I don’t go for the argument that when something doesn’t seem right, it nevertheless doesn’t matter, because it only affects a few people. Harvard apparently has a list, and not just a name or two that get passed around. This suggests to me that there must be multiple admits in this category–certainly multiple students who receive special consideration. The single name J. P. Gotrocks IV could not be that hard to remember.
The other element of the Harvard emails that made me queasy was the emphasis on future donations. This apparently had an impact in two types of cases: 1) where a multi-million dollar donor was thought to be essentially tapped out, unlikely to give that much in the future, and therefore ignorable, and 2) where a wealthy donor might give works of art in the future, and should therefore be accommodated. I have seen my university treat people who are wealthy with great deference, though they have given nothing so far–because they might give in the future. I have also seen my university pay comparatively little attention to people who have a track record of giving, yet whose overall financial means are modest.
Thinking about this a bit more, it is an interesting question to me whether a donation to Harvard should qualify as a “charitable” deduction if there is an element of quid pro quo in it. The IRS sets the requirement that nothing of material benefit should be returned to the giver. I would say that Harvard admission for one’s children would be construed by most people as material benefit.
I am not into dictating how people spend their money–that is totally their choice. I also recognize the collateral benefit of helping students who need the financial aid to afford to go to Harvard. I also understand that the ties to one’s alma mater can be quite strong.
I just reserve my judgment on how “charitable” the giving really is. Definitely so in some cases. Questionable in others.
@QuantMech I agree with you in principle re: tax deductibility but there is a lot of quid pro quo in “charitable” donations. Names on buildings, for instance. Or the free t-shirt you get from the local charity 5K race (you’re supposed to deduct that amount I believe).
Our church provides us with a statement that we receive “no material benefits” in return for our giving. This was an improvement from a past year’s statement that we received “no benefits.” I am not sure whether this reflected a change in IRS demands, or whether the church just changed the statement in the interests of truthfulness.
Today’s New York Times has the information that Harvard legacies, faculty children, children of donors, and recruited athletes make up about 5% of the applicants, but 30% of admitted students. It did not break the numbers down further. Clearly, many of those applicants would have been admitted without the tip.
However, if you work the numbers, look at the entire set of Harvard applicants, remove whatever number you think do not have a realistic chance of admission, and then look at the pretty large number remaining, you can see how much you think the tips (in aggregate) are worth. It would have been really interesting if the groups had been disaggregated in the New York Times article; perhaps they are in the court documents.
How much is it worth to have your name on a building? I would not necessarily say 0. It depends on what you and your family are doing. If you are engaged in a business or profession where bringing your name to the attention of potential “customers” is valuable in itself, there is probably a monetary return associated with it. My understanding is that the valuation of a business can take into account “goodwill,” with a monetary value assigned to it For donors in some fields, the name on the building would have no monetary value–I just don’t think that generalizes to everyone.
One can turn down t-shirts, cups, cloth bags, pens . . . One can’t really turn down the advantages of having one’s name on a building, if there is an advantage (other than admissions edges for one’s children).
You could at least in principle determine the fair market value of Harvard admission by putting it on the market, perhaps with a restriction requiring that students have the base level of qualification for Harvard.
It’s not as if colleges are the only nonprofit institutions that provide naming rights for big donors. Every hospital has wings named for big donors, as do other types of institutions.
How would you go about determining the value of being placed on the deans’s list? How would you prove that a student flagged by development wouldn’t have gotten in on their own? Colleges rarely, if ever, make the transaction a quid pro quo. It would be infinitely more difficult than determining the price for a t-shirt or a coffee mug.
One can turn down the honor of having a building named for oneself, but it’s not the name on the building that carries sway, it’s the donation(s) that would have led to the naming.
Of course it’s not explicitly quid pro quo! That would be openly corrupt.
Sue22 is right with regard to the admissions aspect, that the name on the building per se is not important, it’s the donation itself. But that is just with regard to admissions of one’s relatives. It seems to me that there are tangible benefits to having one’s name on a building at a major university, in terms of awareness by potential “customers.”
^ Especially these “customers” will turn out to be influential players in various industries and government.
But the number of buildings is limited and their names have long been taken in most cases. I imagine over 99% of million donations at Harvard do not involve names on the buildings.