<p>
[QUOTE]
Now I know how the game works, and we have told our 12th grade son, a top student, that we will not pay for him to attend Harvard or any other school where a significant number of meritorious students are excluded in order to build up the endowment.
[/QUOTE]
Why? Yes some students of the elite do take the place of other possibly more qualified students but if your son does get in why would you not let him? If its about the cost then I can understand, I was pretty close to not going to Stanford because of its cost but luckily for me financial aid pulled through. However if its just because a small percentage of the students bought their way in then I must disagree. Really I don't want to go into 'is an ivy degree worth it' but I don't think that not allowing your son to got to HYPSM because some people where able to get in on their father's dime is a good idea. This fact shouldn't be the deciding factor in your child's education IMHO.</p>
<p>Today must be "make wild assumptions as though they are facts" day:</p>
<p>Joe taxpayer is footing the bill for "much" of the education my d's are receiving at their respective "elite" institutions...(funny, I thought I wrote the checks...to the university, to the annual fund, and to the US treasury.)</p>
<p>The practice of considering the best long term financial interests of an elite, private institution when making some admissions decisions is dirty and corrupt. </p>
<p>Social pressure from non donators will change the way these schools practice admissions for the donators.</p>
<p>It is okay to embarass and make public these dirty and corrupt practices as these private businesses have no privacy rights - even if it means invading the privacy of an 18 yr old who did have some expectation of privacy when he submitted his app, and access to this info was likely gained by some dirty and/or corrupt method.</p>
<p>Past/potential donors have dull children, who grow up to be dull adults. </p>
<p>There are so many dull development admits at these elite institutions that even those in the education business should think twice about sending their children to excellent schools where development admits exist.</p>
<p>Superwizard, I guess I overstated my position. He actually is free to attend any school he wants to. My point was that just having a big deal reputation is no longer enough to attract some of the brightest students. My son and a few of his friends with impressive records really don't want to go to a school just because naive people think it must be good because New Englanders say so. The truth is, only one Ivy is on his list, and that is only because of one particular dual program that interests him; his "feel" is that many of the Ivy schools are over-rated. Part of that feeling is generated by the realization that so-so kids will be selected, in some cases, over more academically qualified kids. I like to think in terms of incentives. When it gets to the point that there is no clear reward for putting together a stellar high school record (not just in-class work), then students like my son may stop working so hard. We all lose.</p>
<p>Here are the points that I believe many of you are overlooking:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There is an American myth of meritocracy. The myth is that a talented person who works hard can go very far and is, to some degree, on an even footing with everyone, even under the law. This is only partly true, as we all know, but it is the myth many people believe, nevertheless. This book will be popular and is garnering attention because it explodes the myth. Myth-exploding books are often popular.</p></li>
<li><p>There is an underlying principle that many American believe, and that is that hiring, raises, promotions, and college admissions should be based solely on merit. This is why some people oppose affirmative action (others oppose it for other reasons). If the principle holds true, these same people will oppose admissions for the wealthy simply because they're wealthy. This is another reason the book will sell and is in the news.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It's all about the myth, folks. Other arguments are much weaker than the myth.</p>
<p>I understand completely now midmo :) and I agree what people think of a university shouldn't be important. There are many things more important to consider than 'prestige'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In an interview, Golden said that he became interested in the issue of preferences for the wealthy while he was covering the judicial battles over affirmative action at the University of Michigan. Everyone was writing about the boosts [in the admissions process] for minority applicants, he said, but he started to realize that there were also explicit boosts for the extremely wealthy and alumni children. He was struck, Golden said, by how little attention such preferences received.
<p>
[quote]
Today must be "make wild assumptions as though they are facts" day:</p>
<p>Joe taxpayer is footing the bill for "much" of the education my d's are receiving at their respective "elite" institutions...(funny, I thought I wrote the checks...to the university, to the annual fund, and to the US treasury.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Go look at the balance sheet of the universities. Unless the school isn't in the USNews top 10 (or even 20), at least half of the overall budget will come from the federal government. The fact that you wrote a check doesn't change this. If you were talking about LACs, that's a different story, and neither this book nor I mentioned them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Social pressure from non donators will change the way these schools practice admissions for the donators.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You betcha! See "Princeton's admissions practices, 1950's and 60's", "Princeton's eating clubs, admission of women to," "Harvard, free rides for low-income students at". You are wildly mistaken if you think these have anything to do with the desires of donors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Past/potential donors have dull children, who grow up to be dull adults.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you insert "Some" in front, it becomes an obviously true statement. If you don't, then nobody ever said or thought this. You are the one who is composing fiction in this thread ;-)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of the 340 committee members who have children who are college age or are past college age, 336 children are enrolled or studied at Harvard — even though the university admits fewer than 1 in 10 candidates and has typically turned away students with top academic records. While Harvard has acknowledged giving “all other factors being equal” preference to loyal alumni children, Golden suggests that this sort of enrollment pattern suggests a much larger preference than the university generally acknowledges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem I have with this statistics is that it does not give a time frame. I doubt that 336 children of donors are all enrolled at Harvard presently. If, however, they are all presently undergrads, they would represent 5% of the total student body. The percentage of URMs is higher than that, as is the percentage of Asian-Americans.</p>
<p>Do colleges actually release "by name" what "rating" an admitted student received? If the Frist kid's rating was released without his permission, he should sue! I'm not saying the system is right; I'm just saying that I wouldn't want my kid's rating released to outsiders!</p>
<p>I like the fact that you're persisting against some of the complacency shown on this thread. </p>
<p>There has been so much national press attention and congressional/court attention to the URM admits, that this preference for "the privileged" gets tacit acceptance in our culture. It's just a different form of aristocracy. </p>
<p>And it applies not only to colleges, but to jobs, access to politicians, etc. It's gradually becoming a bigger and bigger problem. These "privileged" people have so many advantages growing up, when they don't quite make it, even with those advantages, it's a disappointment to see the doors flung open for them anyway. </p>
<p>The spot they take from a more qualified applicant, job seeker, petitioner, etc. erodes hope in our society. Unfortunately, a change does not seem imminent until the "privileged" are embarassed into acting in a more respectful manner to the rest of society. Bravo to Golden for naming names. The specter of public humiliation may be an extra incentive to some of these wealthy and powerful to think of other people and not just their own families.</p>
<p>marite -- he just considered the rate at which children of donors on a particular "big donor committee" were admitted. He found that 336 of the committee members' children were admitted, for 340 total committee members, and then conservatively estimates that these particular people had at least a 50% success rate at getting their kids into Harvard. As for the fraction of people at elite institutions due to preferences that work primarily in favor of the rich and privileged, Golden estimates elsewhere in this book that this number is 1/3, and justifies the estimate in detail.</p>
<p>But I think folks are missing the much bigger picture, as Golden did. It is not that there are a few folks in the top 1/2 of 1% of the population - those with wealth and power - who are getting admissions preference, but that full-paying customers - those from the top 3% of the population, and who are not (yet) large donors - make up half of the student bodies. And despite all the noise about "economic diversity", etc., virtually all of these schools are less diverse, and some signficantly so, than they were 25 years ago, whereas the percentage of large donors admitted has likely remained unchanged in the same time frame.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Admissions process "virgins" who are approaching it with the mistaken idea that it is a fair process based on some blend of academic qualifications, ECs and personality. <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>This isn't really a mistaken idea so much as it is incomplete. In addition to academics, ECs, and personality, there is a 4th factor in the the admissions process: Hooks.</p>
<p>A hook is something that the student brings to the admissions equation that is of <em>benefit to the school</em>. Examples: being famous (e.g. Sarah Hughes or Jody Foster at Yale), being a URM, being a recruited athlete, being the S/D of someone politically well-connected, and of course, being the S/D of someone who is very rich. </p>
<p>Being rich has always been a hook for college admissions, especially for private colleges, and likely always will be. And if you can stack up several hooks, such as being both rich and politically connected, then your admissions chances will look even brighter.</p>
<p>The fact that rich people can use their money to buy more favorable circumstances for themselves is not at all a surprise. I can't see why anyone who grew up in a capitalist country should find this shocking.</p>
<p>30 years ago, what percentage of kids at top schools were from the "top 3%" (income? wealth?)? Impressionistically, it was at least 50%. What makes you think these schools have gotten less diverse economically?</p>
<p>Mini, I've yet to read Golden's book, but from the excerpts/reviews it appears that his brush was broad and that he wrote about that aspect of admissions as well. Certainly others have. It's no secret, and promises to get more press now.</p>
<p>I'm getting a little tired of the sensationalism here. It is not representative of the overall picture of top schools such as HYP and others which have both large endowments and competitive admissions. The name "Frist" draws interest, but it is one person, one family -- not 20% of the school or something. No highly ranked private U, whether an Ivy or not, is interested in risking its reputation in academia by admitting significant numbers of low-performing students. People like the Frists have enabled many an excellent but economically challenged student to enter a selective & demanding U. I would be dismayed if such families dominated the picture at these U's, but the simple fact is, they do not. </p>
<p>Like K-12 teachers, college professors like to teach to high-performing students who are very capable of meeting the challenges of a demanding curriculum & of qualifying for later admissions to fine graduate & professional schools. They do not apply to teach at these colleges (and <em>stay</em> there, btw) with the knowledge that they will be surprised year after year by significant numbers of idiots in their classes.</p>
<p>This thread is replete with exaggerations and unfounded sweeping statements that do not cut the mustard with the statistics of incoming classes for the last several years, and statistics projected for the next few years to come.</p>
<p>(Or are we to believe that the resumes on the "rejected" threads in the CC student forums represent the minority of applicants to these fine U's?)</p>
<p>And by the way, the applicants at my D's school who were not accepted to the upper level schools were in some cases legacies who just happened to be outdone academically by non-legacies. (On CC threads over the last couple of years, there have been discussions of the increasing number of legacy rejects at HYP.)</p>
<p>Ben said
[quote]
Go look at the balance sheet of the universities. Unless the school isn't in the USNews top 10 (or even 20), at least half of the overall budget will come from the federal government. The fact that you wrote a check doesn't change this.
[/quote]
Ben, you miss a key point. What matters is that portion of the budget that relates to undergrad education. In many ways, research universities have two completely different missions, with different facilities, support staff and a bit of overlap w/r/t faculty: One mission is research, the other is instruction.</p>
<p>The feds provide 85% or more of the RESEARCH funds, but much less toward instruction. And most of that is indirect, through loans and fellowships.</p>
<p>At a state level, things are more complicated. Some states still provide significant instructional support. On a percent basis, though, I don't know the trends. Haven't looked.</p>
<p>BTW, the success rate of donors to H isn't much different from the legacy success rate, but there's probably a lot of overlap? I saw figures a few years ago that showed over 40% of legacy kids being admitted, at a time where the overall admit rate was about 11%.</p>