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

L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 294 posts

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#231

Post by apatters »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #182
saagarjha wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? The relationship between colleges and the accomplishments of the people attending them is tenuous at best. There are thousands of people at good universities that do essentially nothing, and wherever you are you have the opportunity to do better than them.

No, not really. People that get into Stanford or MIT did cool stuff when they were younger to get there. I still haven't done cool stuff!

You're too hard on yourself. I know lots of people who went to elite universities and haven't done any really cool stuff.

More broadly, from an economic perspective, there are outliers, but most people only move one income quintile up or down from where their parents are (or don't move at all). So while we have some leverage over our futures, this suggests that we have less leverage than we believe. (So, for example, does the fact that 65% of millennials think they'll be millionaires by age 45, even though only 6% of Americans are millionaires.)

Certainly there's no reason to beat yourself up for not achieving things that are exceptional on an absolute scale (unless maybe you were born at the top and blew all your advantages).

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#232

Post by slg »

CydeWeys wrote: post #206
slg wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coaches and administrators of D1 sports programs are already well compensated. Plus no one needs $400k payments to feed their kids unless they have made some horrible financial mistakes.

Really? You think that the coach of, say, a D1 rowing team is going to be well-compensated? I doubt it. They'll certainly be less well-compensated than all of the FAANG engineers they're competing against in the housing market.

First result on Google[1] says the median salary for a Pac-12 rowing coach is $132,500 and I would bet Stanford is paying more than the median. That also doesn't include bonuses, other non-salary compensation from the school, or money from other non-school specific sources (it is relatively common for coaches to get compensated by vendors, run instructional camps, or have other auxiliary sources of income). So they might not match the arbitrary comparison of FAANG engineers, but they are a far cry from claiming they can't feed their kids without resulting to bribes.

[1] - http://collegerowcoach.org/crca-salary-survey-results-2/

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#233

Post by lawnchair_larry »

rurp wrote: post #190
asdff wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most cases philanthropy is for the tax benefit, everything else is just dressing.

Is there some tax benefit beyond the deduction, or do these people not understand how marginal tax brackets work?

It’s a good way to identify who is either not of taxpaying age or has never made a donation before. In either case, probably not someone who has things figured out yet enough to hold strong opinions on what other people do with their money.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#234

Post by rhegart »

kjdndisneinj wrote: post #203
rhegart wrote: post #49

Affirmative action on one side, cheaters on the other. At least a dozen people cheated on the SAT in my school and had the audacity to brag about it. Financial aid if you poor, paid for if you rich. Middle class honest kids hurt the most. Had top 1% scores, no ivies or UCLA for me (got UCB at least) and I’m Asian. My little cousin, same scores and rejected from UCSC 10 years later...much worse now than before

If you think a small amount of affirmative action compensates in any way for the massive systemic barriers facing poor people or black/indigenous people in this country you should give away your money so your kids can give it a shot.

All for poor people getting helped. Not for those with a particular skin pigmentation. If you are, then you’re a racist in my mind.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#235

Post by lawnchair_larry »

cletus wrote: post #56

Honestly, I really don't understand the motivations for some of these parents. Take Lori Loughlin. $500,000? For USC? For two daughters, one of whom clearly isn't that interested, isn't particularly academic and isn't particularly athletic? Like... why? I can understand if someone bribes their kid into, say, Harvard or Yale Law School. There's a career where going to a good school matters. But this? It just makes no…

I’ve met some mothers that place huge value on status signals based on school that their kids attended. I don’t understand it in the least, but I know it definitely exists. It doesn’t matter at all how the school ranks objectively, it’s entirely related to the status among the specific individuals that the mother wants to impress. Often, it’s other mothers whose kids went there.

Fathers might do this too, but I haven’t personally seen it. If I had to guess, the fathers that care about status are probably more likely to “one-up” than “keep-up”. Same insecurities, just manifested differently.

It’s really ridiculous and petty behavior on the adults part, at the expense of the child’s best interests.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#236

Post by lawnchair_larry »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #142
cycrutchfield wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as ranking the quality of colleges, USNews is about as garbage as you can get. Anybody with any shred of awareness of what those three schools are would not rank them anywhere near each other.

I love posts like this, "I don't like your data, it is bad, and I have none" All lists are lame, do you like Niche? UCLA is 29, USC is 20. UCLA has an acceptance rate of 16%, USC 17%. USC SAT range is 1300-1500, UCLA is 1220-1450 I was responding to the poster who said the schools weren't academically comparable. they obviously are shockingly similar. Don't know or care which is "better". But only a radical partisan…

That’s measuring the quality of applicants, not the quality of the school. The subjects you are measuring the school by haven’t even spent their first day in class. A little premature to judge the quality of a product that has yet to be delivered.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#237

Post by chrischen »

manfredo wrote: post #69
ForrestN wrote: post #40

I'm surprised that this scandal doesn't seem to be causing anyone to think one step further and realize that the entire premise of "elite" colleges with competitive admissions is a device for the perpetuation of inequality. We're devoting most of our advanced educational resources to helping people who would already be successful reap even more rewards. I understand the idea of meritocracy in fields with life or deat…

Many of these "elite" colleges are one of the best avenues to eliminate inequality. Many of them have significant (at least double digit) percentages of the student population that are first generation college students. Elite universities often have the greatest degree of racial diversity.

The racial diversity and non-legacy admits are there to prop up the prestige of the school. They get the the odd genius admitted, so that the wealthy can brush elbows with him/her. It may lift those select few out of poverty, but it in no way helps the average smart person get ahead of the average smart rich person.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#238

Post by shaklee3 »

noego wrote: post #230
ForrestN wrote: post #40

I'm surprised that this scandal doesn't seem to be causing anyone to think one step further and realize that the entire premise of "elite" colleges with competitive admissions is a device for the perpetuation of inequality. We're devoting most of our advanced educational resources to helping people who would already be successful reap even more rewards. I understand the idea of meritocracy in fields with life or deat…

The problem with elite colleges like Harvard, has nothing to do with meritocracy. In fact, it's the opposite. They use opaque and subjective criteria in their admissions process, in order to favor those born into privilege. For a better example of a meritocracy, take a look at New York's elite magnet schools like Stuyvesant. Their admissions process is a pure meritocracy - based entirely on a standardized exam that i…

Economic diversity, yes. But Stuyvesant is 92% white and Asian, which is not racially diverse.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#240

Post by lawnchair_larry »

gnicholas wrote: post #167
AbdulMohammad wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m from the Bay Area and I can tell you that as far as “status” goes, USC and UCLA don’t carry much status at all, if any. Berkeley is considered far more prestigious here. And of course, Stanford.

I grew up in norcal and live in the bay area. Plenty of my high school classmates chose UCLA over Berkeley because they wanted to get farther away from home. Some of them are now med school professors. The difference between these two UCs is not as great as you might think. Neither has the elite status of ivy league schools, but most people I've run across on hiring committees viewed the two ad fairly comparable. Not…

Most people I’ve run into on hiring committees do not know or care what school the applicant went to, or if they even went to school. That data isn’t provided. Interview performance is the only factor.

What industry do you work in?

Post reply on HN