<p>Big difference between development admits and legacies who contribute to the school. As colleges become more selective, the latter category is becoming "iffy" especially if the kid is not competitive on his own. We know of some development families, (and, yes, big name) whose kids applied to colleges, and this particular group ended up at selective, but not the most selective schools. Have no idea if the colleges knew that they were scions of one of America's richest families, but I can tell you that their accept/reject records did not stand out at all. No surprises. Don't know if this is unusual. These are great grandchildren and there are so many of them in this generation, that it would be frightening if everyone of them were shoo-ins at the top schools. It does not appear to be the case with the branch of the family tree that we know.</p>
<p>I have never heard of a million-dollar contribution in exchange for an admission being turned down anywhere, regardless of GPA, SATs, or what-have-you. Of course, I don't travel in such circles much, and I did hear (thirdhand) of a student being asked to take an extra year at a prep school before admission.</p>
<p>Over time, the price will rise. And has. </p>
<p>Legacies are another matter. This is the first time in history that significant numbers of minorities (and, in some cases, women) could have used their legacy advantages for admissions. Hmm.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no problem with developmental admissions at private colleges. In fact, if I were an admissions office at a prestige college, I'd admit a chimpanzee if his family provided enough for a new building. My only problem is that they are not open about it. I think the auction should be open to everyone, including those who haven't yet figured out the power of the dollar.</p>
<p>There isn't a college in the country that is need-blind when it comes to developmental admits. (or anyone else for that matter, but that's another forum.)</p>
<p>Mini said: "In fact, if I were an admissions office at a prestige college, I'd admit a chimpanzee if his family provided enough for a new building"</p>
<p>But would you admit a gorilla? An orangutang? A bonobo? Where would you draw the line? ;)</p>
<p>
Anyone with enough money to be a potential developmental admit, has figured out the power of the dollar. As far as having it be more open, what's the point? Those who have the money get it. Those who don't, have enough to feel bad about -- why add to their concerns? Especially since it really is a minute portion of admissions.</p>
<p>"But would you admit a gorilla? An orangutang? A bonobo? Where would you draw the line?'</p>
<p>At the right price, I'd take 'em all. (and I'd waive the SAT scores)</p>
<p>Legacy doesn't count for much unless there have been steady, generous donations that indicate even greater gratitude in the future. It won't help to be the member of a wealthy family if the legacy hasn't demonstrated a willingness to give huge sums of cash.</p>
<p>I know one of Manhattan's glitterati interior designers. His favorite expression? "Why bother with old money clients? All they want to do is recover a couple of old chairs!"</p>
<p>Recommend the new book, "The Price of Admission," available on Amazon, for anyone who truly wants to know about developmental admits.</p>
<p>ABC's 20/20 aired a show about privilege over the weekend. One segment was about developmental admits; it referred a fair amount to Golden's book. The article on the website doesn't include all that was broadcast.</p>
<p>SV2</p>
<p>Thanks for the link. Interesting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But would you admit a gorilla? An orangutang? A bonobo? Where would you draw the line?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where, indeed? </p>
<p>(WARNING: Don't follow this link if you are offended by low-brow political humor.)</p>
<p>(Sorry. Really, I am. But reading the developmental admits topic on Election Eve got the best of me....)</p>
<p>There's the old joke about a man asking a married woman whether she'd sleep for him for $10?</p>
<p>"How dare you! What do you think I am, a prostitute?" she said.</p>
<p>"Well, then, how about a million?"</p>
<p>She paused to think a minute.</p>
<p>"You see," he continued, "we've already determined you're a prostitute, we're just dickering as to price."</p>
<p>No line. It's just a matter of price.</p>
<p>Video of the ABC Nightline report with Golden and a former president of Duke.</p>
<p>SV2</p>
<p>Great link--really interesting!</p>
<p>On the issue of (definitely non-developmental) legacy: I was amazed to find that it counts for much more than I thought at my alma mater. I was told that, once my child met the standards and was in the pool of acceptable students (which is many times larger than the pool of students who will be admitted), my child, as a legacy, would be preferred over "equally qualified" applicants. Maybe it only works this way with smaller colleges. I believe that it is intended to make sure that there is a contingent of students who come in already treasuring the college, and it does seem to work that way.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the admitted legacies at my alma mater on average seem to have academic stats that exceed those of the general pool of admitted students.</p>
<p>I thought that admitting the legacies would lead to homogeneity but that seems to be less and less the case. My generation is more diverse than our predecessors, and so are our children. Also, the college is now taking the sons and daughters of the first generation of female graduates and that has tended to add interesting new bits of diversity.</p>
<p>At my kids' high school, two siblings were accepted at Duke who would not have been accepted had they not been development candidates - when one looked at the naviance graph, it was crystal clear. Everyone knew that those scores and grades wouldn't get anyone else even looked at. But my question after reading the article linked earlier is about the statement of the reporter that universities are private businesses. What about being nonprofit? How does that fit in - or doesn't it?</p>