10 ms·

Don't legacy admissions often mean that their parents have donated significantly to the University? In a sense wouldn't that just mean that those students are

Don't legacy admissions often mean that their parents have donated significantly to the University? In a sense wouldn't that just mean that those students are essentially paying a very high premium to attend there and subsidizing the education of all the other students? I'm not against abolishing them but I do wonder if this will have any impact on alumni donations.

noobermin 3y ago
Honestly, relying on donations doesn't seem tenable without discrimination. The only way out is to treat it as a public good and fund it as one.
- pirate787 3y ago
  Carnegie Mellon is a private university, and obviously there's already a strong public commitment to college education through subsidizing the student directly.
  - underlipton 3y ago
    It's a private university founded with the intent to be a public good. It exists ostensibly to be a counterweight to the ills brought about by the concentration of wealth and power under its founders, in recognition of their outsize influence on society.
- lisper 3y ago
  So... get rid of private universities entirely? I'm sympathetic to your position, but that doesn't quite seem like the wisest course of action to me.
- mason55 3y ago
  I think the question is whether the donations create more resources than what is used up by a legacy admission. For example, imagine I donate $1B to the university, with two stipulations. First, they admit my child to the CS program. Second, they use the money to perpetually expand the size of every incoming CS class by 10 students. In that respect, the legacy admission is a net good. Yes, for four years there's a spot that's used up by my kid, but even during those four years there are 10 additional people got into the program who wouldn't have otherwise. I realize it's not that easy, it doesn't work like that, and the size of classes at places like Harvard are not limited by the how much money Harvard has. But it seems like there could be ways to keep some kind of legacy admission program which also create a net good. Maybe every legacy admission should be required to fund a perpetual scholarship for one financially disadvantaged student? That's both expensive enough to be rare and beneficial enough to be hard to argue with.
  - gizmo686 3y ago
    Why tie it to legacy though? The university could just offer a secondary admissions pool with a higher tuiting cost.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Then your $1B is provably not a donation, and hence subject to taxes.
      - lazyasciiart 3y ago
        It’s already not a donation if it is tied to a benefit to a specific person in your family.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        The “provably” in my comment is meant to indicate that people would actually be afraid of falsely claiming donations which are really payments to increase m chances of their kids’ admission, since they could be proven guilty of tax evasion.
    - kansface 3y ago
      They could, but they make more money by keeping the clearing price unknown.
justapassenger 3y ago
They’re more contributing towards enormous endowments than subsidizing others education.
- kolbe 3y ago
  Princeton can and does do this because of their donors: https://admission.princeton.edu/how-princetons-aid-program-works https://admission.princeton.edu/how-princetons-aid-program-w...
banana_feather 3y ago
>I do wonder if this will have any impact on alumni donations. Wonder not. "[T]here is no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving." https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/03/08201915/2010-09-15-chapter_5.pdf https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/03/0820191...
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Lack of evidence is hardly evidence of lacking.
  - banana_feather 3y ago
    You are confused; evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. Unless you can point to a problem with the methodology, failure to discover a relationship between A and B is indeed evidence that A and B are not related. You're suggesting they would have to prove a negative for there to be evidence. "Using annual panel data covering 1998 to 2008 for the top one hundred universities, we show that, after controlling for year, institution size, public/private status, income, and a proxy for alumni wealth, more than 70 percent of the variation in alumni giving across institutions and time can be explained. The coefficients all have the expected signs and there is no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving."
- savanaly 3y ago
  That doesn't answer the question though, does it? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bumby 3y ago
    The article clearly says there's no evidence of a "casual relationship between legacy preference policies and total alumni giving." Can you explain your point further? Maybe you are aware of better data than what was used in the cited study?
nashashmi 3y ago
They do not have an outsized impact to admissions. What has an outsized impact is the connections a person has with the university. And those connections can come from significant contributions.
waswaswas 3y ago
It doesn't even have to be large sums, but the existence of legacy admissions creates goodwill between the university and its alums that broadly motivates consistent, modest donations. Legacy admissions are also a way to increase yield (percentage of students enrolled versus accepted) which is one of the many ranking-driven stat games.
kradroy 3y ago
In the article: > “The pros are certainly fundraising development. I think people like to think that if they give a lot of money to a university, their children will get special preference,” he said. “I can sort of understand the other side saying it’s unfair to other applicants.” The quoted person doesn't deny it helps, but people like to think it helps. Also, please don't donate to your university. You paid them for an education, food and housing. You don't owe them anything else. Compound interest on their takings is your contribution.
HeavenFox 3y ago
AFAIK, legacy admission and donations are two separate "tracks", if you will. Donations are when the "donation office" giving a list to the admissions office. Legacy admission is when the student ticks a box on the application. The former is to recognize past contributions, where the latter is more for future contribution (if your whole family went to Harvard, presumably you will be more likely to give money to Harvard)
- tough 3y ago
  > The former is to recognize past contributions, where the latter is more for future contribution (if your whole family went to Harvard, presumably you will be more likely to give money to Harvard) So it's just a checkbox to say you're already on the sect
ahi 3y ago
Large alumni donations can and often do increase the cost of education of all the other students. They frequently lead to large capital investments that then have uncovered operational costs. I used to work for one of the wealthiest universities with 100s of millions in capital improvements annually that couldn't provide functional HVAC and a fresh coat of paint to the buildings it had.
- 1234letshaveatw 3y ago
  What about smaller, recurring donations? Does that increase the cost?
  - evancox100 3y ago
    Probably not, because they don’t come with the string attached that “you must build a new building and name it after me to receive this donation”.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      "..and the building (a dorm) must not have any windows"[1] 1. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/22/nightmare-of-the-windowless-dorm-room https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/22/nightmare-of-t...
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Yeah. Even if a modest donation is earmarked to, say, the athletic department, the school has a lot of flexibility to move unrestricted money from one pocket to the other. For significant even if not huge donations though, schools really would like unrestricted gifts in general.
    - ticviking 3y ago
      Seems simple enough to get someone that vain to cough up an annuity to pay for maintenance and some admins for that building, “we’d hate for your building to wind up like poor Jefferson Hall, we can’t even afford to pressure wash it every 5 years.”
haroldp 3y ago
This is the way many public universities without legacy admissions actually function as well. They have a high published tuition, but if you are a half decent student, there are many discounts and scholarships that can reduce it significantly. Only less qualified students pay full price.
- LanceH 3y ago
  They love to tell this story. It's absolutely laughable how limited scholarships are for actual academic performance.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    I think that depends on the school - Georgia Tech is free for high academic performers from Georgia, for example.
    - ethbr0 3y ago
      For non-Georgian's reference, the HOPE scholarship essentially funds Georgia public college tuition with lottery receipts, subject to merit only. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship It's changed a bit over the years (+/- qualifications and coverage), but generally does what it says on the tin -- keep a high GPA and graduate in a reasonable amount of time, and most of your tuition is paid for.
    - dabluecaboose 3y ago
      God forbid you come from a competitive high school, though. Some kids can't get into Georgia Tech simply because of the quota system. A kid with a 3.8GPA will surely get in from Tri-Cities HS, but not from Milton HS. If that's the case, your options are somewhat limited for a comparable tech/engineering school.
  - meroes 3y ago
    Just trying to gauge opinions. Is roughly half off tuition for 3.5+ GPA acceptable? That’s been the most generous I’ve seen
geodel 3y ago
Well they've gotten enough money now to appear virtuous onwards.
lozenge 3y ago
What's the point of the donations to maintain an institution, if the institution's effect is to further entrench the advantages held by the already well-off and well-connected legacy admissions?
- 1234letshaveatw 3y ago
  Please do tell- which institutions effect is as you describe?
stcroixx 3y ago
Yes, but as it’s a finite resource, it’s also taking a spot of someone deserving on merit. Schools will have learn to operate without free money.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hnboredhn 3y ago
I'd actually love to see more data on this. My cynical take is that now people donate to schools they didn't even go to - and are concentrated anyways in a few big donations a year. So banning legacies could still just allow wealthier people to buy their in, even if not their own former college.
strikelaserclaw 3y ago
Most of these universities are already rich as hell, with their small class sizes they can easily support the current structure just off the interest on their endowments. Really, i think the current structure actually benefits rich legacies more than it does their much more talented poorer counter parts since the poorer counter parts can get VC funding much easier in todays climate if they demonstrate they have a great idea but this won't happen because most of the systems in America are rigged to make money flow upward.
IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
Its a valid point, but its one the government does not care about. If you are a public funded institution, you charge the same for admission to all students. The moment the university stop taking public funds, you can have your wealthy students subsidize the less well off classmates.
azernik 3y ago
That's a separate category of admissions advantage - "dean's list" or "donor" is usually what it's called. "Legacy" is just children of alumni regardless of whether they've donated, and "staff" or "faculty" is relatives of workers.
- koheripbal 3y ago
  Exactly, this will likely increase donations.

noobermin 3y ago

Honestly, relying on donations doesn't seem tenable without discrimination. The only way out is to treat it as a public good and fund it as one.

pirate787 3y ago
Carnegie Mellon is a private university, and obviously there's already a strong public commitment to college education through subsidizing the student directly.
- underlipton 3y ago
  It's a private university founded with the intent to be a public good. It exists ostensibly to be a counterweight to the ills brought about by the concentration of wealth and power under its founders, in recognition of their outsize influence on society.
lisper 3y ago
So... get rid of private universities entirely? I'm sympathetic to your position, but that doesn't quite seem like the wisest course of action to me.
mason55 3y ago
I think the question is whether the donations create more resources than what is used up by a legacy admission. For example, imagine I donate $1B to the university, with two stipulations. First, they admit my child to the CS program. Second, they use the money to perpetually expand the size of every incoming CS class by 10 students. In that respect, the legacy admission is a net good. Yes, for four years there's a spot that's used up by my kid, but even during those four years there are 10 additional people got into the program who wouldn't have otherwise. I realize it's not that easy, it doesn't work like that, and the size of classes at places like Harvard are not limited by the how much money Harvard has. But it seems like there could be ways to keep some kind of legacy admission program which also create a net good. Maybe every legacy admission should be required to fund a perpetual scholarship for one financially disadvantaged student? That's both expensive enough to be rare and beneficial enough to be hard to argue with.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  Why tie it to legacy though? The university could just offer a secondary admissions pool with a higher tuiting cost.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Then your $1B is provably not a donation, and hence subject to taxes.
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      It’s already not a donation if it is tied to a benefit to a specific person in your family.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        The “provably” in my comment is meant to indicate that people would actually be afraid of falsely claiming donations which are really payments to increase m chances of their kids’ admission, since they could be proven guilty of tax evasion.
  - kansface 3y ago
    They could, but they make more money by keeping the clearing price unknown.

justapassenger 3y ago

They’re more contributing towards enormous endowments than subsidizing others education.

kolbe 3y ago
Princeton can and does do this because of their donors: https://admission.princeton.edu/how-princetons-aid-program-works https://admission.princeton.edu/how-princetons-aid-program-w...

banana_feather 3y ago

>I do wonder if this will have any impact on alumni donations. Wonder not. "[T]here is no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving." https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/03/08201915/2010-09-15-chapter_5.pdf https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/03/0820191...

dotancohen 3y ago
Lack of evidence is hardly evidence of lacking.
- banana_feather 3y ago
  You are confused; evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. Unless you can point to a problem with the methodology, failure to discover a relationship between A and B is indeed evidence that A and B are not related. You're suggesting they would have to prove a negative for there to be evidence. "Using annual panel data covering 1998 to 2008 for the top one hundred universities, we show that, after controlling for year, institution size, public/private status, income, and a proxy for alumni wealth, more than 70 percent of the variation in alumni giving across institutions and time can be explained. The coefficients all have the expected signs and there is no statistically significant evidence that legacy preferences impact total alumni giving."
savanaly 3y ago
That doesn't answer the question though, does it? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bumby 3y ago
  The article clearly says there's no evidence of a "casual relationship between legacy preference policies and total alumni giving." Can you explain your point further? Maybe you are aware of better data than what was used in the cited study?

nashashmi 3y ago

They do not have an outsized impact to admissions. What has an outsized impact is the connections a person has with the university. And those connections can come from significant contributions.

waswaswas 3y ago

It doesn't even have to be large sums, but the existence of legacy admissions creates goodwill between the university and its alums that broadly motivates consistent, modest donations. Legacy admissions are also a way to increase yield (percentage of students enrolled versus accepted) which is one of the many ranking-driven stat games.

kradroy 3y ago

In the article: > “The pros are certainly fundraising development. I think people like to think that if they give a lot of money to a university, their children will get special preference,” he said. “I can sort of understand the other side saying it’s unfair to other applicants.” The quoted person doesn't deny it helps, but people like to think it helps. Also, please don't donate to your university. You paid them for an education, food and housing. You don't owe them anything else. Compound interest on their takings is your contribution.

HeavenFox 3y ago

AFAIK, legacy admission and donations are two separate "tracks", if you will. Donations are when the "donation office" giving a list to the admissions office. Legacy admission is when the student ticks a box on the application. The former is to recognize past contributions, where the latter is more for future contribution (if your whole family went to Harvard, presumably you will be more likely to give money to Harvard)

tough 3y ago
> The former is to recognize past contributions, where the latter is more for future contribution (if your whole family went to Harvard, presumably you will be more likely to give money to Harvard) So it's just a checkbox to say you're already on the sect

ahi 3y ago

Large alumni donations can and often do increase the cost of education of all the other students. They frequently lead to large capital investments that then have uncovered operational costs. I used to work for one of the wealthiest universities with 100s of millions in capital improvements annually that couldn't provide functional HVAC and a fresh coat of paint to the buildings it had.

1234letshaveatw 3y ago
What about smaller, recurring donations? Does that increase the cost?
- evancox100 3y ago
  Probably not, because they don’t come with the string attached that “you must build a new building and name it after me to receive this donation”.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    "..and the building (a dorm) must not have any windows"[1] 1. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/22/nightmare-of-the-windowless-dorm-room https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/22/nightmare-of-t...
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Yeah. Even if a modest donation is earmarked to, say, the athletic department, the school has a lot of flexibility to move unrestricted money from one pocket to the other. For significant even if not huge donations though, schools really would like unrestricted gifts in general.
  - ticviking 3y ago
    Seems simple enough to get someone that vain to cough up an annuity to pay for maintenance and some admins for that building, “we’d hate for your building to wind up like poor Jefferson Hall, we can’t even afford to pressure wash it every 5 years.”

haroldp 3y ago

This is the way many public universities without legacy admissions actually function as well. They have a high published tuition, but if you are a half decent student, there are many discounts and scholarships that can reduce it significantly. Only less qualified students pay full price.

LanceH 3y ago
They love to tell this story. It's absolutely laughable how limited scholarships are for actual academic performance.
- ameister14 3y ago
  I think that depends on the school - Georgia Tech is free for high academic performers from Georgia, for example.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    For non-Georgian's reference, the HOPE scholarship essentially funds Georgia public college tuition with lottery receipts, subject to merit only. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship It's changed a bit over the years (+/- qualifications and coverage), but generally does what it says on the tin -- keep a high GPA and graduate in a reasonable amount of time, and most of your tuition is paid for.
  - dabluecaboose 3y ago
    God forbid you come from a competitive high school, though. Some kids can't get into Georgia Tech simply because of the quota system. A kid with a 3.8GPA will surely get in from Tri-Cities HS, but not from Milton HS. If that's the case, your options are somewhat limited for a comparable tech/engineering school.
- meroes 3y ago
  Just trying to gauge opinions. Is roughly half off tuition for 3.5+ GPA acceptable? That’s been the most generous I’ve seen

geodel 3y ago

Well they've gotten enough money now to appear virtuous onwards.

lozenge 3y ago

What's the point of the donations to maintain an institution, if the institution's effect is to further entrench the advantages held by the already well-off and well-connected legacy admissions?

1234letshaveatw 3y ago
Please do tell- which institutions effect is as you describe?

stcroixx 3y ago

Yes, but as it’s a finite resource, it’s also taking a spot of someone deserving on merit. Schools will have learn to operate without free money.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hnboredhn 3y ago

I'd actually love to see more data on this. My cynical take is that now people donate to schools they didn't even go to - and are concentrated anyways in a few big donations a year. So banning legacies could still just allow wealthier people to buy their in, even if not their own former college.

strikelaserclaw 3y ago

Most of these universities are already rich as hell, with their small class sizes they can easily support the current structure just off the interest on their endowments. Really, i think the current structure actually benefits rich legacies more than it does their much more talented poorer counter parts since the poorer counter parts can get VC funding much easier in todays climate if they demonstrate they have a great idea but this won't happen because most of the systems in America are rigged to make money flow upward.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago

Its a valid point, but its one the government does not care about. If you are a public funded institution, you charge the same for admission to all students. The moment the university stop taking public funds, you can have your wealthy students subsidize the less well off classmates.

azernik 3y ago

That's a separate category of admissions advantage - "dean's list" or "donor" is usually what it's called. "Legacy" is just children of alumni regardless of whether they've donated, and "staff" or "faculty" is relatives of workers.

koheripbal 3y ago
Exactly, this will likely increase donations.