PB, there are lots of resources contributing to top colleges. The guy who gives 200 mil on one side. But add back “Corporations and Foundations.” It’s the old 80/20 principle- 20% are giving 80% of the funds. I’m not even sure 10% are the biggest donors.
I get your point that some good comes of donations. But most endowments are paying out at a small amount annually. Development at a tippy top is a big machine.
What about the top schools but not the Uber elites. Fordham or UMiami or Tulane?
Whose endowments without ongoing commitments couldn’t fund the fa, professor sweepstakes, buildings, programs and merit pools so desperately needed. To compete. But to also help middle class and lower income families.
Don’t they need these carrots in the right percentage to help keep it all going ?
And maybe it all was needed for years at the Uber elites. Now with 10 20 and 40b on hand it’s time to turn off the preference. But maybe not beneath that level of endowment assets.
“But who is going to pay the bills for the others who are qualified but can’t afford the cost.”
Exactly. I’m less sure about legacies than full pay and donors here. I don’t really get why there is anger against full pay families - some of whom saved up long and hard for their kids’ college fees - and against donors who choose to, you know, actually donate money to those who need it rather than just buy another yacht or whatever. I understand the rationale behind legacy but it’s far more tenuous imo - possibly reflected in a few angry threads we’ve seen here about legacies being denied admission. I would understand all this anger far more if there were no hooks for disadvanged kids. As you point out, someone needs to fund them.
Maybe it’s less so regarding full pay. But there is a lot of discussion around needs blind versus need aware. And somehow this is wrong. Which it may be.
I
I also feel that perhaps I am once again pivoting back to thinking financial preference at any school with a 5b endowment or greater is not necessary. Big donors. Keep those folks coming. If it’s 1 percent of spots and 100 percent of the “new gyms” it makes sense.
You say your anger was directed at Ivies and top 10 privates. But being full pay at those doesn’t provide a bump, as those schools are need blind. So for those, the anger is indeed misguided.
One of the learned major points in someone’s willingness to give turns out to be satisfaction with one’s own experience at the college. So yes, it’s a viscious cycle. Get more funding, so the experience is enhanced, one way or another, so alums will be willing to gift.
And for Corp & Fdn gifts, yes, one important stats is “percentage of alums giving,” which is seen as a measure of that satisfaction.
I’m a firm believer in the opportunities for lower SES, have seen their drives, efforts, accomplishments. Many times, better than more comfy kids. There’s irony in that.
I don’t see “financial preference,” my connection is a need blind. Many times, when quoting the number of wealthy kids at elites, some forget those are usually the ones who choose to matriculate. Meanwhile, poorer kids with local interests may be choosing to stay local, for various reasons.
Yeah, I have a hard time when someone gives 200 or 400 mil to H, when they could be going more grass roots.
@wisteria100 That was my personal component to the thread. Not the question.
And I am a full pay parent. My issue was legacy preference at some non ivies.
There were three categories in the question. Not sure why you jumped on one and ignored the other two.
No need to personalize against me. The question is a broader one than my personal situation.
On legacies- I think there are some schools where the community component is an important part of their mission. And so legacies for those schools can be an important part of their community build.
I think you have a very valid point OP. Schools need full pay students, large donations, and money coming in from high profile/profitable sports to be able to maintain the level of university education we have come to expect in this country. Even my daughter’s state flagship is already canvassing us for donations (not going over particularly well with lots of parents).
I think the bigger question is do we need all the frills to have high quality education but that’s another discussion.
At some elite schools, legacies are more qualified academically than non legacy applicants. So it isn’t really clear whether the preference mattered in the end.
Full pay is not a hook at Ivies or other top colleges where legacies, donor, influencers, athletes, URM are considered hooks. At least, it’s not for Asians as they don’t have a shortage of high stats affluent Asian applicants.
As far as legacies, aside from money donations, many give a lot of time and energy to their universities. They sit on boards, do alumni meetings/interviews, give lots of free positive press on social media, etc… But, the boost is only there in binding ED, and a student still needs a competitive application and then the same “fit” that every other student needs. Lots of friends had their kids denied from Cornell but accepted at other Ivies. Big money donors are a different kind of legacy.
I have one, soon to be 2, attending my non-T10 alma mater (my husband’s, too). I know that my oldest would have gotten in without the boost (great stats, non-competitive program). I’m not sure my youngest would have (great stats, but also special circumstances and a program that admits only 8-10 per year). And I know another child of an alum who received an admission letter that basically said (I’m heavily paraphrasing), “We don’t really want you but because you’re a legacy, I guess you can come.” (She didn’t).
This is a school that shows how much it values legacy. They even give out Legacy pins at the special Legacy Reception during family weekend where yes, they politely ask for money. But it goes beyond money. This is a school that values its strong alumni network and uses it as a selling point. Legacies really help build that. My husband and I had nothing to do with the school after graduation until our first kid wanted to go there. Now that she is there, we have given a little bit, and also stepped up other activities of support.
I was definitely conflicted about the privilege, but now I also see the other areas where the University is working to recruit a more diverse student body. Of course it could always be better, but they have made a huge commitment to supporting and recruiting Veterans, for instance. I’m sure their programs for URM and first-to-college are also strong, though I don’t know how they compare to other institutions. I hope that the balance is equitable and that the legacy “program” helps makes those other initiatives more attainable.
These are great points.
It has now been added as a valid observation that Legacy parents through their time, talent or treasure help the fabric of a school for sure.
But I think even more practically, it allows the schools to save a lot of money and raise a lot of money then used for other groups as part of the bigger picture. Interviews. Alumni work and internships. Hadn’t thought of that.
How about their marketing value as walking and talking billboards with the sweatshirts and LinkedIn profiles etc.
Also everyone touts the great alumni networks as big selling points of a school. Legacy preference helps keep the alumni connected.
And we aren’t even discussing that they all may be the best candidates for all we know.
And the full pay question is more directed at schools where it explicitly matters.
Or where you secretly think it mattered.
Or people suspect it matters.
Which is pretty much everywhere.
You are taking at face value the claim that legacy preference results in increased donations. This page claims otherwise:
In terms of development admits, perhaps the sale of a small percentage of seats is worth it to the college. Perhaps if the colleges really need the money, they can open up the development process by allowing applicants to indicate how much their parents will donate on their applications, so that, for all academically qualified applicants, the college can effectively run an auction for some of its seats, rather than try to use proxy measures like legacy preference that may not do much in that respect anyway. In other words, some parents (more than just the few giant donors) may be willing to pay more than list price, so a college could use that willingness to its advantage to increase revenue.
How is a legacy being such a billboard of any better marketing value than a non-legacy? Indeed, more legacy may be a negative marketing point, in that it makes the college look like a club of inherited aristocracy that few outsider are admitted to join.
In the real world, “pay to play” is everywhere and I don’t see why it would be any different in private college admissions. Institutions have their “needs” and donations to their colleges is very, very important.
Please stop connecting me to the one component of the question. Legacy. There were three components. Legacy being only one.
I was asking an intellectual question for others to comment on. I don’t have a firm view.
I’m not a legacy that mattered and our legacy hooks didn’t work for my daughter. And she was as strong an academic candidate you can find. Not kidding, off the charts good.
So despite it not helping us and possibly hurting us at other schools where none existed. As well as big donors and celebrities takkng a few spots She could have used. My anger has been mellowed a bit thinking about all the chances provided to other kids who would t have them if they didn’t court alumni and foundation with these little benefits.
Which smart folks like you and me until recently seem to think represent something a lot more sinister.
I was asking about perceived financial preferences as universally bad.
Which was my original feeling.
And I am coming around to a more nuanced view.