Legacy status without the donations?

Probably about the same where I think there are too many fraternities/sororities. Somewhere in the 25 to 35% range. I have no idea really. But I think legacies are more different than alike - so less of a problem. Especially these days, I think legacies are more diverse both economically and ethnically than they were once upon a time. Just for example, a large portion of my friends who went to private schools sent their kids to public schools.

I wonder how many kids who are legacies mention it in the first place to their new friends.

{deleted}

Based on bclinonk’s analysis Harvard application pool is 4% and admired students are 16%.
Do we still see no or little legacy advantage?

I don’t know that there is a level, once kids get on campus. It’s not the same as feeling that a campus is too Greek or too dominated by one ethnic group. Legacies aren’t a separate cultural group. They don’t stand out from their classmates.

Of course, if a college admits an extremely high proportion of legacies, very sophisticated non-legacy applicants may realize that their chances of admission are lower than their statistics would indicate and may not bother to apply.

One of my kids was a legacy. Based on her experience, it’s something that might come up in conversation eventually, but it’s not a big issue. I don’t think kids talk much about their parents’ college experiences, and I don’t think that legacies consider themselves different from their classmates in any meaningful way.

When S rushed, at the house he ultimately pledged, he got (light-hearted) crap from the guys because they could see his dad’s name / picture in one of the old composites. But aside from his closest friends who might just know that because they know him, an “average” classmate wouldn’t know in the least.

An interesting article about how Dartmouth has increased legacy % as well as development % since 2004:

http://www.dartblog.com/data/2014/09/011686.php

I cannot stand when legacy status and development status are conflated. If someone is at the level of development status, it matters not a whit if their parents went there too.

I wonder how common it is for philanthropists to make major contributions to universities that they did not attend.

There are certainly some. Chuck Feeney, the biggest donor Cornell (his alma mater) ever had, not only contributed almost a billion dollars to Cornell over the years, he also made huge contributions to universities in Ireland that he did not attend.

But perhaps this is rare.

Warren Buffett and Grinnell.

Happens more than you think. The “buy in” years ago to Dartmouth and Brown used to start around $3 million to get non-alumni kids admitted. Had to be the right sort of donor though.

Ralph Lauren and Duke.

Michael Ovitz and Duke.

Jane Fonda and Brown. Likely ditto for George Harrison and Brown.

Did any Kennedys go to Brown prior to JFK Jr?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115774251817757837

Duke and Brown are noted for high profile donations/kid admissions from non-alumni. Which is a completely different animal than regular legacies.

Of course - note my post 227. For some ungodly reason discussions of legacy always come back around to family-with-the-name-on-the-library, because legacy is mistaken for development.

When Tom Hanks’ son and Meryl Streep’s daughter expressed interest in Northwestern’s renowned theater department, do you think anyone GAS that Tom and Meryl hadn’t gone there themselves? Lol.

I think JFK Jr was the first Kennedy at Brown. Rory, Bobby’s daughter, went there, too, but after John.

PG, are you saying that Jane Fonda and George Harrison gave money to Brown only so their kids would get in? Because in both those cases, their kids went to Brown – did the largess start before or after the kids enrolled? There are plenty of kids of famous people at Brown (and other schools) – I don’t know that you can say with assurance that the only reason they are there is because their parents bought their spots. And once their kid got in, I’m sure they responded to $$ solicitations just like the rest of us do, just with more zeros. And btw, Jane’s ex went to Brown.

I assume that in the case of celebrity kids, there are other reasons beside cold cash to accept them.

Kerry Kennedy (Rory’s elder sister) started at Brown before JFK Jr. did.

How would anyone know how much someone like Fonda gave Brown and starting when? Though I believe it’s on record somewhere that Turner was/is a large donor.

“PG, are you saying that Jane Fonda and George Harrison gave money to Brown only so their kids would get in?”

Nope. I’m sure their kids had plenty of interesting stuff to add to campus life. I’m being totally serious.

“here are plenty of kids of famous people at Brown (and other schools) – I don’t know that you can say with assurance that the only reason they are there is because their parents bought their spots.”

I want to make clear that I absolutely never said this. Those kids may have been absolutely, completely and utterly qualified without regard to famous and / or rich parents.