Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships • Hacker News Board

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#11

Post by mistersquid » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #5

drb91 wrote: post #3

Not surprising. These are primarily businesses after all with billions of dollars of investments and brand value to maintain. You can’t expect them to give an education to just anyone off the street!

The skew discovered was in favor of two groups: 1. existing financial-background applicants 2. diversity candidates. The former improves average post-graduation median salary, so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way.

  > The former improves average post-graduation median salary,
  > so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter
  > contributes in the same way.

No need for doubt when there's data.

In particular, the data time and again show that in the US wage gaps persist for women and minorities. [0] [1]

So if "diversity candidates" who matriculate to Stanford have above average median salaries post-graduation, these scholarships are "good for the reputation" in the same way.

  [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/
  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States

EDIT: specify scholarship recipients, verb-noun agreement.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#12

Post by wyager » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 4:52 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #2

For the sake of an argument, there is some merit to diversity preference: if a disadvantaged candidate made as much progress agains the headwind as a regular candidate, it stands to reason they are more capable. Thoughts?

When you offer diversity-based scholarships as opposed to need-based, you don’t actually select for the people who are disadvantaged because of their background; you select for people who are not disadvantaged and incidentally have a background that may disadvantage other people.

If your goal is to help disadvantaged people, you should be giving out some combination of need- and merit- based scholarships.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#13

Post by jknz » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

saas_co_de wrote: post #9

It is somewhat amusing that they give scholarships to people with financial industry background, who are the least in need, and who will receive the highest salaries on exit - and then claim that their scholarships are need based. At least they are teaching their students the ethics they need to succeed in the financial industry.

Companies can have both a diversity policy and a policy to make sure the top talents don't go elsewhere.

University too, can have a diversity policy as well as a merit policy. To compete and attract the best students, University must either provide merit based scholarship, or organize with other universities to get rid of merit based scholarships everywhere (cartel!)

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#14

Post by CalChris » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

There's nothing wrong per se with awarding this aid either needs based or merit based. Awarding it merit based seems to be working for Stanford based on results. Moreover, this is for graduate business school. I'm a crunchy progressive but I see no problem with this private school doing whatever they want (legally) if it works for them which it apparently does.

But awarding them merit based and then claiming to be needs based is hypocrisy.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#15

Post by shas3 » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #5

drb91 wrote: post #3

Not surprising. These are primarily businesses after all with billions of dollars of investments and brand value to maintain. You can’t expect them to give an education to just anyone off the street!

The skew discovered was in favor of two groups: 1. existing financial-background applicants 2. diversity candidates. The former improves average post-graduation median salary, so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way.

The argument for diversity as a good investment:

1. With high-income whites some dumb blokes may sneak in due to privilege and winging it based on family connections, etc. This might be happening at the expense of spunky smart low income whites or blacks who worked harder and were smarter to overcome their disadvantage to get to a point where they’re in the pool of those being considered for admission into Stanford.

2. Diversity hires bring fresh perspectives and help break group-think. In my experience, all-white, all-Indian, all-Asian, etc. teams were always inferior in terms of the experience of working there to diverse teams.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#16

Post by userbinator » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 5:00 PM UTC

and informed the school about the vulnerability

He asked that the report not be shared publicly because he has returned the data to the school, which has not disputed its findings.

Although I can understand the fact that he's a student there and wants to remain one, he could've released it all anonymously, perhaps with some redaction of specific personal details; this (recent?) strong desire to toe the line is unfortunate, because it means the school can still distort the facts however it wants.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#17

Post by nostromo » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

jknz wrote: post #13

saas_co_de wrote: post #9

It is somewhat amusing that they give scholarships to people with financial industry background, who are the least in need, and who will receive the highest salaries on exit - and then claim that their scholarships are need based. At least they are teaching their students the ethics they need to succeed in the financial industry.

Companies can have both a diversity policy and a policy to make sure the top talents don't go elsewhere. University too, can have a diversity policy as well as a merit policy. To compete and attract the best students, University must either provide merit based scholarship, or organize with other universities to get rid of merit based scholarships everywhere (cartel!)

Sure, but don’t lie about it.

If it’s not need-based, don’t insist it’s need-based.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#18

Post by coldcode » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 5:14 PM UTC

Having worked at a university at one point I can understand how shitty security is at virtually all universities. But Stanford claims to turn out brilliant technologists (in addition to these overpaid MBAs) yet apparently doesn't hire any.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#19

Post by plandis » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 5:15 PM UTC

shas3 wrote: post #15

DenisM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The skew discovered was in favor of two groups: 1. existing financial-background applicants 2. diversity candidates. The former improves average post-graduation median salary, so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way.

The argument for diversity as a good investment: 1. With high-income whites some dumb blokes may sneak in due to privilege and winging it based on family connections, etc. This might be happening at the expense of spunky smart low income whites or blacks who worked harder and were smarter to overcome their disadvantage to get to a point where they’re in the pool of those being considered for admission into Stanford.…

Yeah but gender and race diversity (the qualifications mentioned in the article) still discriminate against poor white males.

I am fairly certain that a poor white guy would have a very different perspective from one who grew up in a life of privilege but that socioeconomic diversity doesn’t look as good I guess.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#20

Post by subdane » Sat, Dec 02, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

The central problem here is that Stanford is saying one thing and doing another. The central question, which isn't asked in the article, is why. Stanford is creating an exclusive, private club, as is their right, but not being upfront about the rules of exclusion. More importantly, the reasons for exclusion.