<p>If we're going to get down to the truth of it, I'd say a room of a building. Wealth is relative. To the person who earns the national average, a person who earns $150,000 is rich. To someone who earns $100,000, not so much. To someone who earns $200,000, not at all.</p>
<p>When people say that the Ivies are filled with rich kids, I think they are referring to the $150,000 and up crowd, a group that cannot possibly donate enough to make a difference. The truly rich, those who are development cases, are multi-millionaires, usually in the second digits of the millions and up.</p>
<p>I'm got legacy status at a certain top-tier school, ended up getting in, and have been there for 2 wonderful years. Do I think my being a legacy (double legacy) helped? Sure it did. Do I think that being a double legacy by itself put me head and shoulders above every other applicant during the admissions process? No way.</p>
<p>Putting aside for a second the part of the discussion about kids whose parents have donated entire buildings, I think being a legacy student helps, sure, but in the end all it is is one more part of your application. Any 'good' school will reject any regular legacy (i.e. one whose last name isn't on a building) if they can't write, don't have the grades, or just aren't up to par. If they meet all three of those criterion, then yes, perhaps being a legacy gives them a leg up, but what else are admissions officers supposed to use to help them decide who's in and who's out?</p>
<p>What I've read is that the financial reason to admit legacies is not that their parents have given, but that they are more likely to give more money in the future. If this is true, there is nothing "unfair" about a private institution taking this into account. Indeed, it may be unequal, but it's no more "unfair" than my decision to only invite people I know to my party.
Now it would be unethical (and maybe "unfair") for a school to lie about what it considers for admission, and perhaps it would be unfair for a public institution to consider legacy status (since a public institution does have an obligation to be fair to the public). But Harvard has no obligation to be fair.</p>
<p>I dunno guys––though it certainly seems unfair, as Hunt pointed out, there are financial reasons for admitting legacy students. I know a number of students who had stats no better than mine (in some cases, worse than mine) who got into better schools as a result of what seems to be their legacy connection.... Do I wish I were going to Princeton or Yale - ...sure - the Ivy reputation is alluring... but I did just fine without that legacy status and I'm pretty sure you can too.</p>
<p>The middle class gets screwed everywhere you turn in college admissions.
Both my grandpa and my great grandpa went to Yale - any idea how much that will help me, admissions wise? I'd assume not much.</p>
<p>"The middle class gets screwed everywhere you turn in college admissions.
Both my grandpa and my great grandpa went to Yale - any idea how much that will help me, admissions wise? I'd assume not much."</p>
<p>If your great grandfather and his son went to Yale, that puts you in an extremely elite category. Ask around, and you'll find that the grandparents and (especially) great-grandparents of many of your classmates were lucky to attend college at all, let alone to graduate from an Ivy League school. Only one of my son's grandparents went to college -- one didn't even graduate from high school. Two of his great-grandparents were impoverished immigrants who worked as a cook and a laborer, and none of them even dreamed of attending college. </p>
<p>You have absolutely no idea of how your college admissions prospects have been enhanced by the fact that you come from a long line of college graduates. So stop whining about the fact that you might not win the lottery contest that is the Yale admissions process, and be grateful that, through absolutely no effort on your own part, you've gotten a huge head start on college admissions.</p>
<p>"You have absolutely no idea of how your college admissions prospects have been enhanced by the fact that you come from a long line of college graduates."
You're right, that's awesome. I assumed that because my uncle (grandpa's son) was declined, that it wasn't that big of a boost. I guess it doesn't matter that neither of my parents went to Yale?</p>
<p>"So stop whining about the fact that you might not win the lottery contest that is the Yale admissions process, and be grateful that, through absolutely no effort on your own part, you've gotten a huge head start on college admissions."
I'm not sure if the part of my post about the middle class came off as whiny, but that's not the way it was intended. I've just read that being from a poor/rural area is a large boost, and if your parents went to an Ivy League school (I was assuming they were wealthy), you get a large boost because of legacy. The middle class doesn't seem to get any advantages - but maybe I'm missing something.</p>
<p>Legacies are fine. It's just part of college. Maybe if getting into college wasn't what you built your life around, then you'd realize you didn't really care.</p>
<p>"The middle class doesn't seem to get any advantages - but maybe I'm missing something."</p>
<p>What you are missing is the enormous advantage enjoyed by those who were raised by college-educated parents (and, in your case, grandparents and great-grandparents). You have a major boost right there. With Ivy League degrees, your grandfather and great-grandfather earned higher salaries than most other men their age, which means they were able to pass along a higher standard of living to your parents and to you. Your parents may not have gone to Yale, but I'll bet they didn't live at home and attend a community college either. You probably go to a great high school, surrounded by classmates who are headed to four-year colleges. Your parents know the college admissions ropes. Plenty of other kids your age don't have those advantages, which is why many universities give them preference in the admissions process.</p>
<p>fhimas88888888: Personally, the reason I am NOT considering the Ivy league is because much of its admissions process is "political", if you may. Sure, they are great schools, but I don't like the idea of parents donating money just to give their kids a leg up. That seems arrogant and selfish to me. You should donate to help better the university's future, not to buy your kid in. (And, before someone yells at me, I DO realize that that is not the case with everyone, probably even the majority. I simply don't like that stereotype).</p>
<p>claremarie: agreed</p>
<p>Tyler09: legacies are fine to people who are legacies. They aren't a "regular" part of the admissions process, because they only cater to a select group, and are used at only certain schools. Also, who on here hasn't built there life around getting into college? The fact that you are on here, in fact, tells me that you have too. People, myself included, don't stay up til 1 am every day doing AP Calc homework because it is fun, we do it for the benefits of a better education in the future. For the reasons that many previous responders have posted. And I care because it is my hard work, and others', that is put at a disadvantage by something they cannot control. I must say, I do not care for your haughtiness in deciding how people have built their lives. That is a very sensitive thing to evaluate for someone whom you have never even met.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You should donate to help better the university's future, not to buy your kid in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is there a difference? The money goes to the same place––if presented with two legacy students, could you tell which legacy student got in because their parents donated money to get them in and the student whose parents gave money on the sole purpose of improving the university (this student also got in as well)? I know I couldn't. And besides, I think you'd come to appreciate legacy students.... as the Yale Herald points out, they improve the curve. :-)</p>
<p>vc08: I think it's safe to say that people donate to their alma maters with the sole reason to give their kids a boost on admissions chances isn't true and to the point. My Ivy alma mater accepts about 1800 students each year and I can guarantee you that the legions of alumni donors (about 50% -- which is pretty spectacular) do not nor will in the near future, have a rising Senior. I've given pretty much consistently for the last 15 years. No new building or whatever, but I give because my undergrad experience was a seminal moment in my life and many of my fellow alums feel the same and they respond with their checkbook. Whether or not my kids will want to go there is beyond the point. If the do, great (although not great on my savings account!!! LOL)! They'll be a legacy, sure. But my meagre donations won't give them much a boost. If I could give more I would however, regardless of my kids' college aspirations. I would say the vast majority of alums who donate $ and time to local alumni clubs, college recruiting, etc. are doing so out of their OWN desire to give back to the college -- not for the hoped-for boost for some offspring down the line.</p>
<p>fhimas88888888: Personally, the reason I am NOT considering the Ivy league is because much of its admissions process is "political", if you may. Sure, they are great schools, but I don't like the idea of parents donating money just to give their kids a leg up. That seems arrogant and selfish to me. You should donate to help better the university's future, not to buy your kid in. (And, before someone yells at me, I DO realize that that is not the case with everyone, probably even the majority. I simply don't like that stereotype).</p>
<p>Well, in that case, enjoy going through life refusing to consider many possible avenues (jobs, marriage, I could go on...) because it's all too "political". The world is unfair, that's just the way it is. I wasn't opting out because I wanted to protest the way things were, I was opting out because I was afraid I couldn't hack it and would be rejected, and needed an excuse to not have to deal with the possibility of defeat.</p>
<p>The system is what it is, but parents being arrogant and selfish? Come on now. If you had a chance to give your kid a leg up in getting into one of the top degree granting institutions in the known world, what would you do? Yeah, I probably wouldn't donate either. But that's because I'm cheap and like to spend my money on horse racing and other gentlemanly pursuits. Seriously though, these parents are only doing what any normal parent who cares about their child would do, you can't ask them not help their children when the ability to do so is made so readily avaliable.</p>
<p>to all who responded: "And, before someone yells at me, I DO realize that that is not the case with everyone, probably even the majority."
---ok, like every single person got angry at me for judging the people who donate. If you had read carefully, you would have seen this disclaimer.</p>
<p>fhimas88888888: No, you cannot tell the difference. I said that a long time ago.</p>
<p>T26E4: you are right, not everyone donates to get their kids in. again, I stated that a long time ago.</p>
<p>docketgold: I laugh at your foolishness in thinking that I am not applying bc I'm afraid of getting rejected. I want my kids to get in because of their own work, not mine.</p>
<p>I never presumed to know you or your situation personally, I simply shared an experience of mine that I have had because it seemed applicable to the situation you had described. It wasn't, fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even if my good sense tells me not to.</p>
<p>But, you never answered my question. How is parents donating money to give their kid a better chance at a world class education arrogant and selfish? Should a parent not do everything they can to help someone they care about succeed? Because if you think that then YOU are the one that is ignorant and idiotic.</p>
<p>If you personally don't want to do it, that's fine, I'm certainly not saying it should be a requirement of parents everywhere. But you can't fault a parent who has the means trying to give their child a leg up in the world, it's just the way the system works - don't hate the player, hate the game.</p>
<p>Vc, you have it all wrong if you think ivies play the legacy and rich kid game more than other schools. They play it far less than many lower ranked privates. Take a look at schools like ND, whoich are 25% legacy and the many private colleges that have a higher % of wealthy kids.</p>