I disagree. I think that what college offers is more than an increase in salary. For hyperbole’s sake, you could use the argument of ‘my trust fund is already paying me more than your median graduate’s full-time job’ and most would roll their eyes at such a statement.
Try talking to someone who's worked a few decades as a Development Officer at a major university. Would they want their institution to be associated with Mr. "I will never need to actually work" Trust Fundee? Or with a real-world proven entrepreneur & business management prodigy?
FWIW, with a 42% admission rate, donor-related applicants are 7 times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants. Based on this, I would say they tend to want to be associated with people who already have money, regardless of what they may say.
If the wealth "in play" is merely a trust fund large enough so that the applicant can live modestly without ever working, they won't care. (And any "I don't need to work" argument would be a huge red flag.) Similarly - I cannot give my grand-niece a 7X boost on getting into Harvard by donating $1,000 to Harvard.
Vs...if I was a billionaire, and ask a Harvard Development Officer about my grand-niece getting admitted to Harvard, then I could get her far more than a 7X boost.
You've either never spoken to people in development or didn't understand what they do.
For one, they aren't involved in admissions at all.
Their goal is to make long term relationships so that both sides, the donors and the university get something out of it. Not to judge people based on where their money or connections come from.
Development people have influence, and definitely want future financial success stories moving smoothly through their university's admissions pipeline.
Getting money that way isn't impressive, though. But surely there's some value to someone who's, presumably, intrinsically motivated to attend for some reason. That thing everyone born on the treadmill fakes being.
