<p>Hi cheers! Greetings from across the pond (s)
So the "faculty brats" at these schools are automatic admits, even if they are dumb as a stump and have legal and substance abuse problems?? (exaggerating to make a point-- don't anyone jump all over me, please)
I am surprised more of us on here aren't academicians! :) Except for the fact that they are shamefully underpaid and our kids probably couldnt then afford to go anywhere else.</p>
<p>I don't know about automatic admits...but tuition discounts--yeah baby.</p>
<p>Go to bed jymmie!</p>
<p>Will do, cheers!
I am tired. We stayed up waay too late last night solving the ills of our State organization. We seemed to have better and better ideas as that great bottle of Woodbridge Reserve Bourbon got emptier and emptier!</p>
<p>um no, cheers you are completely wrong. CalTech does not have development admits, and neither does MIT. The only people they expect to donate are alum and other people that respect the school. They got a 600 million dollar donation recently from an alum and his kids didn't go to the school. There is no expectation that a donation will help them get in. And both schools claim that there is no legacy preference.</p>
<p>And the so-called "normal" kids admitted by Marilee weren't development admits or legacies...</p>
<p>but then again, given marilee's "wonderful" stellar history--who knows what to think of her admits..eh?</p>
<p>^^I don't agree with most of her philosophies, but I respect the fact that they don't have legacy preference or development admits. (And I believe she is telling the truth about this.)</p>
<p>I assume you do know she is gone and had falsified her vitae-- didn't even have a college degree.</p>
<p>^^yeah that was a real fiasco....as I said, I wasn't a big fan of hers even before this came out.</p>
<p>Boy, I wish WE had the money to buy our kid's way into college! I wouldn't use the money for such, but it sure would be nice to have.
So, Doubleplay, no buying into schools in this family, rest assured. No 1200 SATs, either, although my nephew scored such and I'm proud as can be of this special, wonderful kid who is being sought after by colleges which are appropriate FOR HIM!<br>
No police records here, either, but that could be because we took some parenting action which may have prevented that outcome. (gee-maybe I'm a "perfect parent" after all!!!) {{hugs to me}}}</p>
<p>I think in a perfect world (which this isn't, of course), every applicant's uniqueness (which could be the fact that you are the son of Al Gore) and strengths would be presented in the best possible light and admissions staff would assemble a class consisting of a variety of young adults with a range of interests and academic strengths.<br>
Yes, [edited out - Mod JEM] this might include someone who accomplished a great deal of emotional growth and (gasp) might even have gotten kicked out of a school along the way. Because- this same kid's profile might show a love of learning, stellar academics and a discipline/talent for a sport. He might drive his car excessively fast on occasion (who KNEW a teenage boy would DO such a thing!) but he might also live alone in a cabin in the mountains for a summer so that he could train for his sport and read without distraction.<br>
OR- he might be the young Mr. Gore and be given a chance simply because he ISN'T a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>Re MIT and facbrats:</p>
<p>It is well known that MIT, whose endowments is much lower than some of its competitors, gives substantially less money to applicants. I know of at least two cases where the difference between what MIT and Princeton offered over the course of four years was equal to a full year's worth of tuition. MIT lost both applicants. Caltech is different because of its amazing endowment and its small size. But it would be good to find out how many low income students it admits. Of course, low income students are disadvantaged in comparison with middle and upper middle class students in terms of preparation and thus in terms of admission. </p>
<p>Facbrats: It depends on the institution. At some, they're auto-admits unless they are so ill-equipped as to make their surviving past freshman year improbable. Most likely, the parents would not push. At some, they are not auto-admits but their hook is even better than athletics, artistic or academic stellardom. At Harvard, and doubtless some other universities, facbrats (and some others) who are deemed possible admits but a bit weak are encouraged to attend another college for a year to prove they can do the work then apply for a transfer. I heard of one such case where the student was originally not admitted but transferred in; he recently graduated with top honor--a case of a late bloomer.</p>
<p>As far as funding goes, the landscape also varies. When my H was in grad school, his department tried to recruit a senior faculty from U Rochester. The deal fell through when the prof found out that Harvard did not give free tuition to facbrats, whereas they were auto-admits (or nearly so) at Rochester and had a free ride. He had ten kids. It was an easy decision even at a time when very few people turned down a Harvard offer.
Other schools pay part of the cost of attendance at any institution or a lump sum. Harvard gives interest free loans that can be used at any institution. </p>
<p>Finally on rich donors kids displacing worthy applicants. I doubt that in any given year, there are more than 10 kids in that category, and that is a generous estimate. In any given year, there are 20,000 applicants for 2,000 spots, and 80% are considered qualified. Put another way, of the 16,000 qualified applicants, 14,000 will be "given the shaft" in favor of some other applicants, only 10 of which will be rich donors' kids. Of the 1600 students who will eventually matriculate, nearly 1,000 will be receiving financial aid.</p>
<p>EDIT: Al Gore III did not distinguish himself at Harvard either academically or in terms of his behavior. Perhaps the adcom hoped that his behavioral trouble would be left behind, as I'm sure his parents did. As for academic, although he did not distinguish himself, he did not turn in a disastrous performance either. Fitzsimmons has stated that Harvard looks for people who will be happy in the bottom quarter, given that there has to be a bottom quarter. But it looks like he must have been an unhappy bottom quarter dweller. In retrospect, this was not the best admission decision, but that's retrospect and it does not invalidate the idea that in order to fund low income students more generously, rich donors' kids will still need to be admitted. There's a good reason why Catlech is practically unique. Its model is not easily duplicated.</p>
<p>Well said again, berurah! What we are talking about is not the societal system, but the system in schools that hold themselves out as being the truly elite, and SO liberal. It is the hypocrisy here that we are speaking out against. Elite should mean elite - whether poor or rich. Taking a candidate that is not as qualified over another that is, merely because of money, fame, or contacts is the exact opposite of what these schools espouse. Many of us see this as hypocrisy.</p>
<p>You have to wonder... do the cheerleaders here get uniforms? :</p>
<p>First, berurah, I am NOT attacking your kid personally by asking if you think geographic preferences are okay....unless you think saying someone is from Kansas is an insult. Yes, you are from Kansas, but it's not a personal attack. I don't know--or care--whether his record was good enough to get in if he had been from Manhattan. But the fact that your son has done well academically is irrelevant--just as irrelevant as the fact that AGIII allegedly didn't. The Manhattan kids who don't get into top schools and see kids from outside the Northeast with worse records get in are just as angered by this as anyone is by celebrity/developmental/legacy admits. And,IMO, it's every bit as unfair. (Frankly, I think there's a lot more benefit from having the son of a VP and potential Prez at your college than having kids from underrepresented areas of the US. To me, there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference between suburbs in different states and most--not all--but most kids from big square states at top colleges are from suburbs.)</p>
<p>And in Gore's case, it isn't all about $. Often, the celebrity parent also speaks at or does something else at the school and/or gets others to do something which benefits a lot of other students. Emanuel Ax has played with the Yale student orchestra and Iztak (spelling?) Pearlman with Brown's because their children went those colleges. I believe both also agreed to give master classes to a number of young musicians--and did this without being paid. Now, my information is that al of their kids were well qualified academically and did well academically, but still, to get that sort of unique contribution is well worth being a bit more lenient in admissions, it seems to me. </p>
<p>My point is that it's not only what AGIII could contribute to conversations that is being considered, it's the fact that his father might be more willing to speak at Harvard if his son were attending it. And if the election outcome had been different, having a sitting president come to H to speak would be beneficial in many ways. (I don't think Bush has ever spoken at Harvard.)</p>
<p>Heck, Bush freely admits he did not step foot on the Yale campus after graduation UNTIL his daughter went there. Then he invited the Yale prez to the White House and did several other things that benefited Yale. BTW, at least one of Barbara Bush's Yale friends is now on the White House staff. That's another way in which celebrity admits help.</p>
<p>Switching gears...Marite, local experience is the opposite. MIT has given BETTER fin aid packages than Harvard, especially to the children of divorce. It seems more willing to waive the non-custodial parent's contribution when there is a long history of failure to pay child support. Three kids from our neighborhood have gone to MIT over H for this reason.</p>
<p>You know part of the reason why people want to go to places like Harvard is the chance to meet the "power crowd." It's part of the attraction.</p>
<p>As Marite said, there has to be a bottom quarter in any class. It might consist of the sports jocks or the legacies or the offspring of weathy families, or really bright admits who party too hard and don't apply themselves, or the kids who excelled in HS because their parent was there to structure, control and push them, and whose kid really didn't learn to be self-disciplined. The real hypocrisy is the emphatic support of some and the notable distain or criticism of others.</p>
<p>What does it do to/for an institution to admit 'Al Gore III's' (not him in particular, but him as an example).-- it brings in money, it brings in a tinge of notice (as if Harvard needs that).</p>
<p>What does it do to/for an 'Al Gore III' to get in- ie, a kid who was probably an okay applicant but came from a prep school(St. Albans) where probably 'more qualified' kids than he didn't get in when he did, a kid who has lived life as a 'Trey' with a semi-annointed sister, a kid destined to be lower 25% at Harvard. It reinforces the idea that your life is going to be special because of your parentage, that the 'rules' don't really apply to you, that you are a III and that this is your path. I don't want to indulge in an sort of 'poor little rich boy' thing, and surely kids who are not a III do what he has done, but this is not a zero sum event.</p>
<p>This is also not at all related to the choices made by Marilee Jones. It is disappointing to see that her own personal bad choices are not separated from the thoughtful, difficult decisions she made- as part of a committee, in her work- and I say this as someone whose child specifically was not advantaged by her policies.</p>
<p>
jonri~</p>
<p>I didn't call your mention of my son an attack whatsoever, but neither was his specific mention necessary to your expression of your view on geographic "bumping."</p>
<p>Your personal mention did, however, infer that geography may have played a role in his acceptance to Duke--in other words, that the standards were somehow lowered for him because he was from an "underrepresented area," and because of that inference, his academic record was <em>most</em> relevant.</p>
<p>For the record and because I'm a reasonably fair and objective person, I will say that I do somewhat agree with your position on the issue. And I, too, feel that many kids in large metropolitan areas, particularly on the east coast, are at a distinct disadvantage in the college admissions process.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>great post, anitaw!</p>
<p>Hi Anitaw! Long time no see!! </p>
<p>Marilee's situation can speak to the fact that perhaps people can have skills and abilities, even if they dont have the academics behind it. The hypocrisy there was her dishonesty with her credentials... claiming to be something she is not. </p>
<p>And jonri, I couldnt' agree more. The Manhattan, NY kids may be rejected in lieu of potentailly "lesser qualified" candidates from Manhattan, Kansas. But the colleges and unis have the right to use whatever selection criteria they so choose. They aren't stupid. Their goal is to admit kids who will not only get in, but who will graduate and give back lots of $$ to the college/uni. And your (and anitaw's) point about the "power crowd" is well taken. I chatted with friends whose son is at Yale (an extremely briight and talented kid) . The first thing they mentioned was meeting Stephen Speilberg and his son at orientation. These ARE draws, and colleges are smart to know and use that (though as you say, these schools don't really need to play the "famous family" card.</p>
<p>" Not a fan of Al Gore
Didn't he claim to invent the internet also? Among his other accomplishments."</p>
<p>People should be ashamed of perpetuating lies. It just makes them fools.</p>
<p>All this talk about wanting kids who will give more $, wanting kids who will bring celebrity parents for other people to rub elbows with, wanting kids who will bring their dad in to give a speech- actually, all this does is lower my respect for these colleges.
Give me a good state uni anyday. :)</p>
<p>And I can actually see the geographic thing- my kids go to a state uni where 90%+ are from our own state. It would be nice to have a little more diversity in that area, plus it brings more talented people into the state.</p>