Yikes . . . that is crazy. Didn’t realize they are carrying such a heavy debt load.
Totally understand. I’m only saying that, without knowing more, a sustainable draw (Tobin Rule, or pick your method) on $36 billion plus endowment fund, plus income from other sources (including tuition), seems like the kind of situation in which one wouldn’t be desperately beholden to large amounts of free money coming in annually. And, yet, that’s what we see.
1 Like
That is what really gets to the heart of the matter. I agree.
1 Like
Well, and to your earlier point, you’re still getting a TON of athletes at Harvard who are, in fact, lowering the standards, and eliminating legacy doesn’t touch that population, many of whom are destined to be a part of Harvard’s “happy bottom 25%”.
So I do see that point. But we have a much longer runway ahead of us before we ever see US schools divorce themselves from athletics. It’s a fundamental aspect of American culture at this point. And, accomplished athletes do in fact represent something of a general western ideal of “merit”, whereas most in the west think that the accident of your birth is not tied to the same value.
1 Like
Interesting variation on the fact pattern: eliminate legacy and get a couple billion $$. If JHU’s experience could be generalized, legacy admissions would drop like flies.
1 Like
Let’s face it, are people whose last names are Soros, Bloomberg, Koch, Gates and a few others really worried about where their kids are going to get their bachelors degree?
5 Likes
Plenty of large donors, not nearly as wealthy as those mentioned, don’t really care either. Here’s the piece about the most recent fund drive by Caltech:
More than 14,500 donated (I’m not sure how many living Caltech alumni there are). Of the $3.4b it raised, $30m were donated by faculty (Caltech doesn’t offer admission preferences to their children), and $770m from alumni (Caltech doesn’t offer legacy preferences). The rest, $2.6b, by far the largest portion, didn’t even come from its alumni. Of all six largest donors who donated more than $100m each, only one, former Intel founder Gordon Moore, has a degree from Caltech.
1 Like
I’ve always missed that show.
1 Like
What is the bulk value of the steady $1000 (or even smaller) contributions? The uber rich will still donate buildings wether to buy a spot, for ego, for a personal mission (aka Bloombergs). The run of the mill but faithful contributors are the ones who might care about legacy policy. I certainly know several folks who said “they will never see another penny from me” after their (just fine) kid was rejected.
2 Likes
Clearly the right move from Wesleyan. I’m an alum, have donated intermittently (in small amounts), and my child will attend this fall. Unclear if he received a legacy bump as he was admitted to several other “more selective” schools. He’s not an athletic recruit, but is from an underrepresented state and demo. GPA 4.0+, numerous extracurriculars, varsity sports, etc.
Not to digress, but I didn’t see mentioned anywhere above Amherst’s claims about year 1 of their “no legacy preference” standard. In articles last month, different sources pointed out that Amherst had averaged around 11% legacies. This year, the first with no legacy preference, that dropped to 6%.
This suggests that it did in fact have an impact at this one institution, cutting their legacies about in half. I wonder if Wesleyan will see a drop as well, even if small numbers?
Without a preference, Amherst legacy admits fell from 11 percent to 6 percent (insidehighered.com)
Class of 2027 Expected to Enroll with 19% First-Generation Students | June | Amherst College
3 Likes
I find it very hard to believe that there is any correlation between these two things.
2 Likes
(the second article, the Amherst press release, was the original source for their percentage of legacies in the class of 2027 - I just pasted the links. )
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that, I could make a building contribution to my alma mater.
1 Like
You’d think not, but history shows us that the rich are as enamored with elite schools as everyone else.
1 Like
Doubtful. However, dropping the preference did reduce the number of legacy admits - I’d expect about the same at other elite schools if they eliminated legacy preferences.
2 Likes
Of all the disagreements in this thread, I don’t believe one of them is that an absolute drop in legacy admit % will follow a change in policy. Unless one thinks the schools are lying, that will happen, because if it didn’t then that school was likely never really engaged in the practice to start with.
What I think people are saying is that, while dropping legacy sounds like an egalitarian thing to do, when examined more closely schools that that make this decision are still admitting on other bases that are proxies for wealth and privilege. And still others are saying that some legacies are more equal than others, and big donors are going to get their kids in come hell or high water.
I think the most interesting of the “so what?” positions is the idea that now, after POC have made their way into these elite institutions, they won’t be able to pass that privilege on to their kids, also POC, and benefit from the inside baseball as whites have for generations. I myself don’t have a good response. It’s a good point.
2 Likes
I agree. Absent eliminating all the ALDC preferences, I don’t think the socioeconomic makeup of these schools will change much. Even then, changes would be at the margins. The deck is stacked against too many kids well before college rolls around.
3 Likes
Well, I do have my own theories about the whole “Gentlemen’s Agreement” that existed between the dynastic, largely white, elite college admissions of the late 1950s and sixties and affirmative action. But that would lead us down a whole other rabbit hole. 
Numbers speak over time…
20+ years ago, affirmative action was voted out at Berkeley. Their current student make up is a good prediction for the future race make up of very selective schools abolishing affirmative action today.
In 20 years, the abolition of legacy at most schools today/tomorrow will lower the percentage of legacy students.
In 20 years, American colleges will remain full on capitalists, and one would contend that the admit rate for large donors will remain very high, if not increase vs today.