<p>You want all of this to make sense. It doesn’t in some respects. Summers did a lot at Harvard that is causing lots of problems now. Most notably endangering the endowment. He really did have a Utopian view of Harvard being a meritocracy that was free or low cost for all, and students would come from every corner of the planet. And peer schools followed. They stopped loans and put middle class aid in place. But the business related offices thought the schools still needed full pay and development candidates. So pesky! And some have had to back off on no loans for all and several are reconsidering many things. </p>
<p>During this period, legacy admits have gone up at many elite colleges.</p>
<p>And you’re not getting that legacy is as much about community as it is about direct money, especially at schools with big endowments. I’ve seen kids of people who’ve donated lots of time treated as well as those of folks who gave lots of money. Spirit and love of school positions a college to get more money and attention from all grads.</p>
<p>No, they don’t give preference to kids equally as rich as the kids of their alum. Data supports pretty conclusively they’re unlikely to get as high of a return from that group. So really, it does make it’s own kind of sense.</p>