Most of us have to rely on financial aid, getting scholarships, use savings, withdraw from retirement pot, second mortgages, let go of our few hard earned luxuries, get 2nd jobs, take loans so our kids can get good education at the colleges they worked hard to get in, even letting go of more expensive dream colleges to settle for more affordable colleges …. others throw much much larger sums of money or favors from their networking bank just to cut lines and take away spots from deserving candidates. These are few which we know but God knows what other secretive methods are being used every year to snatch coveted seats. It’s just so sad and unfair.
Can you explain exactly how this works? Scrooge McDuck makes a zillion dollar donation, and now the school has more money, so they can devote more towards scholarships. Now Charlie Bucket can afford to go there.
Isn’t that a good thing?
3 Likes
Same as it ever was. However, at least now there are alternatives. Go back 3 generations. Colleges were only for the wealthy.
3 Likes
Wealth inequality is a fact but it’s not a justification for letting wealthy cheat, bribe, push others away to sneak in. If colleges want to be transparent that it’s necessary to support financial aid then come clear and officially reserve some seats for highest bidders to end corruption.
3 Likes
Is that how it works though? Donations are often allocated for new buildings or renovations or athletics and that might not mean more money for scholarships. If wealthy donors gave money strictly for scholarship funds then it would be a really good thing.
2 Likes
Seems like a good idea. Set aside a small percentage of seats for those who want to pay a large sum of money for them and increase the scholarship fund for everyone else.
2 Likes
I guess I’m not really worried about what the rich do. From the time my kids were born I put away a set amount each month to pay for their college education because I knew it was going to be easier to do that than come up with the money later. I knew I wanted them to go to college and I did what I needed to make it happen. I can’t fault others for having more than me and using that money for their kids. There will always be those with more. I’m actually happy to have what I have.
8 Likes
I guess I will hold my nose and say it is ok in a sense because others are benefitting from either money passed down as scholarships or a new building for all to use. What I do not agree with is something I read years ago, I don’t remember the details, but it was about families in the Chicago area that were hiring firms to make their children emancipated minors or given guardians, like I said, I don’t remember the details, but they were basically saying the kids were coming from low/no income families when in fact their parents were very wealthy. In those instances, it was an entirely selfish move that benefitted only the wealthy families skirting the system.
Every giant donation is different. The universities of course want the money as unrestricted as possible. The donors may have different ideas. But the general idea is still the same: universities that are flush can provide more FA than those that are not.
Even if the money goes into opening the Thornton Melon School of Business, is that so bad? Now Charlie Bucket has a school he can attend.
1 Like
This is truly a “meh” thing. It’s not like hordes of rich kids are taking up all the spots in every school. Money talks, and those with money are better able to open doors for their children than those without money … not just in college, but in other ways (including internships & jobs). That’s why generations of moms have said, “Life’s not fair - get used to it.” So much more productive to spend time pondering the things we can control.
6 Likes
I see what you did. Underrated movie. I miss Kinison.
I agree but I think it’s more like an unwritten rule. T20’s take care of the wealthy few and in return they have a well funded endowment. This way they can meet full need and open doors for the common folk.
It’s like this in many areas of life and much worse.
no.
Well, the only thing I remember was in Chicago we have selective enrollment high schools that you have to test into. They are the creme of the crop schools. They do make it easier for kids/families from the South and West side to get in then North side families that tend to live in a wealthier district.
So the story goes that multiple families would buy a condo in a less wealthy district and use it like a home base to basically lie to where they live. Many got caught. Kids that live on nearby suburbs also lie to try to get their kids in…
So I guess they can pass that on to colleges also.
This was it - they have up guardianship of their kids to get need-based financial aid
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-financial-aid-fafsa-parents-guardianship-children-students/amp
And the schools that took that money (or their employees did) suffered no consequences. No NCAA punishment, no drop in rankings, no requirement to give the money back.
People are still lining up to go to USC, Yale, Georgetown, Stanford and the other schools that benefited from Varsity Blues.
1 Like
Yes, I remember that now…
1 Like
Well as I recall, in almost all of the Varsity Blues cases, the bribes were taken by rogue employees, unbeknownst to their employers the schools, to line their own personal pockets*. Why would/should that deter anyone from still wanting to go to Yale or Georgetown and get the fabulous educations offered there? I don’t remember any of the schools having more than 1 coach/bad apple who was part of Varsity Blues scandal, it seems absurd to me to blame the school for these ethical lapses in isolated individuals (ha ha unless maybe they should be paying their coaches larger salaries to discourage them seeking illicit supplemental income?? I do not think most college coaches make very much money outside of the big football/basketball etc situations). As for no requirement to give the money back, the schools themselves didn’t take the money, so there’s no money for them to give back. In fact, the schools were victims. For example, in the cases where recruiting spots were given up to non-athletes, presumably their tennis/soccer/whatever team wasn’t as good as it should have been, and they may have lost out on championship opportunities, (in addition to the harm to reputation from being associated with the scandal without actually participating in it) etc.
I see the Georgetown coach just agreed to a plea deal, that will involve between 1-4 years of jail time, and forfeiture of $3.4 million, just more than the $3 million he amassed over 11 years from his participation. He took on average 1 player per year as part of the Varsity Blues. I believe this was the most egregious situation involving the most money. So as awful and shameful as Varsity Blues was, it was a very fringe, small population of people involved.
*I do remember the exception of the Stanford sailing coach, who also did it without the knowledge of Stanford, but I think he put the money towards the sailing program, which really would indirectly him anyway if he ends up with a stronger program due to the investment, his job more secure with a successful program…
Problem with Varsity Blues wasn’t trying to pay money to get your kid into a better place; it was not going through approved and proper channels to do so.
Parents do a whole host of things (some financial, others not) to help their kids. Issue is where do you draw the line in terms of what should be permitted and what shouldn’t. Tendency is to want to draw the line somewhere above the level of support you yourself provided to your kids.
3 Likes
T20 private schools favor the rich … what would Vanderbilt, Carnegie, John Harvard think?
1 Like