<p>$250K won't do it. I know several who were rejected with family named chairs, and they're about a million at top schools.</p>
<p>"I read a couple of years ago that a child of someone who donated $40 million to the Harvard Medical School got rejected."</p>
<p>Yikes---40 million certainly SHOULD have done it! Are you sure this story isn't just an urban legend? Then again, Harvard has such a preternaturally large endowment, maybe they can afford to be cavalier about possibly offending such an important donar.</p>
<p>I think a little chat with the development office is in order here.</p>
<p>To be honest, we had a "Saltonstall" in my house, and I roomed next door to a "Resor" at my bucolic little alma mater.</p>
<p>You really don't want to know. ;)</p>
<p>How sad to have to buy your way in to any school. No sense of accomplishment. I would feel like my family had no confidence in my abilities AT ALL if they bought my way in.</p>
<p>Or on the flip side, the kid has such a sense of entitlement -"oh, I'm a (insert name here) so just give me what I want even tho' I haven't actually earned it or deserve it."</p>
<p>There are plenty of ways to get admitted to top schools besides donating a few million. Look at Bush. He has 1200 in SATs and mediocre grades and got into Yale. I can't think of anyone from my home state that got into to Yale or any other IVY with less than 1400 and top grades. Thus, being the scion of a Senator, President or having a certain quality name caughkennedycaugh can do it.</p>
<p>I would also imagine that if you are already famous and successful, caugholsonsisterscaugh, you will get admitted too.</p>
<p>In fact, there is a kid that wrote a best seller, "Eregon." He was 15 when he wrote it, and now has a movie deal. I would bet he can get into any English program he wants.</p>
<p>Of course, once upon a time, getting into Yale had more to do with coming from the right family, prep school, and legacy, than academic excellence. Probably not fair to compare that to the current situation. </p>
<p>As for whether it is sad to buy one's way into school, look again at Bush, it does not seem to have crippled his sense of self-worth, or his later life ambitions. He may not have set the academic world on fire, but you could make an argument that accepting him was one of the best decisions their admissions office has made. Every college wants successful people as alums. Do you think the development and admissions people at Yale have any trouble working their recent spate of high profile alums into every conversation?</p>
<p>Here's the thing - wealth comes in many different forms - whether it's "old" money or "new" money matters, there's also reputation, and of course the amount of money matters and when its given. Hypothetically, if you're trying to get into a school on money "alone", you're going to have to buy something more than a chair (think a lab, a hall, a library wing, or a free-standing building) or be able to pay tuition in full. Most of the money schools provide in terms of financial aid is in the form of government loans or work-study, also subsidized by state and the federal government. Additionally, those schools that specifically do do not have "need blind admission" note it on application materials, one such school is Brown University until recently did reject students partially because of financial need as Brown had a very small endowment, I believe that's no longer the case.</p>
<p>"Of course, once upon a time, getting into Yale had more to do with coming from the right family, prep school, and legacy, than academic excellence. Probably not fair to compare that to the current situation."</p>
<p>It's true about once-upon-a-time, 40 or more years ago, but if you were to compare with 25-30 years ago, I think you might just come to the opposite conclusion. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Probably depends on where you sit, but it's their money, and they can do with it as they please.</p>
<p>Buying your way in, I would imagine, presents a mix of factors that have to be weighed, like everything else in admissions.</p>
<p>If you want to get into a small LAC, and your family has been going to and giving to the school for generations, and the school is thinly endowed, and you would be a borderline admit in any event, I bet your family could buy your way in for not that much. It might not even take $1 million. Whereas buying a non-legacy dolt's way into Harvard would cost $20 million+ if it can be done at all.</p>
<p>Yet another factor might be where the money comes from. Any hint of sweatshops, doing business with rogue states, the gaming industry, or trouble with law enforcement would prolly cause them to turn away your money. And, prejudices being what they are, an Italian surname might cause them to look hard at the gift.</p>
<p>"There are plenty of ways to get admitted to top schools besides donating a few million. Look at Bush. He has 1200 in SATs and mediocre grades and got into Yale. I can't think of anyone from my home state that got into to Yale or any other IVY with less than 1400 and top grades. Thus, being the scion of a Senator, President or having a certain quality name caughkennedycaugh can do it."</p>
<p>My grandfather came from a poor background and got into Harvard with a 1200 SAT score, that used to be a really good score, now, however with all these overachievers the only really good score would be a perfect score.</p>
<p>From what I understand soon after Bush & Kerry (both legacy and name admits), Yale changed its policy, which may be why Jeb went to UT Austin.</p>
<p>I think Jeb went to UT as the "other" brother, sort of like Jenna....There is a legacy deal at every school in the nation, whether it's elementary school straight through grad school, why do you think college and graduate applications ask about a family history at the school, it's not a secret, it's not the end all be all, but definitely nothing anyone's trying to hide. I do think that other factors have become as important, whether it's minority status, financial status (as in poverty being to one's advantage), physical disabilities, etc. I think the power of the person is simply becoming as important as the power of the parent.</p>
<p>Well, once upon a time certainly applied to Prescott, and to George I. By the time of George II, family name, prep school, and money counted for a lot less than in the good old days, but they still counted. As they do now. If Barbara is in the Senate when her kids are applying to Yale, I doubt they will have much trouble being admitted. By the way, I believe UT Austin is a very prestigious destination in the minds of most Texans.</p>
<p>As to Bush and Kerry SAT's - Don't forget scores were recentered in 1995. A 1200 then corollates to a higher score on the test currently being given. Not a blow you out of the water score, but higher.</p>
<p>About a 1300 post recentering.</p>
<p>That sounds about right.</p>
<p>The Affirmative-Action President's Dilemma<br>
by David B. Wilkins </p>
<p>It is common knowledge that President Bush was not much of a student. Although the facts of his lack of academic distinction--at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., Yale University and Harvard Business School--are well known, few people have stopped to ask a seemingly obvious question: How did someone with mediocre grades get admitted to two of this nation's most prestigious universities? With respect to Yale, the answer is plain. George W. Bush was admitted to Yale because his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, were prominent alumni.
Giving preferential treatment to the children of alumni is standard practice at most elite institutions of higher learning. University officials claim these "legacy admittees" strengthen their schools by creating continuity across the generations and building a loyal alumni base. This justification parallels the most commonly articulated defense for affirmative action in minority admissions. But Bush and many of his supporters have expressed skepticism--and in the case of U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, outright hostility--for affirmative-action policies for minority students while saying virtually nothing about the affirmative help routinely given to alumni children. </p>
<p>The president's admirers who oppose affirmative action for minorities might try to avoid this uncomfortable analogy by offering a different justification for Yale's decision. During the campaign, those supporting Bush typically chalked up his academic difficulties to youthful indiscretion, emphasizing instead his record in business and as governor of Texas. Judged from the perspective of his post-graduation accomplishments, his defenders implicitly assert, Yale's decision to admit the future president was a wise one. </p>
<p>The empirical record, however, belies any attempt to distinguish the two forms of affirmative action on the basis of post-graduation success. The overwhelming majority of minority students who benefit from affirmative action in university admissions also go on to become productive and public-spirited citizens. In the most comprehensive study to date, former university presidents William Bowen and Derrick Bok conclude that black students from selective colleges and universities lead successful and rewarding careers that parallel those of their white classmates. A recent study of the University of Michigan Law School's minority graduates reaches a similar conclusion. Indeed, the post-graduation success of minority students who neither enjoy Bush's ready access to circles of power, nor the automatic assumption of competence that still is attached to those who are white and male, suggests that minorities actually get more out of their education than their white peers. </p>
<p>Rather than seeking to distinguish affirmative action for legacies from other practices designed to tailor admissions policies to meet university objectives, Bush and his supporters would do better to ask what the success of both kinds of affirmative action says about the predictive value of the "standard" criteria used to admit all students. In the Michigan study, for example, researchers found, with only one exception, no statistically significant correlation for any student between undergraduate grades and scores on the Law School Admissions Test and future income or public service. The exception is the inverse correlation between test scores and public service-- the higher a student's LSAT score, the less likely he or she is to engage in significant public service. These findings suggest that law schools and other educational institutions should re-examine their admissions processes for all students. </p>
<p>President Bush claims he wants to "leave no child behind" and to "improve the tone in Washington." Minorities might take this effort more seriously if Bush were to acknowledge forthrightly the role that legacy affirmative action has played in his own life. Such candor would go a long way toward persuading minorities that the president really intends to move beyond traditional Republican rhetoric that brands any effort to aid minorities as preferential treatment while ignoring advantages routinely given to those already in positions of power. </p>
<p>Similarly, Bush's pledge to leave no child behind would be more credible if it were accompanied by an explicit promise that the Bush Justice Department will, notwithstanding the views of Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, defend admissions policies that ensure minority students have the same opportunity to succeed as Bush was given when he was admitted to Yale. </p>
<p>Should Bush yield to those on the right and attack affirmative action for minorities while saying nothing about legacy admissions, he will reveal that compassionate conservatism has almost nothing to do with practices that promote diversity and everything to do with policies that protect the children of privilege.</p>
<p>"I read a couple of years ago that a child of someone who donated $40 million to the Harvard Medical School got rejected."</p>
<p>Yikes---40 million certainly SHOULD have done it! Are you sure this story isn't just an urban legend? Then again, Harvard has such a preternaturally large endowment, maybe they can afford to be cavalier about possibly offending such an important donor.</p>
<hr>
<p>Sorry for the late reply. I read this report in a main stream news source, not a blog, so I don't believe it is urban legend. There was a name attached to this story; I just don't remember.</p>
<p>It is also funny that the daughter of former Princeton president Harold T Shapiro was rejected by Princeton while her dad was president. She went to Michigan instead and was reported by her dad to be very happy there.</p>
<p>Returning to the point of the thread, while it is true that big donors have an easier time getting their offspring into college, they do not have a sure time. It is just a preference. And why not? It is a form of prejudice to jump to the conclusion that all donor kids are stupid and don't qualify for the spot anyway. I am not a rich donor, but I can be fair about this situation, in the sense that I can put myself in the positions of the donor, the school, and the other kids. Think it thru this way: if one donor kid gets in and brings in enough scholarship to fund dozens of other needy kids, or brings in a new building to improve the educational experience of thousands of kids, that is a win-win for everyone!</p>