<p>
What was the point I tried to make? ;-)</p>
<p>There is this underlying logic:</p>
<ul>
<li>They accepted me, and I did well there.</li>
<li>My kid is smarter than me.</li>
<li>Therefore they should accept my kid.</li>
</ul>
<p>Problem with this logic is: </p>
<ul>
<li>I was 19% in a year they accepted 20%.</li>
<li>My kid was 11% in a year they accepted 10%.</li>
</ul>
<p>I can be rational today- my kid has not yet applied. In 7 months I may not be so rational.</p>
<p>“Uses legacy status as a criterion” is not the same thing as “guarantees legacies admissions.” I believe that the u where my kids will be double legacy does use legacy status as a factor particularly in ED, but that may only mean that the admit rate goes from 25% to 35% or whatever. It doesn’t make it a guarantee and it seems stupid to act as though it should be a guarantee.</p>
<p>And several thousand dollars a year? I’m assuming you mean four figures? I’m sorry, that strikes me as incredibly naive to think of that as anything other than small change to most universities. Appreciated, of course, but small change. </p>
<p>I would be disappointed if my kids applied and were turned down. It would make me sad, because honestly it would be so, so cool if they both wound up there :-). And I might temporarily feel angry. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean my feelings of anger would be rational – they didn’t do it to persecute or punish me specifically. That also doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to feel that they owe my kids acceptances. </p>
<p>What I want, and what they “owe” me, are two different things. They don’t owe me anything. And, of course, I don’t owe them anything either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see the problem unless the kid is unqualified. In that case, Colby can have the kid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But again, you seem to think your circumstances are “special.” Unless the science building is named after your family, I don’t see what’s so special. OK, you’re a family with a few people who have gone there. </p>
<p>Anyway, what explanation do you think you’re going to get? It’s not that your student was rejected – it is that other students were accepted and there are only so many spots. What do you expect … “if she’d gotten an A instead of a B in French III, she’d have gotten in”? “If she’d gotten 20 more points on her SAT verbal, she’d have gotten in”? “If she’d played the cello instead of the violin, she’d have gotten in”? “If she’d been president of the XYZ Club instead of vice-president, she’d have gotten in”? Sometimes there just are no explanations other than that day, she didn’t make it.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,
If only we were all as brilliant, shrewd and rational as you!</p>
<p>My parents paid my tuition; in return, I got my education. Once I got that diploma, the school didn’t owe me anything more, and I didn’t owe them anything more. I get the wishing / hoping and the disappointment – I really do and I do sympathize – but I really don’t get the entitlement. Is there any college that explicitly promises or guarantees legacy admissions?</p>
<p>Why are you hung up on “entitlement?” I’m pretty sure people on this thread were roundly disappointed. I don’t recall any claims of entitlement.</p>
<p>Some posts stood out for me- #18 about explaining to legacy parents, #45 about the ability to get in then and now and #87. </p>
<p>I still remember overhearing some east coast parent with HS children talking about the poor chances of going to their alma mater and thinking that finally people like me, with brains and no money/connections were finally taking those spots. </p>
<p>There is more than one post considering the increased level of competition now- it exists even at public U’s. I would have been shocked if son with stellar stats didn’t get accepted to our public U.</p>
<p>Entitlement fits those who feel their child deserves a spot instead of another equally or better qualified applicant because they went to that U, ie is a legacy. The rules of the college game fortunately changed since my generation- the caliber of student bodies at the elite U’s has improved with less attention paid to legacies and more to merit.</p>
<p>Your H wrote a “scathing letter” when D didn’t get in. I appreciate his disappointment, I really and truly do. But “scathing letter” implies that you expected a legacy to get in without question.</p>
<p>You also expected, after sending a scathing letter, that the pres of the u or one of his minions would “review the file.” Did you have reason to think that this was a true mistake – e.g., the uni grants automatic admission based on stats and there was a mistake on a transcript? Or did you just want them to placate you and let her in after a “special review”?</p>
<p>I don’t know the president of my alma mater other than his name, and I cannot think of why my family would be entitled to any more of his time or attention than any other applicant family – which is to say, none. I would expect to be dealing with the adcom office and I would expect my correspondence with them to be polite, short, and focused only on the typical things that applicants and adcoms correspond about – timing of interviews, clarification of admission requirements, etc. </p>
<p>The very concept of calling back and saying “why didn’t my kid get in” floors me. It presupposes that there IS some kind of objective answer to the question, like 20 SAT points or 0.2 more GPA or one more EC. In my case, what are they going to tell me? “Sorry, we have enough upper-middle-class white kids from the Chicago suburbs whose parents also went here and your kids just didn’t stand out from the pack”? That may be the real answer. What are they going to tell me that is going to be of any use here – we should have moved to Nebraska or Montana? Told our kids to take up fencing instead of tennis?</p>
<p>When my son was denied admission to my alma mater, my head knew it wasn’t personal, but my heart was crushed. I completely lost any feeling of connection to the place. On an intellectual level, I knew that wasn’t rational, but I’m a parent, and we don’t always love rationally. The hardest part was pretending that I still had any affection for the school, which I had to do because our older daughter was a current student there and in love with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love the ironic indignation over somebody getting special treatment, considering this is a thread about legacy admissions.</p>
<p>Part of me would be upset, but the other part would realize if s/d didn’t meet the requirements, then that is an obvious answer! </p>
<p>You know…everything happens for a reason! I hope you find an even better fit for your s/d.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that’s true, why do they keep asking? If my donation is “small change” why do I still keep getting multi-page four-color brochures telling me how important it is to keep giving? If my donation is trivial why does the background noise of the phone calls sound like a boiler-room operation filled with eager sophomores hawking credit card offers? Why do I get emails saying “during these difficult times your donation is especially important”?</p>
<p>I doubt that I’ve contributed enough money over the years to cover the costs of all the fund raising material I’ve received. But remember, while one individual donation is irrelevant, when combined with all the others, it’s what’s been funding their endowments for decades. </p>
<p>What fries me about this discussion is the willingness to passively accept the two-faced nature of the process. When they are looking for money I’m a member of a generations long line of WhatU grads. But when a S or D of old WhatU applies they’re just one more in a pile of thousands.</p>
<p>When I make a donation I get a very nice “personalized” (form) thank you letter with my name, the amount donated and on occasion, a word or two about how this is an increased amount over past years. I don’t feel that my S is entitled to admission to my alma mater. But if they’re willing to invest that much time and resources into a thank you note for my piddling donation, I do expect and feel entitled to a personalized form letter rejection of my S’s app should it come to that.</p>
<p>Bay is 100% correct in his anger. If they can make the time and effort to ask for and respond to our checks, then they should be able to do the same for rejected legacies. It’s a President’s job to deal with all the constituencies of the university community. A delegated tactful response if far more effective than an indifferent personal answer. I suspect that if they’d bothered to do that most of the anger and frustration being vented here would have been blunted at the outset.</p>
<p>Although we desperately didn’t want our daughter to attend my alma mater (as my husband kept reminding her - it wasn’t at the bottom of his list, it wasn’t on his list at all!) I was very unhappy when she was rejected. They even mentioned that they were extra sorry since I had connections to the school. The thing is, I hated my college. I did give a little each year because I felt bad for the student calling and asking for money.</p>
<p>However, not only will I never give money again, I fantasize about telling them that I am one of the wealthiest people in the world and if they had accepted my daughter I would happily donated all the money needed to refurbish their very rundown, old theatre building. </p>
<p>Oh well, she’s very happy where she is now and so are we.</p>
<p>Dad’o’2: Just to clarify, no irony here. My daughter was more than qualified to be admitted. She needed no special treatment, including legacy status. Her classmate was shockingly underqualified and never would have been admitted if it weren’t for her mother’s connection to the university.</p>
<p>I thought this thread was about parents’ feelings when their children were rejected by their alma mater, in light of the personal attachments we had felt. My connection to my alma mater felt personal so the rejection felt personal: I loved you, why don’t you love me back? Ridiculous, I realize. </p>
<p>I did not expect special treatment or an extra edge because she was a legacy. However, given that it was my alma mater, it hurt even more not to receive an explanation for her results.</p>
<p>The thing about our feelings and emotions is that they are not necessarily rational. It is logical to say that our legacy children are not entitled to be admitted to a school with an acceptance rate of under 20 percent just because we went there. It is logical to accept that denial. But many of us cannot control our emotions so easily. </p>
<p>My daughter was accepted to my alma mater, and I was thrilled. It was her first choice, she applied ED, she was qualified, but we had heard of so many legacy children who were denied that we were not expecting an acceptance. If she had been denied, I would have been very disappointed, and heartbroken for her. </p>
<p>I am a very active alumni, contribute not just through money but through a lot of volunteer hours – and had she been denied, I would have stopped volunteering. I would have found it difficult to interview high school students if she’d been denied – I’m not sure I could have been objective.</p>
<p>Of my college friends, some of our children have been accepted but many (who were most definitely qualified) were denied. People can be incredibly blind when it comes to their kids. One friend was totally devastated this year when his kid didn’t get in – and wrote a scathing multi-page letter to the president. This friend, had he been paying attention to what had happened to all those other kids, should not have felt entitled. But in his eyes, his kid was “special” and “different.”</p>
<p>The legacy kids who did not get in are now extremely happy at their college. They and their parents say the school they are attending is actually better for them, and it really was for the best. Their parents, seeing that their child is so happy at the non-legacy school, have regained their affection for their alma mater, started giving money and volunteering again.</p>
<p>Je_ne it is not irrational – don’t think that for one minute. I absolutely agree with Bay and Vinceh. Colleges and even universities spend an inordinate amount of money and time soliciting and engaging previous customers yet at the very same time they do the one thing that is guaranteed to alienate a customer. And yes, a president is ultimately responsible for how his organization handles customers and yes, it is absolutely irresponsible that the president was cavalier in his response. The task could easily have been delegated to a senior admissions team member. And they best have a very well crafted and reasonable response to an active alumni with a qualified student who has been rejected especially if the college sends out messages that wax nostalgic regarding multi-generational families. How a parent reacts is entirely an individual situation, but it is not wrong for families to be angry and withhold future contributions be it $50 or $5000 or more just as it is not wrong for families to shrug it off, or to marginalize their feels based on their perception of the world today.</p>
<p>My husband’s family had a strong connection to a Jesuit university in the D.C. area, notoriously difficult to get into. D fell in love with it; applied EA; would have attended without any hesitation. She was deferred. Family members sprung into action with offers to write the Admissions office, stressing the family connection; someone with a personal connection to the President offered to write on her behalf. Those offers were declined. I noted that some deferred legacies received personal letters from Admissions, which we did not; evidently they did not perceive us as worthy of the attention. We had proceeded with other applications and she was wait listed in the regular round. By that point she had forgotten completely about the school. Husband and his family- angry. D; not so much. She had written to Admissions at least twice with specific questions about programs and received no response whatsoever. Her comment upon being wait listed: they know what they’re doing. There’s a reason for the decision they made. She happily moved on and I know she is at her perfect school. That’s a situation that definitely worked out for the best. </p>
<p>As a parent, it is hard anytime your child is disappointed. I don’t think anyone who posted here felt their child was entitled to admission because of legacy status; I agree with vinceh’s points about the personal attention one receives as a donor and the impersonal treatment given to unhappy applicants. Sure, the donor letter is a form. But for those rejected legacies whose parents give so much in volunteering and financial support, I do think they should receive more of an explanation (steering clear of the words “owed” and “entitled”).</p>
<p>Well, we did get personalized form letters from the Dean of Admissions saying how sorry he was not to admit our kids. It infuriated my wife more. There’s no winning play, here. </p>
<p>I’m sure that the colleges have studied this to a fare-thee-well, and they know exactly what impact it will have on fundraising, etc. I have yet to meet anyone who has continued to support his alma mater after it rejected a qualified kid (unless there was another, more qualified kid coming down the pike). I know of one situation where a famous university engaged proactively with a member of a family that had donated millions to make certain that his not-really-qualified child did NOT apply.</p>
<p>Je-ne-sais-quoi is right: I thought this thread was about feelings. I felt a sense of sadness and loss. I didn’t feel like my kids were entitled to acceptance at my college, and I knew objectively that it was not probable. I didn’t have je-ne-sais’ experience, because I didn’t look at the kids who DID get accepted there and think “How did THAT kid get picked over MINE?” In fact, with the more qualified kid (and thus greater let-down with the rejection), the college had accepted a good friend/classmate of my kid’s who was almost indistinguishable from my kid on paper: adjacent class ranks, similar test scores, similar demographics, even overlapping ECs. Anyone who knew the two of them – including my kid – knew that if you had to choose between them the one who was accepted was the stronger, more together person. I was impressed that the college seemed to have figured that out. (They had different recommenders, of course.) I didn’t have a sense of injustice at all.</p>
<p>I note that in je-ne-sais’ case the college in question does not even have a policy of giving any kind of preference to legacies. It should, and it probably will, but it doesn’t. No one was misled. So what? It still feels personal.</p>