51–60 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but don’t lie about it. If it’s not need-based, don’t insist it’s need-based.
The narrative must be maintained, comrade!
Who fights for XYZ must be able to fight and not to fight,
to say the truth and not to say the truth,
to render and to deny service,
to keep a promise and to break a promise,
to go into danger and to avoid danger,
to be known and to be unknown.
Who fights for XYZ has of all the virtues only one:
that he fights for XYZ.
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 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 scholar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What are some examples of those? I can think of only one: UCLA is a popular transfer school for folks with 2 years of CC.
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…
> hypocrisy 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.
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.
Not the worst preference to have - hand out scholarships to meritorious students. Isn't that how the world should work anyways?
Most Americans think "meritocracy" refers to the former. The reality is that it nearly always refers to the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our society is culturally configured to promote lying here. Instead of addressing the issue openly like adults, people decide to operate covertly, driven by competition and fear of missing out. It'll be nice when we start to culturally grow up a bit and begin trusting the world. Collaboration/hybridization is much quicker than competition when it comes to genetic evolution & I suspect the same holds for cultural evol…
So, to start with, shut down the rules against discussing salaries or university costs with coworkers and other students, respectively.