The Legacy Of College Admissions

This is attractive to many students, who desire to be making high salaries. With the high salary comes hard work, and the hard work put in is worth more. Engineers, for example, require labs and experiments that cost large amounts of money. Doctors have to study in hospitals and take hand on classes that also consumes university budgets. On the other hand, English majors are focused more on their books, which are individually expensive, but don’t cost universities much money. Universities should be obliged to allocate funds into the degrees that benefit them the most. They should not have to put as much money into a degree that does not make them money, as colleges are a business.

If HBCUs are to survive, they must increase financial contributions from alumni. This is particularly true at private institutions, where there is little or no revenue from states, upon which public institutions rely heavily. Alumni giving at public HBCUs is also becoming increasingly important because state funding is decreasing and the overall funding received from states is not on par with their majority institution counterparts (Gasman, 2010). HBCUs must enhance their alumni fundraising results in order to generate revenue to sustain them. Understanding the motivators to alumni giving at HBCUs can be critical to helping them improve alumni giving rates, and thus, the amount provided by them. There have been many research studies to determine the factors that affect alumni giving. One study found that there is a positive correlation between alumni perceptions of their undergraduate experience and their chances of financially supporting and participating with their institution (Gaier, 2005). Institutions should understand the key factors that contribute to those alumni perceptions so that they can make operational decisions designed to improve student

In December 2014, The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education published “Rethinking the Admission Process.” This article was written by Frank DiMaria, who takes a look at the research of the former president of the University of Wyoming, Robert Sternberg. DiMaria explains Sternberg’s stance against the current admissions process. Sternberg has research that depicts, “GPA, standardized tests, and essays do not successfully measure the true talent of a college applicant.” He believes that the policies need to change. Sternberg offers an alternative to the current process. Sternberg has been a part of a new admissions policy testing students not just on their memorization and analytical skills, but on their creative, practical, and wisdom-based skills as well. Sternberg’s ideas stem from his experience with disadvantaged youth and their ability to adapt and overcome obstacles. Sternberg claims that students who grow up in the upper middle class tend to have an environment which better values the analytical skills that the current tests measure. He argues that, because of this, colleges may not be getting the most creative and adaptable students. He shows that some of these less privileged students are capable of handling a college workload even though they may not have been able to score as high on the SAT or other tests. DiMaria believes that through Sternberg’s Kaleidoscope policy may be a solution. The Kaleidoscope way of admissions administers tests which ask open ended

• Why not add alumni children to the list of favorable treatment in admission process?

In his essay “Frank Bruni” which appear Rethinking College Admissions, where he was insistent that college admissions process should change, and this essay published in New York Times. The college admissions process look for many things that hard for the students to have. In sated of accepting the student how come from poor society and develop there knowledge so they can have better live, they accept the students who come from the best school. Moreover, they emphasize on the student who have high grade on standardized tests, the AP classes and extracurricular activities without looking for the students who cannot do this things. All this requirements are for pacific class of people who can have it, even for the sport scholarship they look for

The other way of payment is all of the popularity and fame they get. The students literally are getting shown on television and are getting their name known all around the campus, if not the whole

Imagine a brilliant high school child named Michael who has a high GPA and is enrolled in the honors and AP curriculum; he precipitates in multitudes of extracurricular activities including sports and clubs. He gets accepted to many schools and received many scholarships. However, even with financial aid, he and his family are economically deprived and therefore incapable in funding a college education. This scenario is not an imagination but a common event in modern day America. Fifty percent of eighteen to twenty-five year old adults who did not attend a higher education institution experienced a similar situation (Why). These people belong in a university, an establishment whose nature is to judge base on the intelligence not on the

According to Mullen research shows that a candidate has a 30% chance of admission, an applicant with the exact same academic record and extracurricular activities, but also a parent who attended the school as an undergraduate would have 75% chance. This shows that due to legacy admission, there’s less academic competition. Moreover, many colleges claim that legacy status is just use as a “tie breaker” in a very close admission call. However, according to the book affirmative action for the rich informs that the weight of legacy preference is noteworthy, adding 160 points to candidate’s record. Samuel G.

This then causes students to shy away from the mission, thus affecting their overall performance of acting or learning in class and public. According to Hacker and Dreifus, “...professors must make an effort to reach their students...they must become conscientious, caring, and attentive to every corner of their classrooms” (Dreifus and Hacker 180). While this may be true, colleges are definitively becoming overly involved in satisfying students through specific programs and activities, which results in little concern of actual student welfare and education. If colleges have no concern for their students, then why should students be expected to pay and not receive an acceptable education? Though students have significant qualms towards the expected payment for tuition, they are more focused on

According to Mullen research shows that a candidate has a 30% chance of admission, an applicant with the exact same academic record and extracurricular activities, but also a parent who attended the school as an undergraduate would have 75% chance. This shows that due to legacy admission, there’s less academic competition. Moreover, many colleges claim that legacy status is just use as a “tie breaker” in a very close admission call. However, according to the book affirmative action for the rich informs that the weight of legacy preference is noteworthy, adding 160 points to candidate’s record. Samuel G. Freedman states that there are varieties of unearned advantages, legacy admissions being

Colleges and universities receive tremendous amounts of money each year. Most donors give to one specific organization or department each time, to insure they are well taken care of. “ Too many benefactors donate to institutions that are already well provided for.” The colleges that get the most money are the wealthiest schools. There are many “Well deserving” colleges that do not get nearly as much. Colleges like, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, are tuition free schools. Western Oregon University also offers very low tuition. The donors money could be put to good use at these schools that are more focused on educating the minds of students rather than gaining a

1] Legacy applicants are more likely to do well when they get to Cromwell because they understand what college is all about.

The author felt very strongly about the need to get rid of exclusive preference for legacies or other special qualities in students that did not relate to academic achievement. Golden felt strongly about this matter when was writing for The Wall Street Journal. He had done a lot of research and discovered how dishonest Ivy League schools were being in their acceptance process. He interviewed many people, and sympathized with the intelligent students who did not get into their college of choice because they weren’t financially or socially satisfactory for the school. Many of the rich he tried to contact refused an interview, which Golden proves as their embarrassment to how they were admitted. He has many suggestions to help improve how Ivy League schools can better their acceptance process.

On top of exceptional students getting declined, prestigious schools are accepting less qualified students such as legacies, athletes, and minorities, contributing to the flawed system. Rather than admitting students based on their potential to succeed and personal attributes alone, universities often admit slightly inferior candidates in order to increase their diversity population and maintain a dedicated alumni. In A is For Admission, Michele Hernandez mentions some of these discrepancies when explaining that legacies, students with a parent who attended the university, have a forty percent acceptance rate at Dartmouth in comparison with the typical ten percent acceptance rate (183). Additionally, Hernandez further explains that athletes

1. “If we cut down on the number of legacy admissions, what would happen to the college budget? We might not even be able to keep things running!”