Alumni with kids are 13 percentage points more likely than alumni without kids to give in any year. The tendency to give rises slowly–by three more percentage points total–through kids’ early teens. At about age 14, as mom and dad see their kid’s algebra and composition grades, they decide whether he or she will apply to the alma mater.
Here is much more.
It would be interesting if someone who works in an admissions office or who has insight into how the admissions process works would comment whether the office takes into account donorship at low and mid levels.
At the extreme end it would be difficult not to notice a building named after a donor. I would think it also more likely in cases of large gifts that the Dean/Provost personally would have a word with Admissions to pay extra consideration to the donor’s legacy.
Couldn’t this be because, on average:
1) alumni with kids will be older then alumni without kids
2) older alumni will have worked worked and be earning more and have higher average net wealth
3) people with higher wealth donate more to charitable cuases and/or see their schooling as having a more imortant role in their current wealth?
the original study controls for all the effects people mention her. the authors estimate the altruistic part of alumni giving at 51% and the rest to improve the odds of their legacy admits.
Pablo and John Galt, note that in the article, the effect reverses after the kids either (a) reach the age and don’t apply to the college or (b) graduate from the college.
Comments on this entry are closed.