That sets a pretty high bar. The last time I checked, which was before the Great Recession changed the game and increased applicants, MIT was getting 13,000 applications a year despite the extreme amount of self-selection, of which they judged 3,000 could do the work. From that they construct a class of around 1,100 students.
Transparency on the alumni relations of each student is the only way to go I guess...
For instance, when I was a student there (class of '82), the biggest demographic problem within the student body was the severe imbalance between men and women. The undergraduates were only around 15% women. That's frustrating for pretty much everyone.
Caltech addressed this by trying hard to (1) get more qualified women to apply, and (2) convincing more of those who were accepted to choose Caltech over the other schools that accepted them. Essentially, they would treat a bright high school girl with a talent for math, science, or engineering the way schools with effective sports programs treated outstanding high school athletes.
Nowadays, around 40% of undergraduates there are women.
Even Harvard, Stanford, and Yale each admitted 3 people that year (which, interestingly were different people -- it's as if they colluded to induce enrollment).
The implicit premise of the author is incorrect. The majority of these donations are not about helping the poor. If some of the money ends up doing so, well, that's gravy, but not the motivating intent.
There is certainly a subset that thinks like that. "Legacy" admission to a top tier school is probably not doing anyone any good, but that is a separate can of worms.
But to your point above: There are a serious number of donors who believe that they are doing a small part in improving society. As an example: Few people outside of tech know the name Cecil Green, but his donations have had lasting effect on several generations of students.
Well it presumably helps the donor and his family.
Not problematic IMO: You're paying for services rendered. Don't see anything wrong with that...
Only in some ways. Folks definitely know they are legacy admits, and it wasn't clear to me that the resulting college experience helped either the donor or the family compared to more sensible placement.
As for the university, it might help in the short run financing, but eventually the admissions committees might notice that the legacy folks are taking up spaces from future donors of higher caliber.