<p>Anyone know how a school figures out who the developmental admits are? Unless it's Jodie Foster or D of POTUS, or S of well-known alum, how do they know?</p>
<p>I think that parents (or grandparents) of kids who are potential developmental admittees (a) are not shy about making themselves known to college development people, and (b) in most cases, already have a substantial relationship with the school and people there. I'm sure there are many formal ways in which Development Office and Alumni Office input gets recorded in admissions files, and for cases the Development Office really cares about the relevant deans have each other's phone number. It's not hundreds of kids a year at any/many schools; I don't think it's that hard to keep track.</p>
<p>The couple of development candidates that I knew of during my daughter's application year had prominent alums involved in the process (who must have passed on information about the financials of the applicants and their families).</p>
<p>Development offices also know the names of potential donors so they are on the lookout for their offspring.</p>
<p>Some examples from my experience:</p>
<p>(1) Dad was a mover-and-shaker who was chairman of the Board of Trustees of University A. Daughter wanted to go to University B. Dad looked at the list of trustees of University B, and picked one who was a reasonably close business associate. Dad called him, and had a very frank conversation in about what it would take to make Daughter happy. He was willing to go as high as a gym. Associate took care of it. Note that Daughter was a completely legitimate candidate for University B, and probably would have gotten in there without any help, but Dad was not the kind of person to be satisfied with that (and would, in any event, have expected to make substantial gifts to any school a child of his attended).</p>
<p>(2) Dad had given about $12 million to his alma mater over a number of years, including $10 million to fund a flagship program in an area he cared about. He visited frequently, and was always feted by various administrators and faculty when he did. One time, he brought his youngest daughter, who was a rising HS senior, and of course everyone who met them knew she was thinking of applying. She applied ED, and was accepted. Shocker! Note, again, that she was a legitimate candidate, and that Dad's older children, with different qualifications and interests, had not applied to Alma Mater U at all. (As far as I know, the older children had not received any similar "help" from Dad in the admissions process, and attended less prestigious colleges that matched their goals. They must have been a nice surprise to their respective colleges, though -- each of the children controlled a substantial separate charitable foundation.)</p>
<p>(3) Dad was CEO and controlling shareholder of a successful business. Both Business and Dad personally are well-known in their home community for generous funding of certain types of projects. Daughter had a clear first choice college, which was a realistic reach for her. Dad had no contact with College, but everyone Dad knew who had any connection with College learned from Dad that Dad really wanted the relevant people at College to know what a charitable guy he is, and that he would feel a strong connection with the college his child attended. He gave a high-profile eight-figure gift to his own alma mater that fall. Word seems to have gotten through; daughter was accepted ED. I don't know if there was ever any direct discussion between Dad and College.</p>
<p>(4) Aunt is a single, childless woman in her 40s. She has given about $1 million in unrestricted gifts to her highly-selective alma mater over the past 10 years, and makes annual gifts in the $50,000 range regularly. That is more than enough to get her a personal development office contact. Aunt lets her contact know that Nephew will be applying to Alma Mater U, and that Nephew is the closest thing to a child she has (and the last of her nieces and nephews to go to college). Contact assures Aunt that Admissions Office will know of Aunt's connection to Nephew, but cautions that it won't help much if Nephew is not highly qualified for admission. (Ongoing saga; I don't know how it works out yet.)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>but Dad was not the kind of person to be satisfied with that (and would, in any event, have expected to make substantial gifts to any school a child of his attended).<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>That's another aspect of this - givers tend to continue to give, and expect to give, and the college often expects to receive the gifts if the person in question has a track record of donating significant monies. I thought the 3rd example was particularly interesting. I also noted that nowhere did JHS mention a poorly qualified applicant getting admitted as a dev candidate.
I have heard stories of less qualified developmental or connected applicants getting admitted as transfers after frosh year so that they don't appear in the statistics - even though the child might start over as a freshman. I'm not sure I believe it is done purely to keep the kid's stats out of the general pool - 1 or 2 people out of over a thousand wouldn't budge the numbers that much.</p>
<p>cangel,
Excellent point in noting that nowhere was a mention of a poorly qualified candidate getting admitted. The one development case I personally know of was an admit to one of HYP. Parent was an alum, ongoing $$ involvement with the school plus an eight figure donation to endow a chair. But, student might have been admitted on own merits-that's how strong student's record was.</p>
<p>I want to comment a little more on my examples:</p>
<p>Three of my "cases" are relatively current, the fourth happened about 15 years ago. They involved well-known schools, covering a range from "top-5" (you know who they are) to borderline top-50.</p>
<p>In all cases, the kids were qualified (some more than others), although in all cases it would not have surprised anyone if the kid had been rejected on merit alone, due to the selectivity of the schools in question (all < 30% for the relevant school/applicant base). In all cases, the kid's choice came first. This may not be universal, but in my experience people who sling around that kind of money want their kids to be happy, and aren't interested in foisting them on a school (or a school on them) if there isn't a clear fit. </p>
<p>For example, I know a billionaire who is a long-time trustee and big-ticket benefactor of his hyper-selective alma mater. None of his three children or his (very close, but middle-class) brother's five children went there. None of them even applied except for the brother's youngest child, who was not really qualified and was rejected. (Could Billionaire Trustee have gotten him in? Probably. But he didn't even pretend to try, and in all likelihood made certain the admissions office knew of his lack of interest. Billionaire Trustee, by the way, has a close, warm relationship with the kid at issue, and does a lot for him, although there were a few frosty months over the foregoing.)</p>
<p>With the exception of Dad #1, no one was crass enough to try to buy a child into college. (Dad #1 was an exceptionally direct person, and reveled in the notion that everything has its price.) All of them had long-term records of significant gifts, either to the target college itself or to similar institutions. With the exception of Dad #1, there was no quid pro quo discussion with anyone (and even in the case of Dad #1, I don't believe there was ever a quid pro quo discussion between the college and him, although he would have been happy to pretend that there had been).</p>
<p>There are clearly different levels of response. Aunt, who earns a lot of money and spends comparatively little of it, but is not likely ever to be an 8-figure giver, is treated very differently than the multicentimillionaires in ##2 and 3 (and, in fairness, the endowment of the university in #4 is probably at least twice the endowments of ##1-3 combined).</p>
<p>In the final analysis, if you think any of your children or grandchildren has a chance of attending Old Ivy, you should be perfectly happy if Old Ivy uses a few admissions slots to cement multi-generational relationships with families that have a track record of really significant giving and the assets to back it up.</p>
<p>I have no firsthand experience with developmental admits these days. But I do know that, at my alma mater, which is no more selective today than it was when I was admitted (less than 20%), I knew several dozen developmental admits that were WAY below the average admit, if some kind of hypothetical "merit" were to be judged. I knew one, the son of a banker, whose chief skill seemed to be his ability to bounce a soccer ball up and down four floors in the dorm. (He is now an international banker based in Geneva.) I knew another, an LSD-using hockey player, who was virtually never seen in class, and (to my knowledge) never got higher than a "C" in anything (son of aircraft motor mogul.) Knew another - hate to say this - a lacrosse player with a string of sexual conquests and not much else - son of a whiskey magnate. Another one a close relation to the Shah of Iran (the Shah's kid was to come three years later.)</p>
<p>I also need to report that they ALL graduated, went on to major jobs and careers, and make more money in a week than I do in a year. And give handsomely back to alma mater. That sounds like merit to me (and looking back at it, I'm glad they were accepted.) They were "most highly qualified" according to the admissions departments, and, by definition, those who didn't get in were "less qualified". And I don't see a problem with that. Someone's going to occupy the bottom quarter of the class, and better that those who do are happy there and contributing back to the future of the institution. (I most definitely would not say the same about public colleges and universities.)</p>
<p>JHS -- I'm impressed. You travel in higher circles than I do. </p>
<p>My impression is that development applications, like those of celebrities, travel a different path than those of the normal applications. I don't think the whole committee sat around and debated the pros and cons of accepting Chelsea Clinton, for example. I think the head of admissions makes these decisions, and he or she probably meets regularly with the development office and the president's office.</p>
<p>What I don't know is how admissions handles the not-so-obvious development kids. Applications do ask for parents' job titles, and some want to know the company they work for. I wouldn't be surprised if there is someone in the office who googles names. If they figure out that parent x is the CEO of a major corporation, or the scion of a famous family (one of "those" Rockefellers) -- I have no idea what happens but I wouldn't be surprised if the application is flagged and given extra consideration.</p>
<p>We have family friends whose daughter applied to Prestigious University (PU). Not my family but another friend of the other family was known as Mr. (substitute Prestigious University name here). Mr. PU had donated so much money to PU, that they named two buildings after him. My friend (the daughter was a good student) on the lower end of PUs admit range, but still a qualified candidate. Mr PU wrote a glowing letter of recommendation to PU on behalf of my friend.</p>
<p>The Admissions Officer called up Mr. PU and told him he would like to wait list my friend. Apparently, Mr. PU told the Admissions Officer No you dont. So my friend was admitted Her dad worked at PU and she got a free ride on tuition and fees. She did well and has now graduated from PU.</p>
<p>Haha...there is no such thing as a 'not-so-obvious' developmental candidate. Development officers earn big bucks to 'discover' and 'nurture' those admits, candidate's zip codes are run through the computer, telephone calls are made. They know.</p>
<p>Like mini, I also know of some bright but not terribly impressive students who were admitted to their parent's alma mater. Parents were steady donors in the top category ($10K +) for well over two decades--as well as top donors a the high school. Amazing how little bitterness this engenders..compared to athletic admits for instance.</p>
<p>In the cases I cited, "bright" would not have been an adjective I would have used. But they had a certain social grace and panache about them, and had been taught to write and speak, and to get by with very little effort, in prep school. All five of these skills I'm sure served them very well in their careers.</p>
<p>Well, I know some people thought my son might be a developmental admit... but I don't think donating at $25 to $250 a year helps---although it was EVERY single year, which actually made me one of the top donors in my class for consistency. But the total was only around $4000, so if that's a developmental admit, I sure got off cheaply!</p>
<p>The recent WSJ article on developmental admits pointed out that most schools don't mind getting a call saying "I'd like to make a donation to your school" and that such things DO make a difference.</p>
<p>My husband had a college friend who made regular six figure unsolicited donations to several schools he thought would his young children might enjoy--including his alma mater. He made an enormous fortune ($500M +) so he could afford it.</p>
<p>(He was the classic 'C' student cut-up btw. His advice on success? Learn to drink whiskey, smoke cigars and make people laugh).</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with developmental admits. Think of it as, say, scholarships for dozens of students that wouldn't have been there before. So you take one kid who is qualified but not stellar (and most applicants can do the work) and that lets you admit a bunch of talented, interesting kids who are full of potential but otherwise couldn't afford it. Sounds like a great deal.</p>
<p>I'm also a fan of getting family ties with a university. So many schools graduate students who are apathetic about their experience; there is a lot of value (or merit?) in taking students who will have a life-long connection to the university.</p>
<p>I don't even particularly care if they are "qualified" - most colleges have enough "rocks'n'stars" classes to allow them to get through. Whether they are qualified or not, they do remain the "most highly qualified."</p>
<p>I am following this thread with some interest. I have a relative who recently tried to buy his daughter's way into a prestigious Manhattan pre-school by offering the pre-school expensive merchandise from his (kid-based) company as a gift. Apparently he didn't handle it smoothly (which can be a problem of his) and the school accused him of bribery. With the recent scandels involving bribes and Manhattan pre-schools, I guess they weren't going to take any chances.</p>
<p>But...it seems like the same kind of thing is more easily done with a college, yes? I can easily see this relative start to build a pattern of giving to his alma mater (or maybe some other college?) as his daughter gets to that age. (He's not particularly generous right now or known as a benevolent person in any way, but I'm sure he could make himself up to be like that with plenty of time to spare!)</p>
<p>So, should I expect that in, say, 15 years or so, this relative will be making a huge donation to the university of his daughter's choice and be able to buy her way in?</p>
<p>P.S. Yes, part of me is definitely jealous as he's such a weenie....</p>
<p>"So, should I expect that in, say, 15 years or so, this relative will be making a huge donation to the university of his daughter's choice and be able to buy her way in?"</p>
<p>The only question is the size of huge. ;)</p>
<p>Read: The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden</p>
<p>It is disturbing to those of us who like to think in terms of "need-blind" actually being just that. However, it provides interesting insight to the development cases and how they "work." It also provides a perspective on those lower ranges for test scores.</p>