Do you think that it's unfair that chidren from rich families get preference in college admissions?

Question

The Wall Street Journal did a story a couple of years ago which highlighted how children of rich and influential parents who gave heavily to their alma mater received preferential treatment in admissions, even if that child has lesser academic qualifications. This took spots away from more deserving students.

Answer 1

Of course it is unfair. Despite what a comment above seems to think, an institution's duty to the community is not to be financially stable (that is a duty it owes its students), its duty to the community is to provide a well educated and a competent work force. They receive tax breaks and subsidies from the government precisely because they are not businesses to be run for profit and growth.

The most qualified students should most certainly be given preference, otherwise, what incentive are we giving our young people to work hard in high school. We would be telling low income families that they cannot receive higher education unless they can contribute athletically - that's ridiculous, especially when you have the rich telling the public that the poor have the very same opportunities as they do to succeed - that simply isn't true then is it.

A parent's wealth is not an accurate indicator of ability to perform at a level of higher education - the idea that it is is offensive and obscene.

Answer 2

Why is a poor student more deserving than a rich student? I don't get it. If the university accepts a rich kid because his parents give a szszillion dollars, then the university can use that money to provide scholarships for 25 poor kids every year for the next 100 years...

You seem to feel that a university's first duty is to take in the best possible students (assuming that you could tell who they are!) Actually, a universities first duty is to be sure that it is financially stable so that it can take of all its students and all the students who will be there in the future centuries. Schools like Harvard, Duke and other elite schools know this, and that's why they have collected big endowments which now make it possible for them to accept all their students "need blind" and give out millions every year in scholarships. If they had not taken in rich students in the past, this would not be possible.

I wouldn't let in any kid to my school who can't make a contribution - some kids make an academic contribution, some make an athletic contribution, some make a spiritual contribution or an artistic contribution, and some make a financial contribution. If I were in charge, I would definitely reserve a few spots every year for kids who can help make my school secure for the future.

ps it's not all whites - I specifically know of several children of rich black athletes and entertainers who got in to elite schools because of their father's money,

Answer 3

Well here's an answer for you. Those parents who gave heavily help to pay for those poor kids to go. If there were no private scholarships many kids from poor backgrounds that could qualify to get in could never pay for their tuition. All of those legacy donations help provide assistance so that universities can open spots for the disadvantaged. Believe me you've got to be really poor to get grants and those grants do not come near to paying for anything beyond tuition & board fees at your local community college. So by giving one little rich kid a ticket in the schools can use the extra money they get to get 2-3 poorer but smarter kids in too.

A long time ago only the rich were able to get into schools because there were no scholarship programs for the "more deserving poor kids." If you were poor and smart you had to hope to get noticed by a rich person who might deem to send you to university under the understanding that you would work for them the rest of your life. Your other choice was to become a priest or nun since the Catholic church would pay for a high level of education for people in their orders who were smart. Which is once again a case of "signing on for life".

Besides all those "government" grants/loans/scholarships are paid for by those "privileged rich people" anyway. So by the time you take everything into account they've probably helped 4-5 other kids go to college.

It all depends on your definition of "fair".

Answer 4

Does it really take spots away from more deserving students? Would the university be able to afford to admit any deserving students if wealthy parents did not contribute?

Do you think that the fact that John Kennedy Jr (who was not a very good stdent ) got into Brown made more people or fewer people think about going to Brown? In the long run, he did more for the stature of his school than many of the more deserving students who went there.

Answer 5

form of like while black childrens get head of the line privileges with the aid of Affirmative action, over the heads of white and Asian childrens with greater effectual grades. in basic terms distinction is, their mom and dad did no longer make a contribution diddly squat to the college.

Answer 6

It's unfair, but think about it. Colleges want our money. They're more apt to accept someone who has the money rather than someone who is going to need academic or sports scholarships to attend.

Answer 7

It's not fair, but what is fair in this world. You want to go to college, so you can go further in this society. So, instead of bitching about it, just go to college.

Answer 8

YES.

It is sad that someone gets preferential treatment due to their last name.

Especially since they are all white, it is discriminatory.