<p>Gotcha.</p>
<p>It is possible that AGIII's sibling's stellar contributions and achievements played a big role in adcom decisions. Plus, he had a major 'overcoming adversity' story.</p>
<p>I would have bet on him too--but I would have been mistaken.</p>
<p>Oh well.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>That said, every year some choices are made that look questionable from the outside (Not speaking of AGIII in <em>any</em> way here). My position in this thread is simply this: IF a school has a pool of roughly 20,000 candidates from which to choose a specific class, and let's say roughly 3/4 of those are qualified, I feel that it is not prudent to take a chance on a kid with a sustained, repeated, consistently troubled record of personal conduct.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>That's a reasonable opinion in the abstract, but if you are not making this point in reference to Al Gore's son, why do you keep posting this opinion (as far back as post #7) on a thread about Al Gore's son?</p>
<p>
I was not referring to AGIII at all in that post or even about issues strictly around addiction. Sorry if I was unclear.</p>
<p>
Thank you so very much, doubleplay, for understanding my feelings precisely...and for expressing them so very eloquently.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>
Probably for the same reason that the vast majority of threads on CC take their own twists and turns. Paying3's very fascinating thread on religious symbols in dorm rooms has morphed into some very interesting commentary on the Catholic church. My hugs thread started as a place for emotional support has a large section on canine antics. The way I see it, my commentary on this thread was certainly as much or more relevant to the OP as the commentary is on 99% of threads at CC! ;)</p>
<p>In the best of all worlds, some people should not receive better educational opportunities than others, nor should some people receive better medical care than others. That's gotta be something most everyone agrees with. </p>
<p>The "merit" factor convolutes the educational issue somewhat, because some colleges would not be appropriate for all students, due to different levels of academic potential, skills, talents, etc. But at the least, those that are deserving shouldn't be pushed aside for those that aren't. Like I said, this is in a perfect world.</p>
<p>And I've observed that the VAST majority of threads that are started with a particular news story or example end up morphing into a discussion of generalities.</p>
<p>
If what you are trying to say is that schools must "auction off" some of the relatively scarce spots in their classes to the highest bidder regardless of whether or not that student merits entry aside from his family's affluence, I'm in full agreement with you. It happens at every elite school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There isn't. Instead, at many top colleges 2/3 of students are on financial aid because they were deemed excellent candidates with great records of personal conduct to justify admission (your words).
[/quote]
You say this as if it were a BAD thing....<em>rofl</em> ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're not talking about the fact that someone with wealth can buy a nicer car; we're talking about displacing deserving students with kids who not only haven't shown themselves to be worthy going in, but also, do not appreciate the opportunity while they are there, or do anything with themselves afterwards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, "deserving kids" who are admitted need to be subsidized. 2/3 of them are. Where is the money to come from? rich donors. Rich donors who have kids. Rich donors who have kids and who want their kids to attend top college s to which they will be giving much money that will subsidize the deserving kids.</p>
<p>As for displacing deserving kids, where is the proof that had the teeny tiny handful of rich donors' kids who were admitted actually displaced someone else?</p>
<p>Education is indeed a ladder of social mobility. In this country especially. And it has been so thanks not only to public universities but also to private universities with rich donors who gave enough money to subsidize the education of other people's kids.
I, for one, am forever grateful to the rich donor who subsidized my college education. And though I am not able to contribute millions, I try to do my part by paying full fare for my kids although they could certainly have gotten huge merit money at some top colleges. </p>
<p>End of my rant on this subject.
EDIT: You got it. And the money thus raised benefits lots of stellar students whose parents could not otherwise afford to let them attend said colleges.
If there is some other way of making that possible, I'm sure colleges would like to hear about it.</p>
<p>^^Harvard has like a 30 billion dollar endowment. Are you telling me that they <em>need</em> to have development admits in order to provide financial aid?</p>
<p>Just because the plantation owner is nice to his field hands, doesn't mean they have to like it.</p>
<p>
I guess maybe where we differ is in our view of rich donors. I do <em>NOT</em> make the assumption that simply because someone comes from an affluent, donating family, he does not "deserve" a place in the class. I do not associate rich with "automatically undeserving." In fact, I think there is a large pool of affluent families whose kids are intelligent, talented, and responsible. Therefore, it would be MY preference that colleges select their "donor" students from THAT pool, which IMHO is not lacking whatsoever. In other words, it's NOT an either/or thing. It's NOT EITHER RICH...OR WELL BEHAVED. In fact, I believe the two groups overlap significantly...significantly enough to where a school doesn't have to admit someone unsuitable very often. JMO.</p>
<p>Oh please. Al Gore's son whent to a prep school he shouldn't have gotten into, went to the college of his choice, will go to the grad school of his choice and get the job of his choice.</p>
<p>Actually I like to see kids like him over the average developmental admit because his being there is felt by students more. He bring speakers to campus, not just money.</p>
<p>Money always was power and always will be power in this Country. Why bother even asking?</p>
<p>collegekid,
If everytime a discussion was ended because <em>that's just the way it is, so why bother?</em> this forum would be dead.</p>
<p>If people never questioned or debated principles, or tried to change things for the better by changing people's minds and hearts, we'd still be living in the dark ages.</p>
<p>Hopefully there will come a day when everyone gets the education they deserve.</p>
<p>The point berurah made is good- it's not mutually exclusive to be wealthy and a good student. Displacing another great student with an unworthy one, just because of wealth, is what we're talking about (I thought).</p>
<p>The worst part about this is that it shows a complete lack of imagination. I mean, you pay a million dollars just to make some dean admit your kid...If you're going to pay that amount of money, I would demand something else as well. </p>
<p>Like demand that the dean get on the ground and bark like a dog...</p>
<p>Doubleplay, for colleges, experts feel it's gotten as good as it will ever get in terms of taking a diverse student body. It's actually going backwards with fewer schools considering race. It's fine to dream, but choose a more realistic one. The day will never come when a rich, connected American will not have his choice of schools.</p>
<p>Who said rich well connected Americans should not have their choice of schools?<br>
I'm talking about undeserving, non-competitive stats Americans having more choices than deserving ones.</p>
<p>And maybe not in my lifetime, but someday in the future, we will live in a more perfect world (never a perfect world, though).</p>
<p>Interesting...I have yet to see proof Al Gore III was an academic moron undeserving of a spot at a prestigious university. And I've heard whispers of bad juvenile behavior, but nothing more. Are we suggesting Harvard make admissions decisions based on whispers and gossip?</p>
<p>one observation: in other posts, some people criticize high-achieving students who go to a "less elite" school on full scholarship saying that they are being "bought off "by money from the school in order to make it become more prestigious. Is this just not the opposite: Elite parents are "buying off" schools with promises of money in order to make their children look more respectable. I'd bet my money on the first group.</p>
<p>Collegealum:</p>
<p>How do you think Harvard's endowment got to be $30 billion? Answer: because people gave money; and the money that was given was invested and generated income. No money, no investment, no income, no financial aid. The colleges that are less well endowed tend to have more full paying students than those which are better endowed. Think Sarah Lawrence for example.
$1million at 5% payout is enough to support 10 students per year. So a college admits one rich donor's kid and is able to fund 10 students to the full. Not a bad calculus in my opinion.
Only to some is $86 million in financial aid something to sneeze at.</p>
<p>ldmom, this thread has segued into a more generalized vein, not so much about Al III anymore.</p>