I understand you're referring to the broader picture, but in the specific case of Hopkins and Bloomberg's gift, the pattern-matching feels a bit off. > Why do

I understand you're referring to the broader picture, but in the specific case of Hopkins and Bloomberg's gift, the pattern-matching feels a bit off. > Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? This is just one data point, but I'm a Hopkins alum, and the current freshman class is 30% larger than my freshman class was in 2001. That exceeds the growth rate of the US population over the same time period, although I'm not sure about the equivalent growth rate of college-freshman-aged population specifically. Admissions growth requires new dorm construction, which typically involves a large donation for naming rights. > Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? I think this effect is more pronounced in the Ivy League, partially due to the schools being much older. I only ever met a handful of legacy students at Hopkins. Related to legacy admissions, from what I remember, the JHU alumni giving rate is a bit sub-par, which is a contributing factor to its endowment being smaller than peer schools'. There are even several cases of campus buildings going nameless for decades while awaiting a donor. One example, a building constructed in 1988 was called "New Engineering Building" until a donor was found in 2012. Another example, two dorms built in the early 80s are still called "Building A" and "Building B". (All the other dorms are named after alums...)