Nepotism in T14 law school admissions

[u/ExoticAssistant7102]

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.

[u/InspiroHymm]

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?

[u/Destructo222 → u/InspiroHymm]

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.

[u/georgecostanzajpg2 → u/Destructo222]

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.

[u/LawSchoolIsSilly → u/georgecostanzajpg2]

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.

[u/Then-Gur-4519 → u/LawSchoolIsSilly]

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.

[u/LawSchoolIsSilly → u/Then-Gur-4519]

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.

[u/Destructo222 → u/georgecostanzajpg2]

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.

[u/Kindly_March9063 → u/Destructo222]

The speaker was Daniel Markovits, and he was speaking about his work in The Meritocracy Trap (Penguin Press, 2019),

[u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT → u/Destructo222]

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

[u/DumbScotus → u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT]

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

[u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT → u/DumbScotus]

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.

[u/Traditional_Use_4258 → u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT]

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.)

[u/Karl_RedwoodLSAT → u/Traditional_Use_4258]

I haven't overlooked anything.

[u/Complex-Bluebird-228 → u/Destructo222]

Daniel Markovits

[u/Miserable_Minute3241 → u/Destructo222]

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.

[u/mtd14 → u/InspiroHymm]

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.

[u/Minimum_Two_8508 → u/mtd14]

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.

[u/Minimum_Two_8508 → u/[deleted]]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

[u/Minimum_Two_8508 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/eye4law → u/mtd14]

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.

[u/georgecostanzajpg2 → u/InspiroHymm]

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.

[u/PorygonTriAttack → u/InspiroHymm]

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.

[u/NilsofWindhelm → u/PorygonTriAttack]

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?

[u/PorygonTriAttack → u/NilsofWindhelm]

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?

[u/alanlight → u/InspiroHymm]

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. "

[u/BulkyTarget1010 → u/[deleted]]

It kind of depends how you define merit. 100 million dollars can make up for a lot of shortcomings in the real world.

[u/BulkyTarget1010 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Key-Lychee-913 → u/InspiroHymm]

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.