<p>H & I don’t even donate to our own schools, so we aren’t going to be donating to our four kids’ schools. The OP states his parent will still donate even though OP was rejected from his parent’s alma mater ED. I suppose it depends on the motive behind the donations, donating for years does not guarantee your child will be accepted. If you are donating to be charitable to your alma mater then that is a different story.</p>
<p>I certainly never donated enough to make me think that it would make any diffference in whether my kids got in or not. As I said before, my primary motive for donating was that I really enjoyed my college experience and thus was receptive when they asked me for money.</p>
<p>I suspect those who give really substantial amounts of money are not surprised by admissions decisions–they probably get a higher level of communication.</p>
<p>I’ve faced this with SecondToGo … and on my part I still donate but the school has gone from being one of our bigger recipients to one of the smaller ones … I had a GREAT experience at Cornell and can’t imagine not supporting Cornell … however my kid comes first however rational or irrational my protection of them is … so for my the end result is on-going donations at the level I made as a new grad 25 years ago.</p>
<p>The State of California facilitates automatic donations to my alma mater every payday. I found out my colleagues who didn’t even attend there make the same sort of obligatory donation as well.</p>
<p>That is the attitude public U’s are working hard to overcome.</p>
<p>^^^I’m kidding. Obviously only a miniscule fraction of my taxes goes to anything having to do with the school I attended. I guess I need to put a little smilie on every single post that isn’t 100% serious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s true. If you’re still a resident of that state, you are “donating” to it every payday. I could see being even less motivated to give an additional donation in that case.</p>
<p>Yes; we did stop donating to our older child’s alma mater after younger child was denied, but we were very minor givers anyway so it makes no difference to anyone but us. The alum continues to donate to the school, which is entirely appropriate.</p>
<p>Unfortunately bovertine I think many do believe that.</p>
<p>simple answer…my emotional ties to my kids far outweigh any to my alma mater.</p>
<p>So, if your kid is say a NFL prospect and tries out but does not make your favorite NFL team you now will feel obligated to find a new team? Or he/she applies for a job where you work–say a law firm–but does not get hired–you going to quit?</p>
<p>
Yes on the team, no on the job, unless they treat him shabbily in some way. If my kid tries out for a part in a play, and loses out in favor of somebody we think isn’t as talented, we’re probably not going to go see that play. Maybe others are different, but I tend to lose interest in enterprises that hurt my kids’ feelings, especially if I think their actions are unjustified.</p>
<p>I definitely would not donate, but then again I do not get attached to institutions, because I would view these types of interactions as purely business. The relationships I make within are what I value, and I do try to see them as seperate entities. Everything else is simply a transaction, unless I would be donating for a specific cause, like scientific research.</p>
<p>Hunt said: “They’re just saying that their kid appeared to have qualifications similar to others who were accepted, and their kid was rejected.”</p>
<p>I get your point about my use of the word "owed, but . . . the reaction of some of the parents here is more than them “just saying” that they now choose to send their donations elsewhere.</p>
<p>The H who ripped his Stanford license plate off his car and others who had slightly milder but similar reactions to their kid getting a “no” clearly had expectations that since there kid was qualified the kid should get in. If not quite “owed” an admisssion . . bhut whatg do you call it when they believe that because of their donations their qualified child should also be accepted?</p>
<p>I understand the emotions behind this, but . . . what was getting in the way of them knowing that thousands of “qualified” kids get rejected from their (or their parents’) dream schools every year? What caused them to believe that the reality competitive admissions was waived for them EXCEPT the sense that since they gave big $ to the school and their kid was qualified and wanted to attend, their kid was “owed” an admission?</p>
<p>It is not logical, it is emotional. It is pretty much a divorce with your alma mater.</p>
<p>And what is the benefit of that? You lose a connection that you must have valued–for what–to teach them a “lesson”? Seems silly and childish to me. Kid will still go to college and probably love wherever he ends up going and he can donate to his place and not yours.</p>
<p>Well, barrons, I can’t really say since I didn’t get placed in that position, but the thought of having “our” relationship with our beloved alma mater tarnished if they didn’t accept S was a big sticking point for us – which does NOT mean that they were obligated in any way, shape or form to accept him, but it did mean that we needed to be emotionally prepared that it would probably permanently poison how we felt about the place. And whoever said it upthread was right - yes, they’re not obligated to accept my son, but I am also not obligated to contribute to them in the future. They can find donations elsewhere; just wouldn’t be through me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think some of you are not hearing what’s being said. “I’m upset that my kid didn’t get in and therefore I’m not donating any more” is NOT the same thing as “Because I donated in the past, they owed my kid an acceptance.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think people withdrawing monetary support is about teaching the institution a lesson. If it’s not going to feel good to give when you or child feels hurt then don’t give.</p>
<p>No wonder this generation of kids is mentally weaker. Enablers amok. Trophies for everyone. You tried=you deserve it.</p>