Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 187 posts

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#111

Post by goialoq »

kelukelugames wrote: post #42
wyager wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I somewhat agree with the first part. That's why most of Harvard's black students are first or second generation African immigrants. I have Nigerian friends who joke about being Nigerian princes because, well, they kind of are. 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 mo…

> That's why most of Harvard's black students are first or second generation African immigrants.

citation?

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#112

Post by rifung »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #91
biohax2015 wrote: post #72

> 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.

In fairness that’s basically what FB/Google pays new grad SWEs with competing offers.

Not if you only consider salary though right? I assume MBAs also get bonuses and the such?

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#115

Post by kelukelugames »

goialoq wrote: post #111
kelukelugames wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I somewhat agree with the first part. That's why most of Harvard's black students are first or second generation African immigrants. I have Nigerian friends who joke about being Nigerian princes because, well, they kind of are. 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 mo…

> That's why most of Harvard's black students are first or second generation African immigrants. citation?

Found this from google search.

https://www.theroot.com/black-immigrants-overrepresented-in-...

Can't remember the article I original read. I went to MIT and of the handful of black students I knew well, half were foreign.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#116

Post by georgeecollins »

I am surprised people are surprised by this. I went to B school over twenty years ago, and my experience was after I applied and was accepted and passed on going, they offered a scholarship. It was clear it had nothing to do with need, they wete just trying to persuade me to go. Tuition amounts are just sticker prices that you can negotiate down based on your bargaining power. If you don't know that you don't belong in business school.

Although as I am sure many here would agree, it makes little sense for those who want to participate in startups.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#117

Post by rbobby »

IgniteTheSun wrote: post #114

In the old days, grants and scholarships were distinct programs within universities with no overlap: * Grants = need based to enable students who needed financial help. * Scholarship = merit based to attract the best students When did this change?

Lately "scholarships" reminds me very much of negotiating a discount with a used car dealer.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#118

Post by kelukelugames »

biohax2015 wrote: post #72

> 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.

My friend went to GSB and works in PE. I hung out with his co workers once and they talk about things I can never afford and I'm in the 1%!

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#119

Post by analog31 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #93
toephu2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stanford undergrads do not make 170k base salary after graduation. Please read the article, it was talking about MBAs, specifically "12 percent of Stanford MBA graduates were hired by private equity firms, with a median starting salary of $177,500, the article said".

But she will rub shoulders with others who are well connected and/or are likelier to have higher warning power going forward. College is important because of the network you make, not the learning, which is why exclusivity is important (for top level schools like Stanford, easily worth the sticker price).

Oddly enough, I made no network in while college, but learned math, physics, programming, and electronics, among other things. I think what I learned has helped me in my career.

Re: Stanford University data glitch exposes truth about scholarships

#120

Post by DenisM »

extra88 wrote: post #29
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.

You're getting downvoted, presumably for your last sentence, but I read what you wrote literally and agree. "Diversity candidates" do not contribute in the same way as those with a financial background. But they do contribute. They've earned their places and make it a better school. I do not buy into the cynical idea that big universities with big endowments are really just businesses trying to make money.

Yep. I'm afraid nuances are being left unnoticed in the heat of the argument. Oh well, guess I won't be joining such anymore. Nice of you to chime in, for a while it looked like I'll be on my own here.
Post reply on HN