101–110 of 187 posts
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.
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.
Or get her into Stanford, where she'll get a $170,000 starting salary after four years, and can buy a rather pretty new car every quarter.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure people have done studies. Who donates more money? The poor kids who struggled through life and attended Stanfurd that finallyed opened the doors for him to become rich? Or the blue blood with the silver spoon who would have made it through daddy's connections regardless of which school he went to? I feel the former has stronger gratitude for his school.
Some don't donate due to gratitude, some donate to increase the chances their children will get in, and/or otherwise obtain social signals or networking benefits that can be used to further oneself.
We had a large percentage of my graduating high school class end up at ivy league schools. It was interesting to talk to them a decade after they had graduated and were in full swing with their professional career's and life.
One buddy I know who went to Princeton and ended up on Wall St told me they hound him for donations. His fraternity does the same with the emphasis on exactly what you pointed out. He wants his children to have a better chance they he did, so he donates large six figure sums every year to the school and fraternity hoping when his two kids grown up, they will have a leg up on the competition to get in there.
> Last year, 12 percent of Stanford MBA graduates were hired by private equity firms, with a median starting salary of $177,500, the article said. Venture capital companies hired 7 percent of them, and paid a median salary $167,500 to the beginners. Wow.. I chose the wrong career track.
>> median salary $167,500 to the beginners It's not all that high, since calling them beginners isn't exactly true [0]. It looks like a decent-sized chunk of the students have years of work experience in finance/consulting/tech and some already have advanced degrees. They weren't going to be paid poorly to begin with. [0] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/evaluati...
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…
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?
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.…
I feel like I'm missing some kind of obvious universal common-sense knowledge in having to ask this, but by what mechanism could this possibly come about?