds it pays.” That’s not exactly the stern stuff of “Veritas.” I don’t think admissions is playing straight with the applicants, unless they are publicly acknowledging the special consideration for children of major donors. Perhaps they actually do that, in which case I retract. I haven’t gone burrowing on the Harvard web site to see how much/whether it is acknowledged.
Just to save time: The argument that the development admits have to meet the same high standards as anyone else is not the same as the argument that their odds are the same as anyone else’s, independent of family donation history, once those standards have been met.
There’s also the factor that if the elite colleges have had a demonstrated past history of admitting EVEN ONE legacy/developmental students who didn’t meet the high standards for their time, it’s understandably reasonable why some…especially those who oppose such practices would view statements by the same colleges that “legacy/developmental admits must meet the same high standards” with some deep skepticism.
One public famous case in point which was reported in the mass media and an uncle knew a bit about from overlapping with him at one Ivy for a couple of years…the case of W at Yale.
Another case I know of from a case with a family friend, the case of the son of a notable Chinese novelist who was admitted in the '70s because several influential deans/Profs who knew of the novelist & his work and found the son was about to apply to colleges. They actually solicited and encouraged him to get his son to apply by guaranteeing his acceptance. This despite having what even the novelist father later admitted to my father was a lackluster HS academic record from a English language private school in HK. Unfortunately, this case ended in tragedy as the son found he couldn’t handle the academic workload at the Ivy and committed suicide at the end of the semester*. My father found out when he met the novelist friend who was in the US to wrap up his son’s affairs and to prepare for his son’s funeral.
- My father cited this case for reasons why he had serious misgivings about my attending Oberlin for undergrad as he was concerned I may end up like that son in light of my own subterranean HS GPA...albeit from a public magnet like BxSci or Stuy. I ignored his concerns, went, and did fine. Ironically, I ended up taking some intermediate/advanced graduate classes at the very same Ivy in question and found the workload to be quite manageable.
There’s so much confusion about the holistic “high standards,” (CC talks of this all the time, so that’s not pointed at anyone.) But saying even one disappointing legacy/donor admit breeds skepticism misses that any one student who struggles and stumbles can cause a ripple effect for a few years, depending on the reasons for the admit. (Can be anything, including taking that promising kid from the suburban hs, rather than another one from a powerhouse hs, like Stuy.) Remember it’s an art, not a science.
@Dolemite - that’s what they have now, just on a quiet rolling basis. When Jared Kushner’s dad pledges 2.5 mill to Harvard, that does exactly (in a roundabout way) what you suggest. Harvard has very generous Fin Aid. It comes from the endowment (a “hedge fund with a University attached.”) Jared would not have gotten into Harvard as a “regular” applicant, but his “auctioned” admissions adds to the fin aid pool (indirectly.)
But most legacy admits are simply admitted due to legacy. No one has time to look up how much a legacy parent gave over the years, and frankly whether your parents gave 100 bucks a year to annual pledge drive or 1000 bucks a year, it doesn’t matter that much. And the parents giving the big $$, they are already on a special list already - and don’t need to be legacy btw. You want to give any school a million or two, you’re probably going to get a kid in.
But I also know a number of people who are Trustees at highly competitive colleges and not all their kids go to those schools. Each has sent only one kid to the school they are on the board of, so it’s not a completely gamed system for anyone, unless you’re giving seven figures. And really, if you’re giving seven figures, Harvard, Duke, USC, Chicago, Tufts… will it really mater?
In light of QM’s earlier comment (qualified vs different odds,) I’d just have to nag, CaliDad202, ‘what’s your source’ for “Jared would not have gotten into Harvard as a “regular” applicant” or “most legacy admits are simply admitted due to legacy?”
CC is full of disappointed parents whose kids got rejected from the alma mater.
How do you know that this is the case?
Doesn’t it seem logical to suppose that two parents who are intelligent and well educated would go on to have children who are also intelligent and well educated? That these parents would likely value education, and as graduates of elite schools, probably have the means to provide their children with an environment highly conducive to learning, full of enrichment activities, etc.? And that therefore, the children of elite college grads are just as likely (if not more so) than the average non legacy of being completely qualified to attend elite schools?
It seems really strange to me to automatically assume that legacy kids who are admitted to their parents’ elite schools are unqualified and are admitted solely because of their legacy status. We know that many legacy kids are NOT admitted; so it just seems really really far fetched to me that the ones who are accepted are not top notch students, just as qualified as any other admitted student.
If “most legacy admits are simply admitted due to legacy”, Harvard wouldn’t deny ~70% of its legacy applicants (and Yale ~80%): http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/
Most legacy applicants who do apply (recall, sometimes a legacy kid isn’t a fit and is politely encouraged to look elsewhere) are well-qualified in the context of the overall applicant pool. Given that a parent went to Harvard, the family likely has a strong respect for education and higher-than-average socioeconomic status; therefore the kid has probably gone to a good or excellent school, had access to lots of educational and other opportunities and presented a strong application. The top 20-30% of that pool is objectively excellent - the cream of the legacy applicants - and if the family is wealthy and has been making donations, so much the better. They’re waved in, and rightly so. They belong at Harvard, and as full payers and donors, they and their families subsidize the experience for everyone else.
Was money involved in their admission? Of course it was - it’s been involved at every stage of their lives, and their parents may well have been big donors. Did they buy their way in, though? I don’t think anyone can reasonably say that.
If this thread is purporting to discuss how wealthy families manipulate admissions, the real issue lies with how money at all levels makes a better applicant. Not with legacies per se, legacies from wealthy families or some very small number of development cases, but with the fact that if your family can afford to live in a good school district (or possibly send you to private school), support you in your extracurricular interests and maybe pay for a little tutoring and test prep, you’re playing chess and poor kids are playing checkers.
Yes, this is the biggest effect of wealth.
However, it is the case that colleges can adjust their admissions criteria and processes to increase or decrease such effect on the admission class (beyond the effect of a few development admits). For example, required SAT subject tests can screen out some students in disadvantaged high schools where counselors may not mention them until it is too late. Some colleges have changed them to recommended, basically a way of saying that those from wealthy backgrounds are still expected to submit them, but there may be some slack for applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds in this area. Legacy is also a way to tip the admission class toward higher income backgrounds, while first generation tips the other way.
If you look at HYP SAT scores, the bottom 10% of the matriculating class isn’t impressive academically. So who are these students would have been slightly above average at flagship U(legacies, athletes, development admits)?
I think the poster meant that most legacy admits are admitted as legacies not as development admits.
This same phenomenon occurs at all of the elite boarding and day schools. Andover, Trinity in NYC etc are filled with children of these super wealthy potential donors
This is not quite true. The alumni office tracks how much and how involved an alum has been. I know at my kid’s school those special alumni’s kids applications are put in a special folder and are given tours/interviews when visiting the school. An alum doesn’t need to be giving a lot of money to be considered special, consistent involvement with the school is also highly valued.
Not many of us like to considering this, but there are consulting firms out there that are charging fees in helping families getting into those elite schools through development. It is not as simple as going to the development office and say, “How much would it take for me to get my kid into your school?” Those consultants would broker the deal, and this is especially the case for wealthy internationals. My understanding is those consultants wouldn’t even start a conversation unless the fund is put in an escrow first.
The study as formulated sounds odd. Why compare Harvard legacies only to Yale and Princeton legacies instead of all non-Harvard legacies? Beyond that, if the study shows no benefit to being a legacy, why keep the study internal? Why not make it public?