<p>I made annual donations to my alma mater for years. I did admissions work. I sat on the board of the local alum association and I had a great time - I can honestly say that would be happy to consider doing it again in the future.</p>
<p>However, when I got a letter from the alum office with a “suggested annual donation” ten times the amount that I had been sending, it was the end. I know my budget, and that kind of money is not justifiable. I also felt that “encouraging” me in that way was beyond the bounds of good taste and propriety. Fortunately, I recalled being told years ago that if one ever felt that it had become impossible to donate money to the college, one could simply send a note asking to be removed from the contact list. With one short letter I was able to eliminate all money-begging correspondence.</p>
<p>“The way one sees it may depend on what side of the equation one is on.”</p>
<p>Not in my case – I’m on the side of an upper-middle-class family that paid full freight till it hurt a lot (four kids with private BAs, plus one med and two law school degrees). My parents would live quite differently today if they’d told us to go to public school and make the best of it, but they don’t view themselves as having left the upper middle class, much less involuntarily. If they thought they weren’t getting a good deal, they could have sent us elsewhere. My father (in his office working full time at age 70) likes to say that Harvard “would have been a bargain at twice the price.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure I see the conflict in appealing to tribal loyalty to help diversify the tribe.</p>
<p>"I also felt that “encouraging” me in that way was beyond the bounds of good taste and propriety. "</p>
<p>Strongly agree with this. That college needs better people in its development office. If I got that kind of letter, they’d get a very angry phone call.</p>
<p>Bang for the charitable buck? Are you saying there is nobody and no cause in the US that needs help as much as in Africa? Are you sure about that?</p>
<p>I’m 100% sure that you get more bang for the buck in Africa, yes. That’s not the same as needing help more. It’s not about relative need – it’s about the cost of help. </p>
<p>Assume the exact same need in the U.S. and Congo – a kid on the street with no home and nothing to eat. Putting a roof over his head and feeding him healthy meals costs way more in the U.S. than it does in Congo. Put another way, $100 might buy a month of housing in Congo and a week of housing in the U.S.</p>
<p>Schools along with other organizations are now hiring professional fundraisers. Some of those folks running that show have absolutely no connection to the college at all. It’s just a job. The job is to maximize the contributions, and they use pretty set formulas. How do I know? I took a series of courses to become a certified fundraiser. It’s an industry unto itself. When you realize how this works, it really makes the old mom and pop and kids and neighbors scenario look ever so sweet. This is big business. </p>
<p>One of the folks who lectured to us was a law school fund raiser. Hired by the law school to bring in money. What a barracuda. But whatever she does works. Since the school hired her, the take has increased astronomically.</p>
<p>I think if the young lady were not Dartmouth material, it would have been a different situation. But the girl fit squarely with the stats and with kids in the area that made it in there. Dartmouth does admit that it gives legacies a bit of a tip and also states that the involvement of the alum with the school is also a factor. This is a parent who made large (to him) contributions for years, and was very active with his alma mater. Helped out kids who graduated there in terms of job placement, did alum interviews, etc. It’s a slap in the face to say that was not enough. Knowing the family, I do not believe that they were paying tuition surrcharges. They just felt that if their kids were Dartmouth material, that the parents were legacy should have some bearing. And when the kid clearly is of the material that is Dartmouth acceptable and doesn’t get in, it is a slap in the face, no matter how you look at it. I would have been miffed too.</p>
<p>As for my own kids, they are not the sort of candidates that I would have expected a break in admissions. Had they applied and been admitted, there would have been some serious favortism there; I don’t care if I gave a million dollars. For the Dartmouth family it was a different situation.</p>
<p>Several parents have said on this board that the fact that their kids were denied at their alma mater has affected how they look at the school, and, yes, the checkbook is slammed shut. At least temporarily. As the years go by and priorities change, the feeling may change too.</p>
<p>Another couple I know who are double BC alums have stopped their contributions after getting the scoop that their kids are not likely to be accepted there. THey went to an alumni meeting where this was a big topic of discussion, and friend told me the reaction was really nearly universal. Most folks want to see what will pan out for their kids. If they feel they were treated fairly, then BC goes back on the donation list. Otherwise, forget it, for a long time. Plenty of other colleges to support. And it is more important on a personal basis for your kids college to be elevated in stats and rep than yours at this point. So I would send any loose change (which is about all I have) to their college. </p>
<p>I was tempted to send spa treatments to a number of folks at son’s college when he graduated. Talk about skin of the teeth! And it would not have happened without some people really putting out some extra for him. I would much prefer to see money going there, to benefit those folks directly than my alma mater in general. Also like the personal treatment current college kid is getting from his school. Way, way beyond my expectations. If I had the money, they would certainly get a big contribution from me. I see no reason right now to give a dime to my alma mater.</p>
<p>Hannah: You are responding to only half of the quote. You should think long and hard about subsidizing the education of someone else’s child at an institution that devalues the experiences you have created for your children and more highly values the experiences of other families. It is one thing to charitably donate to educate students who have little or no money, but it is another still to subsidize their attending a school that has an institutional bias against your values.</p>
<p>What exactly is your alma mater saying if it rejects the application of your child with high enough grades and scores in favor of another student with lower grades and scores, but with a different background? The college is free to make that choice, but you should think long and hard about helping them to finance it.</p>
<p>Exactly, Glido. Again, the young lady was not a case where her acceptance would have been a surprise as a non legacy applicant. Whatever legacy tip they gave was miniscule. I would have been mad too.</p>
<p>Besides, it our children’s future that we are now looking at, not our own in terms of elevating the status of a school, supporting a school,etc. I’m done. It’s my kids that are on the agenda.</p>
<p>I can see how difficult it is for those who are in admissions. It is clear that legacies, as a group, at some selective schools, do fall slightly below the average stats of everyone else. That is something many of the top schools will herald. Yes, you are getting a tip that way. But what about the kid whose stats and profile were up there by the very looks of the Naviance info from her school and other stats? Clearly there was not much consideration given there.</p>
<p>Personally, I think they just have enough kids coming from the NYC suburbs and were doing what they could do to cut those numbers. I have seen this done blatantly by BC and some other schools. Some colleges out and out admit to it. THey just cannot accept all of the kids that they would if geographics and other diversity issues were not taken into consideration because there simply are too many kids applying to those schools from certain area. There were 50 kids who applied to BC from my son’s school, and nearly that many from another catholic school I know. And about 20 of them would have been admitted without a thought if they weren’t from here.</p>
<p>One can still believe that this is a noble thing to do. Look, I’m no high roller at my uni by a long shot, but let’s say I was. And let’s say one of my kids applied and got turned down. Yes, I’m sure I wouldn’t open the old checkbook quite so far in the immediate aftermath, but my upper middle class reasonably-privileged kids are going to do just fine in life, and have so many advantages, that I really can’t see begrudging the poor kid from the 'hood a hand up in the admission process. Put another way: A degree from a top 20 university is going to open so many more worlds up for that kid compared to my kids, relatively speaking, that I don’t see it as a moral “wrong” if they admit the 3.7 GPA kid from the hood over my 3.8 GPA kid from the 'burbs.</p>
<p>Slightly OT: I have a girlfriend who worked in fundraising for another university, then in a volunteer fundraising position at our mutual alma mater, and now serves as a director of development in that other university down on the South Side of Chicago. One thing she heavily disliked is that she wound up having access to all of our donation histories (meaning our group of friends). To be honest, I wasn’t crazy about that either.</p>
<p>“What exactly is your alma mater saying if it rejects the application of your child with high enough grades and scores in favor of another student with lower grades and scores, but with a different background?”</p>
<p>It’s saying that it practices affirmative action to build a class that includes less privileged kids. That has been true for about forty years, long before I applied. If I didn’t think they were right to do that, I wouldn’t have gone there. I and that majority of my classmates managed to get in despite having highly educated white parents. The plight of the upper-middle-class white kid does not keep me up at night.</p>
<p>I agree that people shouldn’t give money to schools that violate their values. They also shouldn’t want to send their kids there, at any price, so I don’t know why they would be worried about how much it costs or whether their kids get in.</p>
<p>As I have said earlier, maybe things will change in the future. But right now my priorities are with my children and their colleges. If they happen to be the same college as I attended, then fine. Otherwise, I’ll be supporting them.</p>
<p>We used to go to sporting events at our alma mater and really enjoyed them. Well, we now have kids in sports that we feel we prefer to support and it is not at our alma mater so that tradition has been breached. I have to make trips to my kids’ schools which keeps me busy. No time to tuck in a visit to my old college. </p>
<p>But if my kids went to our alma mater, they would definitely get more of our time, attention and money. No question about it. </p>
<p>I am fully aware of the diversity issues that the colleges have when they make their admissions decisions. And they are aware of the alumni’s likely reactions when their kids are denied. You had better believe the big buck development folks will get the edge. Pragmatism at work. I don’t think my college is going to miss my small change anyways.</p>
<p>Interesting how this thread has shifted. The original question: should you be mad at your alma mater if you can’t afford to send your kids to it? IMO no, almost all schools have raised costs at the same pace.</p>
<p>The thread has shifted to whether you should give to an institution that doesn’t reflect your values. Of couse you shouldn’t. But families like the Dartmouth family need to dig deep in understanding what happened there. While their kid may have looked ‘qualified’ in their eyes, she was competing against lots of Dartmouth legacies who looked a lot like her. The number of white, suburban or big city, close enough stats students is staggering at colleges like that and they have small classes. That would not remain world class if they took any more legacy kids than they already do.</p>
<p>The legacies taken at ivies/peers today, when not million dollar givers, are as exceptional as the other admits.</p>
<p>While I suppose many give to many charities based on what they will personally get out of it, I would hope a family like that would look at the simple facts and decide not to take it personally. A friend in development told me that at her school parents of rejected kids stop giving for a few years, but most come back.</p>
<p>“What exactly is your alma mater saying if it rejects the application of your child with high enough grades and scores in favor of another student with lower grades and scores, but with a different background?”</p>
<p>What is a school saying if it rejects the application of a child who has come from a highly disadvantaged background and has made the most despite overwhelming odds, in favor of another student who may have similar or slightly better grades but who has achieved them coming out of a privileged background, including parents who attended that school? A school that does too much of THAT becomes an insular breeding ground for the chosen few, and that’s not desirable either. Look, every legacy can’t be admitted. That’s how it goes and it’s unrealistic to expect otherwise. Good lord, my alma mater could fill its freshman class several times over with only white, upper middle legacy kids from the surrounding metropolitan area.</p>
<p>I don’t think the issue was that the young lady was not accepted over some child who was not privileged. She was rejected among her peers, all of whom are in the same category. There just wasn’t the weight in legacy or too little regard was made. It’s not like you can’t find dozens of kids just like yours here in this area that get into Dartmouth. </p>
<p>Girl went to Columbia. That is where the family spends their time and money now. The second girl did not even bother to apply to Dartmouth. Also at Columbia. And getting into C from NYC area is very difficult. Someone was not thinking straight in Dartmouth as far as I am concerned…</p>
<p>To answer the original question, no. But I don’t blame my alma mater at all . It costs no more than peer colleges. I am sad about the whole college cost thing, and very disappointed that we cannot afford to send our kids to many of the private schools. I don’t like the situation as a whole, but I do not put a specific blame on my college for this situation. I would not expect them to give my kids or any alums’ kids a break in cost. FInancial aid and merit are things that are usually pretty straightforward as to who gets what. Admissions is where it gets dicey.</p>
<p>The last few years, some families whose kids did get some preference due to diversity that college want, were a bit shocked to find that the financial aid went strictly by the numbers. If the kid is truly needy, and the school really wants him there, some merit within aid may occur at some schools, but for the most part, well to do minority families I know pay by the same formula.</p>
<p>Hanna: Why do you bring up race? The objectives of AdComms to build a diverse and balanced class go way beyond race. I would be even more ticked if my alma mater rejected my child because of her race. That is not the issue. If your child is fully qualified to attend your alma mater, but is rejected to keep a space another student with lower grades and lower test scores because that student has different life experiences that those that you worked to build for your child, then your alma mater is rejecting your values (not your race). All I am saying is that might not want to buy the dog food for the neighbor that keeps walking his dog on your front lawn.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl: You seem to understand what your alma mater is doing and you agree with it. That’s cool. It is your choice. (Except how is a background “disadvantaged” when it is an advantage? Do you mean poor?)</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, sounds like something went very wrong there. As a college counselor for many years I can’t recall an ivy legacy (worked with many) being rejected from the legacy school and getting into an equal or more selective one.</p>
<p>Oh, so you believe the college owes all legacy kids who are in the reasonable ballpark for acceptance, an acceptance? </p>
<p>It seems like you’re against affirmative action – unless it’s for legacies, and then it’s fine and dandy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s still disadvantaged. Yes, maybe living in the 'hood, in a crime-ridden area, going to underfunded and poorly run schools, having to work to put food on the table instead of having the opportunity to engage in EC’s are “advantages” in the game of getting into selective schools, but they are hardly “life advantages” that I want my kids to have. </p>
<p>Honestly, this sounds like the whining on an old thread in which a kid from a very bad neighborhood, father in jail, broken home, etc. but obviously very bright got into Stanford and others whined that they wished they were as disadvantaged as he was. I mean, really? I don’t think so.</p>