[GK3]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I kind of fail to see how that’s any better. Except of course the university gets more money.

The real “scandal” is nationwide. The cost of an education is obscene. The private public partnership in making loans available to both parents and students has helped lead to the escalating costs.

And  then there is “affirmative action” for legacies.  There is no legitimate reason that the mere fact that one is a member of the lucky sperm club should give one a leg up in admissions.  There are other obvious advantages that one already has being a member of that club. Add the fact that the vast majority of legacies are white and male and it’s also discriminatory in practice if not in intent. 

Legacy programs should end. And no university should give any applicant a leg up because mommy and daddy donates a ton of money.

By the way – let me add this. I went to a public university, and thus there was no “legacy” issue. I also am not fortunate enough financially to have been in a position to donate a lot of money to a  university. But I cannot sit here and say that were the situation different that I would not have done it to help my kids. So I don’t want anyone to take what I said as a personal criticism.  It’s an institutional criticism. Universities should not be doing the “legacy” thing or providing advantages to those who donate large sums of money. At least that’s my opinion.

Lex, I could not agree with you more, the cost of education is indeed obscene. However, I don't think the legacy thing is "bad" if all that you get from being a graduate, is that your offspring gain a small advantage if tied with others. It should basically be a tie breaker should one be needed. Those of us in my family tree who have gone to Stanford, or are at Stanford now, have also been accepted at other excellent schools so none of us would have suffered too badly if we didn't get accepted.
The concept of buying your way in is simply wrong and the Universities should simply not allow it.

[GK3]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I kind of fail to see how that’s any better. Except of course the university gets more money.

The real “scandal” is nationwide. The cost of an education is obscene. The private public partnership in making loans available to both parents and students has helped lead to the escalating costs.

And  then there is “affirmative action” for legacies.  There is no legitimate reason that the mere fact that one is a member of the lucky sperm club should give one a leg up in admissions.  There are other obvious advantages that one already has being a member of that club. Add the fact that the vast majority of legacies are white and male and it’s also discriminatory in practice if not in intent. 

Legacy programs should end. And no university should give any applicant a leg up because mommy and daddy donates a ton of money.

By the way – let me add this. I went to a public university, and thus there was no “legacy” issue. I also am not fortunate enough financially to have been in a position to donate a lot of money to a  university. But I cannot sit here and say that were the situation different that I would not have done it to help my kids. So I don’t want anyone to take what I said as a personal criticism.  It’s an institutional criticism. Universities should not be doing the “legacy” thing or providing advantages to those who donate large sums of money. At least that’s my opinion.

Lex, I could not agree with you more, the cost of education is indeed obscene. However, I don't think the legacy thing is "bad" if all that you get from being a graduate, is that your offspring gain a small advantage if tied with others. It should basically be a tie breaker should one be needed. Those of us in my family tree who have gone to Stanford, or are at Stanford now, have also been accepted at other excellent schools so none of us would have suffered too badly if we didn't get accepted.
The concept of buying your way in is simply wrong and the Universities should simply not allow it.