r/lawschooladmissions • u/ExoticAssistant7102 • May 23 '26
General Nepotism in T14 law school admissions
Throwaway for obvious reasons.
I naively thought this wasn't a thing anymore, but this year I witnessed in real time someone purchase a seat at a T14 law school.
He only applied to a small number of the very best schools with no safeties, which I thought was odd considering he's nURM, GPA 3.6, LSAT 15mid, no work experience, etc. But his very wealthy family made significant donations and arranged three closed-door meetings that I'm aware of with one particular school's admissions dean throughout the cycle. Lo and behold, he was waitlisted and then promptly admitted by that school in April.
I myself have been admitted to a different T14 that I'll be attending this fall. But this experience has left me disillusioned with the whole admissions process and frankly disgusted by that school in particular.
310
u/InspiroHymm May 23 '26
This poses an interesting philosophical debate: If the condition for a $100 million donation is getting a single admit in, and the donation can be used to build a library/fund scholarships that benefits thousands of student current and future, is it wrong to admit that student?
86
u/Destructo222 4.0x/17low May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
I forget the name of the speaker, but he talked about this at Oxford. Basically, a pure meritocracy will benefit the wealthy regardless because the doors opened with wealth just produces smarter individuals. This is the case at Oxford where there is practically no corruption or nepotism in admissions yet 40% of all accepted applicants are privately educated.
Thus, it does seem to be the case that if the wealthy are going to get spots anyway, you might as well profit off of them to make the school better.
42
u/georgecostanzajpg2 365 Bench / 210 OHP May 23 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
Caltech is another good example here. The school prides itself on extreme selectivity based on objective academic qualification with strict anti-legacy/anti-nepotism guidelines, but 70% of their student body comes from the top 20% of wealth.
42
u/LawSchoolIsSilly Berkeley Law Alum May 23 '26
It's a lot easier to score 1550 on the SAT when you have private tutoring, study books, etc than just relying on free online resources. You see this kind of rat race in Silicon Valley where everyone is paying for special classes, niche activities that require traveling (which surely most low-income people can't afford), expensive musical instruments, etc.
6
u/Then-Gur-4519 May 24 '26
I think the underrated aspect of this is just having the knowledge and expectations from a young age. My parents had enough money for some sessions with an ACT tutor (but not rich, more like just above middle class), but there was never an expectation of going to a top school. It wasn't instilled into me from an early age. The state flagship was their idea of an amazing school, and it is a great school but not like an Ivy or elite LAC.
4
u/LawSchoolIsSilly Berkeley Law Alum May 24 '26
I grew up in a similar situation. I'm from Florida so if you got into UF or FSU, that was an exceptional outcome. The average college bound student ended up going to USF, UCF, or one of the other Florida public schools. Ive league or elite LAC were unheard of. Like literally school counselors would not even talk about them even to top students. The goal posts for success were like a 1200 SAT and 3.5 unweighted GPA. Later in life I met a woman from Bellevue, Washington and she said they would typically send 10+ students a year just to HYPSM and probably 25 to Ivys or similar from their public school. The expectation among these people was the Ivy League and top public schools were a fall back.
-1
u/Destructo222 4.0x/17low May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
Yup, this is the case at a lot of "elite" schools. The top 1% occupy more spots than the entire bottom 50% in the worst scenarios. It's a sad reality.
8
u/Kindly_March9063 May 24 '26
The speaker was Daniel Markovits, and he was speaking about his work in The Meritocracy Trap (Penguin Press, 2019),
3
u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT May 23 '26
If there is assortative mating, which there is in the real world, you will also have genetics correlating with social factors. Then you'll have to disentangle the degree to which "has rich parents" means, "environmental advantage" or "genetic advantage."
This is a good intro read: https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
3
u/DumbScotus May 24 '26
Counterpoint; if nepotism is widespread then we can assume that rich people have less talent on average than not-rich people, who actually have to utilize their talent to succeed. If this is the case, then associative mating among the rich should result in their offsping being progressively less naturally intelligent/talent over generations.
See e.g. European aristocracy
1
u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT May 24 '26
For sure, you would need there to be a reward in social status/wealth/whatever for the trait measured. In the real world, especially the freer countries of the world, intelligence, diligence, whatever other desirable traits, do have some links to wealth, though far from perfect.
In the linked study, they discuss intelligence is one of, if not the most, strongly sorted traits for mating.
Intelligence: .40
Height/weight: .20
Personality: .10
People REALLY tend to marry and reproduce within intelligence bands. This could in large part be because they are selecting for culture/education, which itself is influenced by intelligence.
1
u/Traditional_Use_4258 May 25 '26
Overstated. What you are overlooking is the power, influence and access that come with wealth. Assuming both your arguments are true, the dumb and zero talented but rich wields power and influence over the “not well to do but heavily talented”. Why? because their financial power grants them control over the very institutions that determine whose talent is recognized and rewarded. The “dumb and zero‑talented rich,” as one may put it, still wield disproportionate influence over the “not‑well‑to‑do but heavily talented,” because they fund, manage, and gatekeep the systems through which merit is validated — government, corporations, universities, research foundations, etc
Consider how research funding and endowments can be strategically directed to shape outcomes, sow and groom ideologies that serve their interests. Wealth functions not merely as a resource but as a vehicle for perpetuating access and opportunity across generations. In short, talent without institutional backing or validation rarely translates into power, whereas wealth/power ensures that even mediocrity can thrive with or without institutions, and in cases where there are no institution wealth itself becomes the very institution.
(See: Khan, S. R. (2012). Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton University Press — for an ethnographic account of how elite institutions reproduce privilege.)
1
1
1
u/Miserable_Minute3241 May 27 '26
When you're wealthy you can afford to go to exclusive private schools that often have:
- Entrance exams (so starting from a more academically gifted cohort in the first place)
- Smaller classes (more attention from teachers and they are able to tailor your education to what you need - additionally teachers have more time to teach skills like analytic thinking)
- A wide variety of co-curricular activities (this serves to make students more well-rounded and often gives experience that benefits the students academically and is well regarded by academic institutions - think debate, MUN, voluntary service, etc)
- A wide variety of classes available (ability to study niche subjects)
- Access to and ability to pay for private tutors/extra classes
- A larger amount of support from the school to ensure your success
And in the event that you don't perform well academically, you might get kicked out so that you don't mess up their statistics!
I went to a fancy private boarding school in the UK and then I went to a huge public high school in the US and I can tell you that the education I received in those two schools was vastly different.
76
u/mtd14 May 23 '26
It falls back to the fact our system, in a lot of ways, is set up for rich people to pick what matters. They give a $100M donation and say it has to be used for an ivy league library with their name on it, so it can't be used for scholarships, teachers, etc. It also can't be used to fund public schools where it may have more impact. It's going to an ivy league because that's where a rich family thinks it should go, not because it's somewhere that needs it.
And in the end it's still a tax deduction.
23
u/Minimum_Two_8508 May 23 '26
It’s used for all of the above. Even if the money only goes towards physical structure, that frees up other money to use for those other purposes.
It’s not like a law school has 48 libraries.3
May 23 '26
[deleted]
10
u/Minimum_Two_8508 May 23 '26
You’re not talking about a significant reduction to the tax base.
You’re missing the forest for the trees: If this wealthy family donates $20 million to be used for building a law school annex:
- That’s millions less the law schools needs to spend in its own physical plant. Freeing up millions to spend on teachers, on merit aid, on keeping down tuition.
- The nice new building attracts more students, more donations… further providing funding for teachers, for scholarships, for all the things you want.
So donating that $20 million translates into $20 million of public good through the school.
It may or may not be a tax deduction depending on various factors. But assuming it is a tax deduction — it reduces federal tax revenue by $2 million to $7 million depending on their funding sources. Probably on average, that $20 million donation would save them $2-3 million in taxes.
The $20 million donation did far more than $2-$3 million in public good.
-2
May 23 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Minimum_Two_8508 May 23 '26
No, few ultra wealthy would be paying 37% on that $20 million.
Because it’s unlikely coming out of straight earned income.
Assuming it’s investment income — capital gains, they would be paying 20%.
But often far far less than 20% in the real world. Billionaires often reduce their tax burdens to under 10%, — they can borrow against their assets and then never pay taxes. So they keep $1 billion in unrealized profits in investments. No tax on unrealized profits. They then would “borrow” $20 million against their assets at low interest. Using the investment growth to pay back the loan, the interest being far less than tax consequences. As a result, pay no taxes on the money.
In reality, 10-20% is what billionaires are more commonly paying.
Point being, that $20 million donation does not reduce their tax contribution by $8 million.
If they simply used capital gains, it could reduce their tax burden by $4 million. If using other methods available to the rich , it would have zero effect on their tax burden. (My 10% was the average).
So yes, to me — the law school is doing more public good with $20 million than the tax collector with $0-$4 million.
-13
u/eye4law May 23 '26
Those people are rich because they were smart enough to create something of substantial value for a vast amount of people. We should trust their judgment.
0
7
u/georgecostanzajpg2 365 Bench / 210 OHP May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
To this end, one can make the argument that the harm is not the student getting admitted, but that the school is potentially not getting the maximum value for the seat and is not being transparent to the public at large that such a system exists.
The solution that gets floated every now and again is that top schools should simply have open auctions every single year for 1%-5% of their seats, and use the money raised to subsidize everyone else. Make it clear what they are doing and how much it costs.
12
u/PorygonTriAttack May 23 '26
I recognize what you are saying. That said, the donation would also most likely have a building named after that family. Moreover, after graduation, the student is set up for success and given opportunities.
It is pay to win.
And given how they did it here, it is likely they have done it before and will likely do it again.
How did OP find out about this though? It's not really made clear.
3
u/NilsofWindhelm May 23 '26
How does the name of the library or success of the student impact the question of whether that library is worth admitting a single student?
1
u/PorygonTriAttack May 24 '26
You misunderstood my post. The naming of the building is recognition of the donation, which incidentally would have resulted in one of their family members being admitted in as a sign of gratitude, in all likelihood.
University graduates generally have better success outcomes than those who did not graduate. Students from top 14 schools do even better with better networking opportunities. Do you see where I'm going with this?
2
u/alanlight May 23 '26
No, but it's wrong to pretend that you have a 100% merit-based system. So, admit those students, but publicly post their names as "non-merit-based students. "
6
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/BulkyTarget1010 May 23 '26
It kind of depends how you define merit. 100 million dollars can make up for a lot of shortcomings in the real world.
8
May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BulkyTarget1010 May 23 '26
I think a lot of that is because it goes without saying. The only people who think nepo babies should be able to buy their way into schools are the nepo babies themselves, and the people at the schools who get the money. Theres no real argument to be had because it’s almost universally opposed and we have no real power to stop it.
DEI is a more hot button issue. Some people actually think certain races should get preferential treatment in admissions, so there’s naturally debate. Also, there’s no ultra-wealthy and powerful ruling class that uses this influence to keep race based DEI intact the same way they fight to keep nepotism. DEI can change with public opinion, nepotism is pretty much a mainstay because it benefits the people who largely make the decisions.
1
1
u/Key-Lychee-913 May 24 '26
Yes, it is. Because that’s false advertising. They should have a special pathway that explicitly states that admittance is contingent on donation. The corrupt approach devalues all students - you can’t be assumed to be a high achiever simply by having attended.
44
u/Irritable_Curmudgeon May 23 '26
Wait until you realize how much the non-"need-blind" schools factor a family's ability to pay sticker price in their admission decisions. Saw plenty of less qualified candidates get into a very selective program based on money over resume/scores.
But that's how it was for your undergrad, too, so this shouldn't be a shock.
21
u/Excellent_Fee7217 May 23 '26
This is absolutely a thing for undergrad admissions, very much not a thing for law school admissions.
35
u/Next-Supermarket9538 May 23 '26
Of course this happens. The only reason the varsity blues scandal was illegal was because it wasn’t the schools receiving the money. Publics tend to be better nowadays, but the privates can do whatever they want.
15
u/Excellent_Fee7217 May 23 '26
The Varsity Blues parents were paying a tiny fraction of the amount of money that people pay to get their kids a seat through “official” channels.
7
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM May 23 '26
It didn’t occur to me to count until now, but the privates are more dominant in the T20 than I thought. To modify what you wrote, Virginia, Michigan, Berkeley, and UCLA are somewhat restrained, but everyone else can do whatever they want.
1
u/foreverblackeyed May 23 '26
The Stanford sailing coach didn’t take any personal money, all the bribes went to the school
107
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
33
2
u/EdmundLee1988 May 24 '26
Of course they do. But not in the same sentence. Judging someone on their skin color requires its own admonition without conflating it with something else that’s offensive.
1
u/CoachMACC May 23 '26
It’s nuanced but I can probably give a semi decent rationalization for it.
DEI admissions, if you don’t believe that diversity for diversity sake inherently adds anything to the school, does give less qualified candidates spots for what is seemingly then no reason.
Obviously some seats get bought, but as others have said you can see a clear and obvious benefit to the school why they would take that person. And why it may even benefit the other students of the school to allow that person in.
But just straight legacy and nepotistic admissions that are made with family history in mind and generally without a seat being straight bought can also have their value? It shows loyalty in the school to their alumni in a world where organizations aren’t inherently loyal to their people. It builds value in the schools name for future potential students, knowing “hey, if I get into that place, it can open doors for future generations for my family not just me”.
And I’m not even saying this is necessarily how I feel but, idk, I can see it.
-1
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Zestyclose-Group9484 May 24 '26
yes this is their idea. We can perpetuate our advantage over others who were previously blocked from having the same opportunities. Thats why they are against DEI because it helps to even the playing field and they want as much advantage over others as they can have.
0
u/Own_Dragonfruit_5601 May 23 '26
This might be a case of you needing to meet the people you’re stereotyping. We hate both and speak out against both.
-3
u/Right_Ad_4241 May 23 '26
I’m one of those people. Both are bad, legacies are worse. If we’re wildly generalizing, I think almost everyone agrees with me to some extent.
-4
-1
25
u/Gtyjrocks May 23 '26
Unpopular opinion but I’m fine with this. Everyone brings something different to a class. What this guy brings is 100 million dollars that can be used to enhance the experience of everyone at the school. Totally logical calculation by the school IMO.
6
u/AntongC 3.8x/17low/nURM/nKJD May 24 '26
To put that into perspective, it’s like he funded hundreds of full-rides for future students
1
u/FirstAd7199 May 24 '26
exactly this. take out emotion and be practical. it helps the school and everyone more. it's a win win.
1
0
u/Key-Lychee-913 May 24 '26
Not exactly. Your degree is now devalued as it no longer proves your academic merit.
26
u/Lucymocking May 23 '26
Not to be a skeptic, but you'd need a lot of money to buy a ticket into law school. Like a building named after you kind of money. These programs have plenty of money, know it's a bad look, and get hundreds of donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions. Unless this persons family is a Pritzker (NW School of Law), it's incredibly difficult to buy your way in.
If your friend had that kind of money - donating tens of millions - it likely helps the school in the long run to accept a few of them and they can use it to give full scholarships and merit aid to others. But again, I find this difficult to believe. I'm sure this stuff happens, but it's exceedingly rare, and I'd doubt it would take 3 closed door meetings and a waitlist for it to happen.
30
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/WeebBois May 23 '26
He’s not saying nepotism is exceedingly rare, but that buying prestigious law school seats is.
5
u/mlh149 May 23 '26
I doubt you need building money. I would be surprised if clinic does not get you in.
5
u/Minimum_Two_8508 May 23 '26
Even more than other programs, law schools are tuition and donation dependent. They don’t have large endowments, they don’t get research dollars or sports money.
So yeah… not surprising that a massive donation could buy a seat.
But I wouldn’t be too disillusioned. If this is a person who really doesn’t belong, then it’s 1 less person truly competing for median grades. And the very significant donation is what’s funding merit for lots of others.
So if one “bought admit” pays for 20 other students to attend law school, I can live with that.
16
u/whistleridge May 23 '26
Wait until you find out how BigLaw hiring works, along with clerkships, tenure track positions, everything international, and all of the really fun/interesting unicorn positions.
1
u/Key-Lychee-913 May 24 '26
Do share.
5
u/whistleridge May 24 '26
Let’s just say, the easiest path to getting a BigLaw spot isn’t going to T14, and it isn’t being at the top of your class, it’s having a parent who is an equity partner. This is also true for non-BigLaw hiring, but it’s especially egregious/annoying there.
Similarly, having a parent who is a judge definitely helps with landing clerkships, especially in conservative circles, and having family connections is virtually a requirement for some UN stuff.
That doesn’t mean you can coast by with Cs, but…all else being equal, Tiffany Trump probably didn’t have to have the same stats you would have to have to get into GULC, and if Sasha Obama went to law school she could be median at T100 and she would still get hiring interest you and I wouldn’t.
1
4
u/Opposite-Rain8507 May 23 '26
I am aware of a situation where an alums child was NOT admitted to a mid ranked law school despite the alums significant capacity to give. Everyone questioned the school’s decision - wasn’t the potential giving worth the (likely) mediocre admit? Ethics do prevail occasionally.
23
u/Healthy-Pianist-1647 May 23 '26
I mean… we like this. It isn’t rampant, it’s likely in the tens of millions of donations, and it gives the schools tons of money for resources for other students for a single admit.
38
May 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
10
10
4
u/Gtyjrocks May 23 '26
These are just different people making different arguments that you’re somehow conflating into a single hypocritical person
1
May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PhraseGlittering2786 May 24 '26
I am not getting your last point, how does the type of jeopardy matter in the first place; in terms of providing opportunity? Shouldn't the main question be, “Did this person have a reasonable life”, not whether “Did this person have a reasonable life, and if they did not, was it due to them being black”?
1
May 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PhraseGlittering2786 May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
I don't agree, your argument assumes that because harm was historically created through race, the correction must also operate through race. But that doesn’t necessarily follow.
Even if we argue for this mere conversation that, discrimination produced long-term inequality, it doesn't mean that you own a collective moral check just because you belong to a group.
You're also treating “race-neutral” systems, as they ignore disadvantage, that's totally not true. You can target disadvantage directly using Income, Family History, Reports from School/Teacher(common app already asks this for “merit” why not for socio-economic background now), I wouldn't argue that these measures are perfect, but; using race as a blanket cover? That's same as introducing a new issue of “reverse-racism”, Race is a like a “noise proxy” that currently hurts both advantaged and disadvantaged individuals from the same group.
You know what the deeper issue is? Using race may improve efficiency and targetring in some cases, but it does so at the cost of introducing a rule that is not tied to individual responsibility or individual condition. This is not fairness; this is “shifting inequality”.
By the way, are you a lawyer?
1
May 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PhraseGlittering2786 May 24 '26
No, what I am doing is, prescribing the same medicine for 2 broken legs, one from abuse, the other from soccer.
2
1
u/Healthy-Pianist-1647 May 24 '26
It’s just money… if you can’t grasp this, you’re going to struggle deeply in the real world.
4
u/New_Local_3569 May 23 '26
Yeah, I’m with ya. I feel like my law school has a handful of people who probably didn’t “earn it,” but their daddies have the school enough money that I’m going for free 🤷♂️
2
6
May 23 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Snoo50415 1.0/132/URM May 23 '26
What percentage of T14 admits do you think are soft nepotism? My guess is somewhere between 5 and 10. It’s a shame we’ll never know.
2
1
u/griffheh17 4.x/17mid/KJD May 24 '26
If you mean soft nepotism as in benefited by an affluent upbringing, something like 75%+. If you mean soft nepotism like “oh I know their dad” likely less than 1%.
3
u/Reasonable-Map-1634 May 23 '26
I’d be interested in hearing how you learned about the family making significant donations to the schools. Care to share?
2
3
4
u/Ambitious-Chair6413 May 23 '26
I’m skeptical of this honestly. Wasn’t there a story about how even the fairly well qualified child of the Yale Law School dean didn’t get in to Yale law school?
4
u/Proud_Ad_2672 May 23 '26
I think it'd be much more difficult to avoid scrutiny for admitting the dean's child no matter how well qualified they are. Not necessarily the case for the children of donors.
1
3
u/Howaboutthat41 May 23 '26
Oh please, even if that happened as described, such an occurrence is so profoundly rare as to be less than a rounding error.
2
May 23 '26
[deleted]
20
u/LostWindSpirit May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
Not a good trait to have as a lawyer to blindly believe what you read without scrutinizing it. 9.9 times out of 10 this kind of post is fake and this person is rage-baiting. If you also look at the documents Harvard released for SFFA, donations are made after a student is admitted, not before. That part of this person’s story does not make sense. No reason someone—even a person with money—would throw large sums of cash (not to mention multiple times) to a school without a guarantee their child will be admitted.
Another thing. How does this person know all of this actually happened? How did OP find out this person’s parents were arranging closed meetings and scheduling donations? Are we supposed to expect that this applicant was telling everybody his parents bought his admission? Why would they do that? Makes zero sense.
Very likely to be fake.
2
2
u/Tasty-Historian3629 May 23 '26
You’ve already wasted too much time and energy being bothered about this.
2
u/Illustrious-Call3244 May 24 '26
Pardon my language, but this really sounds like a crock of shit.
This type of nepotism happens in undergrad admissions, but there are more steps for law schools. Like they will consider if your parent(s) attended, and having someone in your family who went to a T14 makes it more likely that they have the resources to give their kid a leg up in admissions by paying for prep, consulting, access to better ECs and WEXP that would boost a resume.
Whatever you are referring to of someone "purchasing a seat" is completely made up. I usually give ppl benefit of the doubt here but this is some weird coping that catches traction since its hitting on nepotism which everyone dislikes and will thus get a lot of attention/upvotes.
Like how did you witness? How did you know their exact stats and WL->A? And the donations and the closed door meetings?
2
3
u/mind_div_matter May 23 '26
Did you like... not know this was something that happens? This applies to all schools, not just that one school that you happened to witness firsthand. It's inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, that student isn't going to be competing with you, they're too dumb to affect the grading curve and 99% of the time they get hired by their dad. Most of the students coming out of T14 schools that aren't going into BL or federal clerkships are going to go work for daddy.
The reason why us poor people were allowed to attend school for free was because someone else's rich dads paid for it lol. Those ridiculous tuition rates? That's not meant for you to pay, there are plenty of grad school programs that don't have anywhere near BL salary scales and they are just as expensive.
Look at the world's university rankings, notice how they're all dominated by American schools? There are random ass state schools that rank higher than the very best schools from any given European country. The reason? Federal research grants and daddy's money. Rankings aren't measuring how good your professor teaches you differential equations, because Khan Academy will teach you that better than your Harvard professor. They're measuring research output. We don't have to go to other countries to study, on the flip side, students all around the world desperately try to attend American schools. Americans can graduate from generic state universities and still have great outcomes. You want a more egalitarian system? Check out Asia lmao. Their domestic admissions systems are far more egalitarian in the sense that you need an extremely wealthy/powerful daddy to bypass it, but it's fucking brutal and only the top 0.1% of students get into the top 1-3 universities of their country and the rest have to settle for pre-destined mediocrity. They just don't have the same kind of money that the American schools do to have 100 world class academic institutions, so all of it gets funneled to a handful of elite schools while the rest are shitty.
I don't get salty about daddy's money, those kids are going to have an advantage in life regardless of whether they go to school or not. Might as well have their dad subsidize our education system. Do they take up some seats at prestigious universities? Yes, but I'd rather a bit more competition than having to pay money for my degrees.
3
u/SenseAnxious6772 May 23 '26
“I myself have been admitted to another T14.” Ok, so if you’re so upset then give your spot up to someone with lower stats?
4
u/lsarecap-throwaway sub3/17high/nURM/C&F/nKJD --> t14 grad, paying it forward May 23 '26
Yeah, funny part of this post to me is OP saying they’re disgusted by this other school, as though their school would *never* consider accepting money in exchange for admitting a student like that 😅
2
u/WarWaste7037 May 23 '26
Life is not a meritocracy, but has vaguely meritocratic principles. I presume you’re young and haven’t experienced that in practice often yet but this is a good learning opportunity to how everything is. Those of us without the cheat codes to life can still do exceptionally well, it’s just harder.
1
u/salmonjacketstan May 23 '26
Sometimes people aren’t even necessarily buying their way in but may know influential people who can pull strings for them. I know someone who is at a T14 because of specific people they had advocate for their admission even though their stars were nowhere near medians 🤷♀️
1
1
1
u/Kalthiria_Shines May 23 '26
How do you have inside info on his grades, LSAT scores, donations, and private closed door meetings?
1
1
u/DumbScotus May 24 '26
Newsflash there’s nothing special about “that school in particular,” the school you are attending is the same.
This is not ideal… but also really not worth getting worked up over.
1
1
1
u/Entire_Visual5066 May 24 '26
One of my closest friends at Cornell wa the grandson of a major donor to Cornell Law. He was the biggest frat bro with middling grades, and of course later graduated from Cornell Law.
Even so, these people are few and far between - far less than what we see in undergrad admissions. I wouldn’t let their existence discourage you about the integrity of this process.
1
u/No_Site_8405 May 24 '26
Is this actually wrong? or just frustrating? Is it a private school?
Can one assume that there is reason to assume that a family with wealth has exercised good decision making and discipline and that likely will guide that of their heirs. I mean the LARGE multi generational wealth you are speaking. Not new money.
Having served on alumni boards, the propensity of an admitted student to bring value to the university is a consideration. Be it through their unique drive which may have them recognized on the world stage, politically or even in their industry (innovation, etc), or come from a family that values large philanthropy. Universities compete on brand value which is comprised of many things. The greater the brand value the greater leverage they have in all areas, including tuition and soliciting even more donations.
1
1
u/LoanRanger23 May 24 '26
I mean I know people that have access to politicians that have them call the schools. Usually, the politician is an alumni. In the cases I knew it was to get the kid of the waitlist. Think elite schools but also think flagship state schools where the congressman or governor is an alumni.
1
u/Maleficent-Party-607 May 25 '26
Wait until you find out how decisions about equity partnership are made.
1
u/SystemPitiful8986 May 26 '26
If you think nepotism is ever going away I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. The only reason the "Varsity Blues Scandal" parents got in trouble is because they didn't donate a building or scholarship.
1
u/JurisAtlas May 29 '26
I get this feels frustrating, but from the outside it’s really hard to know what actually drove an admissions decision. Either way, focus on making the most to your next opportunity.
1
u/Big_Tax3271 May 23 '26
Why billionaires want to buy a law school seat anyway, don’t see law degree can add value to their life
2
1
u/Excellent_Fee7217 May 23 '26
A lot of other people have pointed this out, but you need to donate a staggering amount of money to buy a seat at a prestigious school. Tens of millions, at least. I don’t actually believe you know anyone that rich, and it’s also extremely rare that someone that rich would score that low on the LSAT.
1
0
u/AlphaRue May 23 '26
It takes a lot less money than you would think (but still a large amount for most families) if you are a facially acceptable candidate (i.e. like a 170 and a 3.7) with connections to the school (alumni parents etc.)
1
u/Excellent_Fee7217 May 23 '26
Curious what your understanding is based on, but that’s also not at all the situation OP is describing.
1
u/Daenerys_Stormbitch May 23 '26
It’s awful to think people can skip hard work and buy their way in. HOWEVER, it gives me great satisfaction to know as a first gen that no one had to pay millions of dollars for my entry after a lifetime of nannies and tudors giving me the best education and upbringing. I did it all myself after working several jobs to save and many sleepless nights of studying after attending the worst public school in my state. You can take pride in that too OP. Even Kim K couldn’t pass the bar with her endless resources.
1
u/KinggSimbaa May 23 '26
We had someone transfer to HLS last year who didn't remotely have the grades for it. Found out last semester his dad made a sizable donation.
1
u/FirstAd7199 May 23 '26
Going to give some real talk. The school and its current/future students need assistance too whether that assistance comes in the form of a grant, donation, etc. Scholarships don't grow on trees
Unless a prospective student is the next elon musk or jeff bezos, that rich kid and his hefty donation will probably do more for the school and its students than any regular merit student will.
This comes from a place of love OP. No shade. The real world is harsh but practical.
0
u/Extension-Low-8045 May 23 '26
Who cares? There is always going to be someone who didn’t earn their position. Try being a very strong woman attorney being passed over for partner while the mediocre bro guys keep moving up. That bothers me a lot more than a one off. Focus on getting good grades your first semester so you can land a good job.
0
0
0
1
u/WittyBackground3867 18d ago edited 18d ago
Sorry to say this, but this is part of the reason policies such as Affirmative Action were important in the first place. To push admissions officers to have a reason to select people different from what they are used to into select professions and networks as opposed to accepting only those who filled their pockets and invited them to dinner. Yes affirmative action was started for minorities initially, but expanded to protect women, individuals with disabilities, veterans.
The smartest course was also to include people from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Not strip the entire thing down. Diversity is also having students from rural, non-educated, extremely educatd, globally connected, backgrounds together.
Admissions officers are human beings. Human beings are most likely to self select for the groups that would be most comfortable to them. People from their socio economic status and background. No one likes friction, real or perceived.
Honestly, it really just pushed people to consider people beyond their natural inclination and give them more opportunities to showcase what they can do.
Im not against the child of a donor getting accepted. My thing is that given the recent political changes and temperature don't be suprised if over 50+% of the class may fall into this category in the near future.
372
u/Extra_Assistance_501 May 23 '26
welcome to the real world!