<p>I agree completely. There are so many needy causes in the world and only a limited pot of dough to distribute among them. Ever since our children started elementary school, we started giving the "education" portion of our charitable-giving pie to an education fund that provides grants to support the public school system in our town, figuring they could use the money a whole lot more than either the private secondary school where I went or the private university where my H and I both went. When my oldest started college, we were so happy with the manifold ways in which her college has supported her that we asked her grandmother to send a donation to her college in lieu of Christmas presents to us, an indirect form of giving from us (as we are paying full price for her college education and feel that is "donation" enough from us, at least for the time being). Similarly, I expect we will start directing donations to whatever college our son ends up attending (and at this point our alma mater is a strong candidate), assuming his experience in college is as successful as hers has been. So I would hope that colleges might take that into consideration when looking at the donation history of their alums: some of us may be more likely to give money in gratitude for what a school has done for our children than for what a school has done for us. And once we are out from under the cloud of tuition payments, our donations may increase dramatically as a result of the gratitude factor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
unbelievablem, you are both rational and logical. I may agree with you in theory, but not in practice. If you or a family member were an employee of a nonprofit and it fired you or your relative, would you write it a check? Volunteer for it during the holidays?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>to be honest - i have been faced with situations in which i have not always agreed with how those involved with a "cause" i supported behaved with respect to administrative matters. and i have continued to support that cause -- because i felt it was something that was worth supporting even though i disagreed with individuals then involved in its adminsitration. if the issues i disagreed with dealt with what i felt was the "mission" of the "cause" then yes it has affected my donating.</p>
<p>universities have thousands of alumni producing thousands of legacy applicants. as applications increase and the process becomes more selective, i think parents have to have a realistic view as to what this means. and part of a realistic view is the fact that when it comes to selective schools, many admission decisions often seem "irrational" from the outside.</p>
<p>my older daughter would not consider my alma mater - didn't offer the program she wants. my younger daughter may consider it. do i think that because i send in a yearly check to the alum assoc that she should somehow get special handling? quite honestly, no.</p>
<p>Parents do have a realistic view of selective schools admissions - it just often comes after their child is rejected. I do think a lot of the problem here is that the rules have changed. Students at those schools today most likely won't have any expectation that their own children would be given any extra consideration as a legacy. The word "legacy" itself will probably no longer have any meaning in the context of college admissions. I don't even think parents are saying it's irrational - they're saying that, in the past, being a legacy gave an applicant an edge over non-legacies (with roughly equivalent records) and that this has changed.</p>
<p>Thus the reason I put the appear in quotes. From the perspective of an alumni with such a student this is where they think they would get the slight tip.</p>
<p>At my alma mater they accept legacies at roughly 1.75 the overall rate. The overall average SAT score for the legacies is 3 points less than the overall pool. So, "all things being equal", this is where being a legacy is thought of as being a tie breaker. The trouble is "appear" is really a squishy term . . . but so is the admission criterea at many top schools.</p>
<p>You know, someone could view this kind of thinking as elitist. When I was a teen I went to a special high school in New York City --Bronx High School of Science. I was admitted by taking a test. For generations before and after me, students were admitted to Bronx Science through the test. If alumni children had any edge in this process it would be ruinous and unfair. I realize that I am talking about a public high school not a private college, but to me the issues are similar. I would continue to contribute to my high school because of all it gave me, and because I loved it --and would want my child to be accepted ONLY by passing the test, just like others. The schools you are talking about are the top institutions in the country --and they really do need to be open to everyone, essentially equally, not just for the good of the institution but for the good of our society.</p>
<p>Admission to these schools should not be passed down like a royal title or the family crown jewels.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, "all things being equal", this is where being a legacy is thought of as being a tie breaker. The trouble is "appear" is really a squishy term . . . but so is the admission criterea at many top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i think this is an important point -- i've seen the same type of statements made about other factors -- "all things being being equal" - the problem is that there are just so many subjective factors that go into the admission process, i doubt there are ever REALLY situations where "all thing" really are equal other than the factor at issue (which varies by thread: need - or lack of need- for finacial aid, geographic location, legacy status, ED status, demonstrated interest). if stats were available for a school's admissions based on all these different criteria, one may be tempted to draw conclusions as to a future student's prospects, but these days the predictive value of such stats is just probably becoming less and less - and ultimately leads to disappointment when the factor at issue doesn't tip in favor of the suppsoed "all other things being equal" applicant.</p>
<p>so many thread here on cc involve parents and students trying to make sense of these decisions - why one kid gets in and another doesn't. while admin officers behind closed doors may know why one kid got in and another didn't, that logic just rarely is visible to those looking in from the outside - and even when it may be, it rarely helps you predict what decisions will be made in the future.</p>
<p>In the past few years, at my kids' school I've seen a girl rejected whose father graduated from and taught at Dartmouth. I've seen two top students whose dads graduated from Yale, rejected. One was a National Merit Scholar.</p>
<p>I suspect this is hitting the group of parents who were most likely either first generation college OR whose parents (usually just dad) benefited from the educational opportunities after WWII. In other words, they were the first to be able to provide the legacy advantage for their children, and are surprised to see it being yanked away when middle class people could have benefited from it. </p>
<p>George Bush & co. weren't rebuffed by the admissions office and probably won't be in the future, either. There are degrees of elitism, I suppose.</p>
<p>yes you are right --Bushes will probably always be able to get into Yale with 1200 SATS. Doesn't make it right, or the best thing for our society.</p>
<p>cloverdale7 -- as a fellow Science alum, i have to say that what you wrote really resonates for me.</p>
<p>but in fairness to others -- i think the distinction is that you knew if you got a score of X or above on the entrance exam, you got into Science -- plain and simple criteria. everyone looking at the system knew it was clear and fair (ok, you could argue whether the exam was "fair"), but everyone could clearly see the criteria. </p>
<p>the type of frustration being voiced here comes in large part, i hope, to the fact that the criteria is not always clear - or even seems to shift from year to year and even student to student. and given that, perhaps high hopes have in the past been placed on the role that legacy would play in that mix. </p>
<p>i think lefthandofthedog made a good point -- back when i was at science (no specifics please, but some guy name noah was working on an ark :) ) people in my class weren't talking about how "legacy" status was going to effect their college admissions decisions -- we weren't following our parents' paths, we were part of the american dream to surpass our parents' paths. we got there and are now finding our kids having trouble getting the same choices we had.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I'm a college senior and while I would never say this to my parents, I have always appreciated everything they've done for me and know that their suggestions and advice (how ever different from mine) come with the purest of intentions. No matter what I do, even if I end up in jail, I know they'll be there for me to depend on.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I do not like my parents "butting in" to my college apps. Nor my mom ranting all the time about UIUC and when the $$ will get in. Gets so darn annoying that I get ipod headphones and turn the blast on. My parents are so darn cheap. I buy everything i own except for food, water, shelter, and i borrow my dads car. We dont even have REGULAR TV service!!!! </p>
<p>Some times, you parents must realize to back off and let us do our thing.</p>
<p>WE ARE GOING to college... not the REVERSE.</p>
<p>My Mom wants me to go to UIUC or Indiana business for first year and transfer back to UT to "save money". @%*) that. I am not losing my friendships/bodns gained through my freshman year just to save money. I told her if I am not happy, I'll fail and she can lose all her money. Has worked with moderate success.</p>
<p>They arent even paying for the majority of my college money , so why should they care?</p>
<p>Well unbelievable, for my part, i went to a state U and my older kid goes to an Ivy --fate of younger kid unknown till next week. I understand the way people feel, but I do not agree with it. </p>
<p>As to the lack of transparency, that is true for all of us whether we have legacy status or not. The system is mightily flawed but it still strives to fight elitism. The degree to which it can succeed in that goal only strengthens the system and all of us.</p>
<p>Elite college selection that considers more factors than a simple test is also a strength, a good thing --even if it is less transparent it may be more fair. Passing seats in an Ivy down from one generation to the next strikes me as intuitively unfair and goes against my grain.</p>
<p>My own son will be an Ivy graduate. I do not have expectation that his children should therefore be given preference (even if selfishly I might wish it were so.) I am not above taking an edge when I can get it --but that does not mean I feel entitled to it.</p>
<p>damitsam: I don't understand why your mom would want you to bother with going to any school for just one year (especially only freshman year). Why bother? Why not just stay in T?</p>
<p>Since you haven't said what your parents income level is, it may be that they are providing all they can.</p>
<p>my mom only started going to college during my 2nd grade year(AND STILL Going...dont ask its annoying) and my dad paid his way thru CUny hunter and sum polytechnical college thingy(Graduate) for his to universities..as much as Hunter sounds liek a pretty good school but its almost completely COMMUTER! and i aint into TEchnical crap! plus i live 2 close to nyc to even think about it...so yah....well i do have a legacy at Fordham(my mom will go to graduate school...or will b going to graduate school when i start college... and my sister and my uncle supposably they put emphasis in LEgacys no matter which one ur related to...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The system is mightily flawed but it still strives to fight elitism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i would love to be able to believe that the systen is reallystriving to fight elitism. i can believe it is striving to be less blatant about it.</p>