<p>And I go to college on a scholarship paid for by an individual donor who didn't buy any spots for her kids with the funds she donated. So I think there's hope.</p>
<p>I've not read the entire thread, so someone may have already brought this up. Let's look at it from the other side. Is it really fair that the super rich be asked to spend (in effect) millions of dollars on tuition (donations) when their children absorb so little of the education.</p>
<p>On a more serious side, I agree with Marite. There is probably a benefit to this Robinhood system.</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>Well, the small donations I make towards scholarships at various schools are not quid pro quo for my kids. And there are thousands of other donors like me. There must be, to make an impact. And there are some very large individual donors who donate without demanding a quid pro quo. But there are not enough to sustain large scholarship programs across all disciplines.
Beyond scholarships, colleges have many other needs, too.<br>
And not just colleges. We were at a museum last weekend; practically every inch of space was named after a donor: not just exhibition spaces, but even a staircase and an alcove. I was rather taken aback.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the selective colleges just can't win. If they base admission on the AI (SATs + GPA) then they are elitist. It's not fair to the kids who are less gifted academically or can't afford tutors, but who excel in some other leadership or athletic area. </p>
<p>If they take the holistic view, then they are no longer a meritocracy. </p>
<p>If we had strictly a test score admissions system, there would still not be enough space at Harvard. </p>
<p>So, if a few families (fewer than in the past, I might add) are allowed a spot for a qualified BWRK, in exchange for the ability to fund scholarships, it's really O.K. with me. </p>
<p>I think you have to look at the Greater Good.</p>
<p>Ben, nobody cares that these kids are "less good", just like nobody cared if Jodi Foster was less good than her suitemates at Yale, or that Sarah Hughes got a B in Spanish in High school (to name two "hooked" candidates we've all heard of) Jodi brought something to the table that Yale wanted.... in addition to being qualified academically; Sarah brought something to the table in addition to being qualified, just as the physics olympiad kid, and thousands of other kids that we've never heard of do as well. If I had my way, the elite schools would admit fewer lacrosse players and more poets but that's my bias and that's the way the system works. If I don't like it, I can send my kids to school in Europe where they don't give a ^&* about extra-currics. Unfortunately, in Europe my late-blooming son who did so well at MIT would have been tagged "Not college material" in 7th grade so he wouldn't have gone to college at all, but hey, every system has its pitfalls.</p>
<p>Ben-- you are very naive if you think that the dollars (federal and corporate) which flow to engineering and science would be replaced by money earmarked for the humanities. Research money exists to create intellectual property which in turn creates a stream of more money down the road.... patents, new products and new markets, etc. There's a reason why the shiniest buildings on most campuses belong to the biotech department.... and a reason why medieval studies gets tucked away in a charming victorian with no air conditioning.</p>
<p>Blossom -- the money that goes to support undergraduate education at Caltech isn't donated for research; it's given (often through unrestricted funds) by generous philanthropists and business leaders who appreciate the university's mission. So saying that the funding is primarily for specific science/engineering research is itself a little naive.</p>
<p>As for
[quote]
nobody cares that these kids are "less good", just like nobody cared if Jodi Foster was less good than her suitemates at Yale
[/quote]
--- I care! And so do 75% of Americans who oppose legacy preferences, etc. Saying you think it's okay is different from saying nobody cares.</p>
<p>Jodi Foster is probably a bad example, in any case. It could be argued that she got in on her own merits in extracurricular pursuits. Children of potential donors is really the problem. I agree that everyone can bring something different, but I'd draw the line if the thing you're bringing is a wealthy parent.</p>
<p>How do you know that Caltech donors are not 'expecting' anything in return? Face it, money given by those rich people makes it possible for many other families to send their kids to schools that cost as much as the yearly median income.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know that Caltech donors are not 'expecting' anything in return?
[/quote]
They can expect anything they want -- they sure ain't getting it*, unlike people who give lots of money to some other schools. The lack of admissions breaks for donors is well-known at Caltech, and people give big money in unrestricted gifts nonetheless. Hmm.... clearly, university funding depends inexorably on quid pro quo.</p>
<hr>
<p>*Well, I'll correct the statement -- they expect things like getting an asteroid named after them -- as Caltech did for $600M donor Gordon Moore. A nobler form of compensation than getting some underqualified kid into school!</p>
<p>If one wants a picture of admissions, I think we should avoid the anecdotes, and go by the numbers. Some, though not all of them are available. But we only know about those matriculating, not about the applicant pools (with some small exceptions).</p>
<p>At H., roughly 50% of students are full-freight paying customers. To be able to afford $180k+ over four years requires an income of roughly $160k and up. $160k is the floor (with some rare exceptions - 4 college-age kids at the same time etc.) This puts 50% of the student body in the top 3% economically of all U.S. families (and top .5% internationally - there are lots of full-pay international students). Several years ago, the Crimson ran some data which indicated that the median income of the full-payers was $305k - it would be higher today. But the major point, really, is not about income - but assets - and no one is talkin'!</p>
<p>Of the remaining 50% (those receiving aid), approximately 7% are Pell Grant recipients, meaning their families incomes are in the bottom two quintiles. And of those receiving aid, roughly half (or a little more) are in the top quntile, with family incomes between $90k-$160k. What this means is that 18% of the student body - the middle, and much of the upper middle class - comes from families with incomes between $40k-$90k. Since 10% of the student body is made up of African-Americans, and yet only 7% of the student body is made up of Pell Grantees, if a full half of low-income students were African American, it would mean that two-thirds of African-American matriculants are not. It's hard to mine the H. data for more.</p>
<p>There is more data available from my alma mater Williams. 55% receive no aid, which means the median income of students is well in excess of $160k (probably somewhere in the low $200k range). 9% are Pell Grant recipients. Half the students receiving aid are in the top quintile. Which means the "middle class" ($40k-90k) includes 13% of students, likely making Williams significantly less economically diverse than 25 years ago (I think that would be true at most of the "prestige" schools.) 11-14% of all students are legacies.</p>
<p>Now at Williams, you get another kind of cut. Some 40% of Williams students are varsity athletes, and another 10% are either club sports teams members or junior varsity. They have to fill up the sports teams; another violinist is "nice"; a women's soccer goalie is essential. So 50% of those attending have to be student-athletes. (Probably more - some attend, and decide not to play.) Likely 6-7% of legacies don't play varsity sports; maybe 2% of the student body is made up of developmental admits who don't play sports; Williams data suggests that URMs attending are less than half as likely to play a varsity or club sport - probably another 5% of the student body; same is true of the Pell Grantees. </p>
<p>What this likely means is that only a little more than a third of attending students don't fall in these categories, and when one refilters for income, much, much less than that.</p>
<p>These choices have impacts. Williams has data which shows only 12% of Asian-American applicants are accepted (and only 10% of matriculants are Asian-American.) But before one concludes that they are "discriminating", one must at least consider that it is likely that fewer Asian-Americans play varsity sports, are legacies, developmental admits, or Pell Grant recipients. It is likely that, once one pushes those aside, only 12% of ALL applicants are accepted.</p>
<p>While sports are not, percentagewise, as big a part of the campus at HYP as at Williams, I think you could do similar math there, and likely come to a reasonable hypothesis that admissions odds for a student coming from a family with income between $40-90k, not African-American or Hispanic, not a legacy (and obviously not a developmental admit) are no better than 1 out of 20. And I'd be willing to bet almost anything but my children that 30-50% of them are student-athletes. </p>
<p>I don't happen to think that's (or the admission of developmental admits is) a problem. But I think, from what has been described, Golden missed the big part of the story.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that taking an underqualified student is probably not doing that kid a favor, but what about the kid with average qualifications. In an Ivy League school someone with 2100 SATs and a 3.8 GPA certainly has the smarts to do the work. Is it unethical for this kid to have a one in 1.2 chance in getting in while everyone else has a one in five chance? I would argue that the Robinhood system makes possible for more college spots for the underprivleged than would otherwise be available (and nicer dorms). The colleges can take this kid without necessarily lowering their standards. Many of the rich might otherwise donate to fighting cancer or global hunger.</p>
<p>Possible Conflict of Interest Statement: I am not currently a multimillionaire nor am i related to one. I am not world famous.</p>
<p>"I would argue that the Robinhood system makes possible for more college spots for the underprivleged than would otherwise be available (and nicer dorms). The colleges can take this kid without necessarily lowering their standards."</p>
<p>This a very nice sentiment, and one I agree with, but the reality is that, in the main (with some exceptions), there is an inverse correlation between endowment and the percentage of low- or very low-income students among prestige colleges. And it's not because they don't exist. Gordon Winston has amply demonstrated that there are tens of thousands of low-income students who, if from another financial background, would well qualify for prestige college admissions. They don't attend because, in various ways, the colleges have signaled they are not wanted.</p>
<p>Most low income students do not aspire to HYP.<br>
I am in the happy position of being able to pay full fare for two kids, but I do not belong to the class of people who can buy a spot for my kids to the tune of several million dollars, or donate several million dollars out of the goodness of my heart for other people's kids to attend HYP. That makes my family part of the 50% customers Mini speaks about, but not part of the 1-2% that Golden is so exercised about. The 50% are not paying enough in tuition to offset their own kids' education, let alone that of others. It's the 1-2% who do so.</p>
<p>Let's face it. A Princeton education is not what will make the Frist kid succeed in life. He could have gone to Podunk U and still been able to ride on his dad's name and wealth. As Krueger and Dale have shown, it's the unconnected, less well-off kids who benefit the most from an HYP education. And they are most likely to the ones who benefit from the largesse of the big donors.</p>
<p>Blossom,</p>
<p>To me Hughes and Foster are off topic because they had hooks of their own. What we are really talking about here are hooks of the parents, not the student.</p>
<p>Myself, I am okay with borderline legacy/development admits but when it is clearly buying a spot than I feel it cheapens the reputation of the school. I have read a number of stats on legacy admits to schools and generally speaking there is a higher number of admits of legacies. However, using the objective criterea of SATs and GPAs these same students are well within a few points of the overall class.</p>
<p>As Levitt and Dubner point out in Freakonomics, academic capability is much more in line with those of the biological parents than any other measure. As such, it should not be surprising that the children of well educated people have a tendancy to be well educated themselves.</p>
<p>Unfortunately I disagree with Marite about the development dollars benefitting a large number of students. Here is my rationale, if development student A had not been admitted to school B then they would have gone elsewhere, perhaps school C. School C may very well have benefitted from the development dollars thus spreading the wealth across a broader range of schools. Those development dollars probably would have benefitted school C more than school B.</p>
<p>In fact, that is what I think happened to Duke. They were "stealing" development admits from certain Ivy league schools. They increased their endowment and their reputation. The question becomes, when does an institution stop or severely limit that practice so they do not damage their academic reputation.</p>
<p>Eagle:
I have not argued that development dollars should be confined to HYP.
Unfortunately, many schools below HYP practice "merit aid" using development dollars. Merit aid often goes to students who do not need financial aid and could have attended the school on their own dime. So the students who truly need finaid to attend a top school do not get it if the development dollars get diverted to a school that is using the merit money strategy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The question becomes, when does an institution stop or severely limit that practice so they do not damage their academic reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quite right. And I have not heard that HYP or Duke have damaged their academic reputation. In fact, I made the point earlier in the thread that despite its agressive courting of development admits, Duke's academic reputation has increased: it may be--speculation on my part--that Duke's development dollars has funded merit aid that helped it raise the academic profile of its incoming students. Vanderbilt used that particular strategy to attract Evil Robot, a student who had been admitted SCEA at Yale.</p>
<p>If my little calculation is correct, the 1-2% development admits at HYP are unlikely to have an impact on the academic experience of the 98-99% of the remaining students.</p>
<p>In one elite prep school six kids already got admission likely letter from elite colleges based on athletics recruitments for the 2011 college graduating class.</p>
<p>One from Harvard
One from Stanford
One from Yale
One from Princeton
One from Brown
One from Dartmouth</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I agree that Duke has raised their reputation over the last 50 years. With the number of articles in the WSJ and books commenting so much about the practice at Duke I believe that they may be at that transition point. Similarly, with the recent AA decision by the US Supreme Court it appears that many schools are working more on the economic diversity front.</p>
<p>Regarding how much the development admits have impacted certain schools, just look at their SAT and GPAs, the "objective" measures that they use to put together a class. No apparent drop in these measures at many schools. However, the demographic bubble could be covering up for some of this, who knows.</p>
<p>In one elite prep school six kids already got admission likely letter from elite colleges based on athletics recruitments for the 2011 college graduating class.</p>
<p>One from Stanford
One from Yale
One from Princeton
One from Brown
One from Dartmouth</p>
<p>And more recuritement are coming for athletes</p>
<p>Do you think Harvard is worried about denying rich kid A who ends up at Lake Forest and then donates a million dollars to its endowment? Dopes Yale get upset about the development cases it rejects who end up at Dickinson or Miami? Apologize to everyone for using these schools... they happen to be places where a few "rich kids" I know have ended up.</p>
<p>Yale has a lot more to lose by accepting unqualified rich kids than it has to gain by worrying about the potential donation down the road. Moreover, its alums would get a lot more excercised about a general dumbing down of the student body, which would cause much more institutional harm, than they are about the reality that not all of their progeny will get accepted.... a fact that virtually all of them accept, even if it doesn't make them happy or keep their checkbooks open.</p>
<p>Ben, you have posted on other threads about the fungibility of college funding, so I'm surprised at you claiming that scholarship donations and sponsored research are completely different dollars with absolutely no impact on the university at large. Pick a position and stick with it.... you can't argue both ways.</p>
<p>I guess, while Eagle also brings up some good counterpoints, Marite comes closest to representing my own thinking on this. To me, the question is not one of purity, as I will concede that ALL admissions reviews & policies & results are imperfect. That imperfection, i.m.o, extends to the following institutions & classes of institutions: secular privates of all levels of competitiveness, sectarian privates, and publics. (And yes, that includes the science/tech institutes such as Cal Tech and MIT.) I think that has to be acknowledged even were there not triple or quadruple the # of capable applicants than spots in many of those schools. But the perceived imperfection & the level of dissatisfaction & scrutiny is going to intensify when wonderful candidates are turned away. I think the pivotal issue is really one of magnitude. Are admissions manipulated or compromised <em>so</em> much in any particular case that the academic quality of the place is appreciably affected? I doubt that. It's just counter-intuitive that the upper privates would be willing to jeopardize intellectual standing for the sake of mega-dollars. I think they weigh each decision accordingly.</p>
<p>I also find it so interesting that there is so much railing away at the supposedly creative admission strategies of privates, but not a word is said about the far more <em>overt</em> (often) manipulation of admissions at publics, to satisfy in-State constituencies. I live in a State where this practice has been rampant in the past, and to some extent is still present. In the last few years it has been toned done, but to a significant extent there is overt trading on the "social engineering" concept, often without any visible compensating qualities that the student is bringing to that public. That is a different situation from the motivations that govern privates, who<em>first</em> look at level of qualifications, and then among overwhelming percentages of the highly qualified, further sort. Privates are looking at different priorities than publics. That is very different from <em>exchanging</em> academic quality for social, ethnic, etc. traits.</p>
<p>And as to the supplemental attributes, the reason that the privates look at significant e.c.'s is because they have observed in the past a correlation between outside achievement and future success (academically & beyond college), and between outside achievement and the values & competencies actually brought into the college classroom.</p>
<p>Newparent:</p>
<p>It's my understanding that athletes get likely letters early in the fall because of the recruitment cycle. S had a friend who received a likely letter in early October. He was an athlete and he was also a NMSF as well as minority.</p>