41–50 of 187 posts
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.
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.
The second part assumes class is the only disadvantage. Perhaps preference for poorer student is the only type of affirmative action accepted by both major US political parties. And I agree money solves a lot of problems, but it doesn't fix every race and gender issues. The best example is all of the famout actresses bringing awareness to sexual assault.
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 unfort…
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 ne…
The article also mentions gender and discrimination based upon nationality which could be suggestive of racial discrimination as well. Women are biased over men, foreign over domestic. This is not uncommon and likely legal ( see: Fisher vs University of Texas 2016 [1]) for now, but I also would like to see universities required to acknowledge the discrimination. Calling things equal or need based and then actively en…
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?
Lots of practices are ok, as long as you tell the truth about what you are doing. The issue here is that they were saying one thing and doing another. A good question to ask, though, is why were they lying about it? What message were they trying to send by saying they did not give any merit based awards? What made them instead decide to do the opposite of what they said they were doing?
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 ne…
that is just the PR side of things. you also have to think of the students.
Stanford lied to potential students and told them that they did not offer merit based scholarships thus inducing them to pay full price. That is an intentional misrepresentation of fact for financial gain on Stanford's part at the expense of students who paid full price.
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.
If you can convince the people who are getting fleeced that their situation is because they haven’t worked hard enough, they won’t struggle when you steal the coat off their back.
My daughter is applying for colleges. When a college says that they only offer need-based aid, what it means is that we can't afford it. Yet I've encouraged her to apply to a few of those colleges anyway, based on the assumption that they don't only offer need based aid.
Stanfurd can favor students born on a blue moon with an extra nipple for all I care. But claiming all scholarships are need based, giving them to rich students, and then telling students to not discuss their aid is disgusting. In my book this is on par with the wage fixing between Apple and the other tech giants. This is the downside of diversity and inclusion. Companies and schools have gotten so good at paying lip…
How is it a downside of diversity out inclusion? Sends more a downside of lying.
My daughter is applying for colleges. When a college says that they only offer need-based aid, what it means is that we can't afford it. Yet I've encouraged her to apply to a few of those colleges anyway, based on the assumption that they don't only offer need based aid.
Find a community college with a 2-2 combo program with a school with a good name. Buy your daughter a nice car. She’ll get a better education, have a car at graduation and you will save a lot of money.
I can think of only one: UCLA is a popular transfer school for folks with 2 years of CC.