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

Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 157 posts

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#51

Post by LanceH »

burtonator wrote: post #12
resalisbury wrote: post #2

From the article: "It may be legal to pledge $2.5 million to Harvard just as your son is applying — which is what Jared Kushner’s father did for him — and illegal to bribe a coach to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but how much of a difference is there, really? Both elevate money over accomplishment."

How about completely blind job admissions, school admissions, etc. No names, no race, no age, etc. Just raw test scores. Test them against problem solving skills objectively, etc.

Do you really think these schools would have the same prestige and endowments if money and connections didn't get peole in?

People want the prestige and connections of a legacy/endowment driven school, but don't seem to realize that it comes with legacy admissions.

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#52

Post by crankylinuxuser »

solomatov wrote: post #25
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #8

Its called a "return on investment". You don't 'donate' millions of dollars, and have a building named after you out of love for education. You do it for your name, your legacy, and to guarantee spots for your family.

The article isn't about this. It's about literal bribes.

And "Donations" like what I describe aren't bribes?

This is only slightly different classes of bribes. They both are bribes.

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#53

Post by umeshunni »

burtonator wrote: post #12
resalisbury wrote: post #2

From the article: "It may be legal to pledge $2.5 million to Harvard just as your son is applying — which is what Jared Kushner’s father did for him — and illegal to bribe a coach to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but how much of a difference is there, really? Both elevate money over accomplishment."

How about completely blind job admissions, school admissions, etc. No names, no race, no age, etc. Just raw test scores. Test them against problem solving skills objectively, etc.

That's how college admissions in most asian countries work.

You're get a roll number, you write a test, a list gets published that ranks all the roll numbers, sometimes with scores. Colleges offer admissions to anyone who scored between ranks 1-N. At more elite schools N is small (e.g. 100), but in lower ranking schools N is large (e.g. 100000+).

Affirmative action is practiced by having different Ns for different disadvantaged groups (i.e if you are a lower caste, N=1000, but for general admissions, N=100)

The downsides of this system are that it still fails to eliminate economic biases (i.e a student from a well to do family can hire tutors who help them test prep better) and that it's impossible for the school to control the makeup of a class - e.g in a year I was in school, a new test prep school opened up in a city and students from that school scored significantly higher than others in the admissions test. So, about 50% of the incoming class were students who went to that test prep school.

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#54

Post by anoncoward111 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #38
jcadam wrote: post #18

Just reinforces my belief that an ivy league degree is much more an indicator of socioeconomic class than it is intelligence or aptitude.

As of 2013, the median grade at Harvard was an A-. The mode was an A. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/... Anecdotally, I have heard of places that refuse to hire Harvard grads for this reason.

Agree. Anecdotally, I had a sales manager who graduated from Harvard. He was literally no different from any corporate manager I've ever had and just parroted whatever unattainable goals trickled down from the top, providing no clear way to meet said goals

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#55

Post by maxxxxx »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #16

Meritocracy for thee, but not for me. As the upper echelons continue to cordon off segments of the economy and education for just themselves, will the "Bootstraps and Personal Responsibility" mythology finally start to die out?

We are in the process of building up a new aristocracy. This process has repeated itself over all of history.

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#57

Post by Rebelgecko »

NavyNuke wrote: post #26
40acres wrote: post #7

This is why, to me, the entire debate about affirmative action at elite colleges is a complete red herring. The amount of kids, regardless of race, who can be considered "deserving" of a spot has been reduced more so by legacy admissions and these bribes than by any effort of individual institutions to even out racial or gender demographics.

That is why it stings for poor or working class Asians and non-Jewish Whites...you don't get the affirmative action or legacy leg up...

How do Jews get a leg up from affirmative action and legacies when the application doesn't ask for your religion (any more) and there were quotas in the past to limit the number of Jewish students?

Re: Bribes to Get into Yale and Stanford? What Else Is New?

#58

Post by jdoliner »

normalperson wrote: post #42
jdoliner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Jews get much of an affirmative action boost either.

think twice http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

Good link, thank you.
Post reply on HN