Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote: Re the sentence I highlighted, did you mean to say that you still think it is bad policy to reserve places for the children of alumni?
Yes, I denied this once too often, maybe I should have said 'We don't need no policy like that'. No, I don't think universities should admit high school graduates who do not qualify on their merits, just befocause their parents are alumni. I can see a case for an exception for the kids of donors, if their donation is so large their kids don't take away places from anybody else. But even then it's dubious. Certainly the university can't sell diplomas, or lower the academic standards to make unqualified kids of donors pass. And absent that, I suspect they'll stay in college forever because they can't make the cut at graduation time.
But your question was about the constitution, and I now concede the practice is constitutional.
If the admissions requirements are waived to admit the child of a big donor, I would strongly agree with you as schools, including universities, are certainly dumbed down enough without that these days. I don't have any ethical problem with affirmative action criteria being waived to admit the child of a big donor unless a more deserving student is shut out in the process. I honestly don't know whether both or either of these situations exist.
