WHIP: Wealth Has Its Privileges

Parents Forum
1

<p>From a 2003 Wall Street Journal article: "For Groton Grads, Academics
Aren't Only Keys to Ivy Schools
A Look at Who Got in Where Shows
Preferences Go Beyond Racial Ones" <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Groton_Grads.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Groton_Grads.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"One striking anomaly: Of nine Groton students listed as applicants to Stanford that year, Margaret Bass was the only one admitted. Ms. Bass's grades placed her 40th in her Groton class, according to the Groton document. She had an SAT score of 1220, lower than those of seven of the eight other Stanford applicants. By contrast, almost 90% of Stanford freshmen rank in the top 10% of their high school class, while 75% have SAT scores of 1360 or better.</p>

<p>But Ms. Bass had an edge: Her father, Texas tycoon Robert Bass, was chairman of Stanford's board and had given $25 million to the university in 1992. Mr. Bass has a degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He and his wife, Anne, are both Groton trustees....</p>

<p>Selective universities justify favoring children of alumni and prospective donors on the grounds that tuition doesn't cover the entire cost of education. These schools say private gifts subsidize scholarships, faculty salaries and other needs. Children of celebrities, they add, enhance an institution's visibility. "I will certainly factor in a history of very significant giving to Stanford," said Robin Mamlet, admissions dean. She added that the university's development office each year provides her with names of applicants whose parents have been major donors."</p>

2

<p>If her score is lower than 7 out of 8 applicants, it means that she is on a par with 1 out of 8. I don't have a problem with that. Her score is decent, if not stellar, and she should be able to hold her own. I doubt her profs will grade her any differently from other students. So what if she may graduate in the lower half of her class? She'll graduate. Think of how many poor students can attend Stanford on scholarships thanks to the $25 millions her parents donated.</p>

3

<p>Marite,
I don't have a problem with her admission either. I just think it's interesting that people who complain about URMs getting admitted with below average scores aren't howling about rich white students who also are getting admitted. Somehow when white or Asian students who believe themselves well qualified for admission are passed over, when they complain on CC and look for a scapegoat, they point fingers at URMs.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, while I see why colleges accept wealthy white donors' relatively low stat kids, the fact that those students have lower than average stats for places like Ivies says to me that they may not be as bright as a URM with relatively low stats for Ivies. After all, the wealthy student presumably could afford top of the line tutors, schools, enrichment activities and wasn't dealing with racism and prejudice.</p>

<p>Presumably if one's parent is a billionaire and/or celebrity, a student will be the recipient of a halo effect: Teachers are going to be loathe to give such a student mediocre grades or recommendations.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, URMs admitted to places like Ivies have very high graduation rates -- the highest graduation rates that URMs have any place in the country. In fact, in a couple of top colleges, the recent graduation rates for African American students were higher than for white students.</p>

4

<p>NSM:</p>

<p>I agree with you. Discussions of the "evils" of AA that focus on URMs are wide off the mark.</p>

5

<p>Ah, yes, the old Henry Park (Asian kid with no personality or ECs who didn't get into Harvard) story. . . I'm guessing he's in medical school somewhere by now.</p>

<p>According to the article, Margaret Bass did more than hold her own at Stanford, graduating in 2002 with honors. </p>

<p>Margaret Bass definitely benefited by the many hours of service and the $$ donated by her parents. It was more than just the money--her parents have been involved for many years with Stanford, including serving on its Board of Trustees. (See below) The fact is, development cases like Margaret Bass are pretty rare compared to URMs and athletes. I agree that URMs get the major brunt of people's ire--but there are many other groups that benefit from non-academic boosts.</p>

<p>"Anne and Robert Bass first became involved with Stanford in 1972, when Robert enrolled in the Graduate School of Business after earning his bachelor's degree from Yale. In 1989 he joined Stanford's board of trustees, which he chaired from 1996 to 2000. He has served on the business school's advisory council and the Hoover Institution's board, and is chair of Stanford Management Company. </p>

<p>Anne, a graduate of Smith College, is a member of Stanford's Humanities and Sciences Council and a past member of the Athletic Board. She is a trustee of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health and a co-chair of The Campaign for Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. </p>

<p>The Basses have supported a wide range of Stanford programs, including their contribution in the late 1980s to Stanford in Washington's Bass Center. During Stanford's Centennial Campaign in 1992, they endowed five professorships in the School of Humanities and Sciences. In 1996, they provided matching funds for the Stanford Graduate Fellowships program."</p>

6

<p>Hmmm… I wonder how many Harvard admits are legacy or $,$$$,$$$ vs. how many are URMs. I’d bet one of you brilliant researchers could dig up that info. Just out of curiosity. </p>

<p>And NSM,
"howling" hehe. I like that.</p>

7

<br>


<br>

<p>An excerpt from a 46 page tome written by the college center of Casady School (private school in Oklahoma City) for 9th and 10th graders and their parents. (The Henry Park article is excerpted in it.)</p>

<p>They certainly put it right out front and center--COLLEGE ADMISSIONS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. One group they mention that is "hooked," but you don't often think of them as hooked, and there isn't much complaining about them--full freight paying students. You don't have to be seriously wealthy (like the Basses) to get the benefit of moderate wealth.</p>

8

<p>NSM, do you have a reference for your assertion on URM graduation rates? I'd like to read more.</p>

9

<p>Ellemenope - to me that is one of the great mysteries of admissions (perhaps swept under the rug would be more accurate) - just how need blind is the process, particularly from the aspect you are discussing.</p>

<p>It is impossible for an astute person who is reading hundreds of these applications, not to draw some conclusions about kids' economic status - the assumptions may not be completely accurate. I'm not sure, in the big picture that it matters. I think it may matter at the end of admissions (some schools are upfront about this), I think it may matter in ED. We must of thought it meant something, we thought it highly unlikely that we would qualify for anything other than loans, so we played that card in ED - who knows if it helped.</p>

<p>I'm not sure it would make a lot of difference (just as the few legacy and celebrity kids don't make a huge difference, %wise) in the make-up of the class. There are so many barriers to attendance, as opposed to admission, as you go down the SE ladder, that just knowing a person can't pay may not change the %age that much. As Mini so well describes, to get truly economically disadvantaged to attend, you have to do more than just admit them, you have to recruit them. In other words each admission costs more than jus the costof financial aid - that's why these schools don't do more.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
They certainly put it right out front and center--COLLEGE ADMISSIONS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. One group they mention that is "hooked," but you don't often think of them as hooked, and there isn't much complaining about them--full freight paying students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ellemenope,</p>

<p>You are absolutely right because no matter how much "we" complain about hooks, this "hooked" population remains consistent year over year. Yes, colleges are very upfront that there is not a level plaing field as close to 40% of the slots are already designated for athletes, legacies, URMs, developmental admits, low income students * all which are used to fulfill and are important to the institutional mission. </p>

<p>The colleges also do not forget for one minute that they are a business and know that they will need to admit "X" amount of full paying students even if these students are still subsidized by the university becaue we also know that it cost more than the cost of tutition to educate our students . </p>

<p>This compounded with the usual hooked suspects means at the end of the say, there are really very few "spots" up for grabs. </p>

<p>I guess my question is that while conceptually we all know this, why is it that we are constantly hating the players instead of hating the game? Because there is nothing we can say or do that is going to change the rules of the game and at the same time if we don't get into the game we have no chance of "winning". The college is still going to do whatever it needs to do achieve their mission and build the class. It just makes us feel better to have some one to point a finger at instead of getting off of our high horse of entitlement and come to the realization that no school "owes" us an admission.</p>

<p>
[quote]
NSM, do you have a reference for your assertion on URM graduation rates? I'd like to read more.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>According to the Journal on Blacks in Higher Education:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/features/45_student_grad_rates.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jbhe.com/features/45_student_grad_rates.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Nearly 19 out of every 20 black students who enter the highly competitive academic environment of Harvard, Princeton, Haverford, and Amherst go on to earn their diplomas. Other academically demanding colleges do very well, although not as well as these four. </p>

<p>Sixteen other highly competitive colleges and universities turn in black student graduation rates of 85 percent or more. They are Wellesley College, Williams College, Brown University, Davidson College, Colgate University, Duke University, Northwestern University, Swarthmore College, Wesleyan University, Yale University, Georgetown University, Stanford University, Washington University, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, and the University of Virginia</p>

11

<p>Too bad they didn't charge the Basses what they do other financial aid applicants - 5% of assets, each year. ;)</p>

<p>I've got no problem with it. If wealthy white folks are to benefit from affirmative action, as they have for generations, they should be expected to pay for the privilege. But I don't fool myself into thinking that this money is then going to be used for additional subsidies for poorer students. Among the top five prestigious colleges in financial aid per student, only Amherst would come close to making the list in endowment size. (What they do with the rest of the money, and why they need so much of it, is a great mystery to me - at Harvard (just as an example) I'd be willing to bet that the investment advisors got paid more last year than the total salaries of the undergraduate faculty - and there are a lot fewer of them!)</p>

12

<p>Northstartmom, you just have to look at the educational history of your current president to realize that money and power talk. Bush has 1200 something on his SATs, and he got into YALE!. I don't know anyone who got into Yale from our high school with less than 1450 and stellar grades. In addition, Bush's record at Yale was far from stellar,but he got into Harvard for his graduate work. How many people do you know get into Harvard with Cs? This has been going on from time immemorial. It just hasn't been well publicized.</p>

13

<p>FWIW, People used to get into HYPS with much lower SATs. Not that I am a Bush fan or pushing to raise anyone's estimation of his intellect but the SAT thing isn't really very telling.</p>

14

<p>Mini, it seems the Basses have donated very generously to the advantage of all at the school. Do you seriously think it would be fair to ask for even more, no matter what their wealth?</p>

15

<p>"Do you seriously think it would be fair to ask for even more, no matter what their wealth?"</p>

<p>I'm not Mini, but will answer anyway. :)</p>

<p>Of course it's fair. Psychological research indicates that people are most likely to donate or volunteer with an organization if they already have donated or volunteered with it. People who have even very generously given before are more likely to give than are people who have never given.</p>

<p>Also, places like Harvard are very good at gently suggesting to middle aged and elderly people that they remember Harvard in their wills -- a very easy way to donate.</p>

16

<p>I think I remember reading something about Mr. Bass donating a huge sum to Yale... and when Yale refused to spend it the way he'd specified, he took the money back.</p>

17

<p>We saw this case at Yale this year. Count the number of Resor's on the Yale roster. They funded the Resor Chair in Economics at Yale among other things.</p>

18

<p>Northstarmom, my question was really whether they should be forced to give 5% of assets as Mini implies would be fair. There is no doubt in my mind that this family will continue to give generously to Stanford and many other causes and that the school probably is named in their will.</p>

<p>The question is, should they be forced to pay a higher price for their children's Stanford education than others? Mini is suggesting that the same 5% of assets that families receiving financial aid pay should also be paid by those able to write the check for the full ticket. So in this case, Bass might pay several hundred million (really don't know their net worth, most probably it's more) per child each year to Stanford. I don't even think Mini could be serious here.</p>

19

<p>dke--it was Lee Bass who was involved with the rescinding of his $20 Mill donation to Yale, not Richard. I think there were 4 Bass brothers.</p>

20

<br>


<br>

<p>My recollection was that Lee Bass wanted to have a veto power on faculty hires in the program he wanted to sponsor--school said no, you can have your money back. I guess $20 mil can't buy you everything.</p>