<p>Cobrat,
It cracked me up that you made your sarcasm very clear :)</p>
<p>For private K-12 school, the HS really pushes for 100% family donations. The schools state that if 100% threshhold is met, then it triggers other sorts of donations. Some schools don’t make a recommendation on how much (which is nice because it’s easier to meet the 100% if some families are able to contribute a small amount) while other schools really push to have a minimum donation. Then a booklet comes out to show all the donors, and it’s broken down by class, alumni, staff etc. Sometimes a school will put out a “draft” of the booklet first, to catch the last minute stragglers who forgot, which will be remedied when they see the “draft” book. One year, we forgot to contribute, so when the book came out, I was embarrassed.</p>
<p>Why the hang up about seeing it writing? Why make the alumnus calling you on the phone go through your little hoops? Believe me, they don’t want to get rejected or passed off to 10 year old daughters to do the talking any more than you want to be solicited. But, they do it for the school which you or your children attend. What does having anything in writing have to do with anything? The call is a legitimate call with a legitimate basis for the request. Just say no, dammit, rather than make whip on people to make them cater to your $50 donation.</p>
<p>Don’t do any of those things you imply. If I do answer the call, I chat briefly and they are usually quite happy to have someone nice on the phone who is interested in them, and doesnt curse or hang up in their ear. But I do tell them I don’t donate over the phone. Period. Its my perogative. And I am consistent.
Oh, and I give more than $50. Do you?</p>
<p>First, jym, no one really “donates” over the phone. Unless they are asking you for your Mastercard on the spot (ok, some do) most are just asking for pledges. No one is emptying your bank account with a pledge. Hey, you can even renege! What do you need in writing? As for the $50 comment, I was just trying to emphasize my point that you are being a bore, small-minded, and tiresome when you whine to someone seeking your pledge that you want “something in writing.” Yeah, make those people, most of whom are equal to you in stature and professionalism, really work hard and beg, beg, beg. That attitude, to me, is an example of a “$50” attitude – useless tokenism.</p>
<p>
I don’t disagree that it is your perogative. You can pee at noon in your own backyard, that too is your perogative. I’m just commenting on your “perogative.” I just think it is self-centered and egotistical and ungenerous. My perogative.</p>
<p>Were you one of those poor work/study students at the other end of the phone, placido? Because your description does not in the least bit match the conversations I have had. Nor does your attitude.</p>
<p>IMO, the real ones at fault for the entire mess are 1.) The Class of 1960 for offering their gift with such conditions which could have potentially placed those who won’t donate for any reason on the spot…especially in ways that IMO are fraught with Orwellian overtones. 2.) Everyone in the Dartmouth community who leaked her name and tried to pressure her/question her right to be there. </p>
<p>She did nothing more than exercise her prerogative which is further augmented by the fact she didn’t succumb to the uncritical mindlessness of those lambasting her for not conforming to the “community norms”. </p>
<p>IMO, the Dartmouth community…especially the Class of 1960/Alumni office would have achieved far more by personally reaching out to her to ask about her negative experiences much as a good company asks and genuinely embraces customer/client feedback…especially negative for the sake of self-reflection and improvement. Saying about more rewards with honey than vinegar and all that…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While at a Cambridge University Alumni event at the invitation of a friend who got his graduate degree there, the chancellor stated that US graduate alums as a group give the most.</p>
<p>Maybe they did reach out to her and ask her about the source of her disappointment. We don’t know that they didn’t. </p>
<p>She could have given a penny and met the 100% class contribution goal. </p>
<p>Agree that harassment and embarassment are inappropriate, no question about that. But the impact of her decision had strong consequences in that particular case. And encouraging 100% class participation is nothing new.</p>
<p>You could equally well have said that the class of 60 jeopardized the 100K donation by insisting on a 100% participation. Donations by its very definition should mean voluntary - otherwise why not make it a fee, and be up front about it? If the young lady was disappointed, why should she let herself be bullied into supporting something she doesn’t like?</p>
<p>That’s what I thought too. Or, a fellow student could give that penny in her name if she agreed. Perhaps the school is now proud of having such an independent mined graduate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think all that means is to remind us that we pledged something. I often say “Send it in the mail.”</p>
<p>Is your conclusion based on your friend and her SIL?
Do donors identify their religion or race?
Do the college fundraisers call all the Jews and skip over other groups?</p>
<p>The article said that the $100k was going to be used for pusrposes sucah as that it:
though that might be hypothetical. Feeling pressured into making a voluntary contribution is not a comfortable position to be in. I feel that way when the firefighters collect money in their boots or Shriner clowns collect in buckets at traffic intesections.</p>
<p>"1960 for offering their gift with such conditions which could have potentially placed those who won’t donate for any reason on the spot…especially in ways that IMO are fraught with Orwellian overtones. "</p>
<p>ORWELLIAN? Don’t you think that’s a bit exaggerated?</p>
<p>Whoa. apologies for all the typos above. Shouldn’t post before that first cup of coffee
And agree with you, pg. There are some posts here with an excess of hyperbole.</p>
<p>And how’d this thread go from the $2M “college consultant” to $1 donations?</p>
<p>Do you suppose that colleges might consider giving trends of various demographics in deciding who to accept as students? I don’t find it hard to believe. I also think we might be surprised at what categories of people do and do not give generously.</p>
<p>If I thought a college was going to try to publicly humiliate me for not donating, then I CERTAINLY wouldn’t give them a cent. What an attitude of entitlement! </p>
<p>Lately I’ve had cashiers at Petco and other places ask me if I’d like to “round up” my purchase to the nearest dollar and donate the change to animal shelters and such. I don’t mind this. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no. But if I say no, I do not expect them to put “NATURALLY IS A TOTAL CHEAPSKATE! WOULDN’T EVEN DONATE 38 CENTS TO HELP THE POOR KITTIES!” on their electronic billboard.</p>
<p>'60 ended up giving $200k, it says.
It’s silly to have that sort of gift available and tag it to 100% of seniors, many of whom have struggled to pay costs to get through, may not have jobs waiting, and/or may be looking at student loan payments starting.</p>
<p>But, we all know, right, that college development can be a machine? It’s not a group of happy alums trying to keep school spirit alive, through the years. We know the more wealthy potential donors may even be tracked through outside info suppliers, right? Etc. Depending on the school.</p>
<p>My long-time feeling is leave graduating seniors out of it.
Most schools are happy to receive even amounts much smaller than $50 because it’s % of donors that yields the perception of satisfaction wth the college experience. Happy alums donate. Not just wealthy.</p>
<p>Working backwards: yes, an applicant’s potential to be satisfied, to have happy memories, to look back with pleasure and pride…can factor in admissions. It’s part of “fit and thrive” and one reason colleges pump money into non-academic aspects of college life.</p>
<p>I believe, according to that linked article, the Class of '60 gave its promised $100K, not $200K.
Was there something written to the contrary?</p>
<p>It also said that their pledge was 10K for every percent of graduating class giving, so that if they only had 99% contribution, they’d still have given 90K (maybe even 99K, who knows). So the one holdout’s refusal to participate wasn’t as potentially damaging as it first appeared.</p>
<p>As for Chow, the Chinese newspapers do seem to point to the same guy noted above, who got the MPA at H. I find it hard to believe the money folks at H had not already tried to “build a relationship” with him. Unless there is some sense the execs who do that sort of program are not “fair game.”</p>
