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

271–280 of 294 posts

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

#271

Post by kortilla »

apatters wrote: post #219
manfredo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They don't eliminate inequality, they just facilitate a game of musical chairs. America has a very high and very well documented level of income inequality. It's also well documented that the people at the top often change. There's a lot of turnover at the top from generation to generation. But the system property of inequality -- that is to say that American society is a highly stratified society with huge winners a…

Richer rich people leads to higher inequality but it really says nothing about the quality of life for the average person. If we euthanized the top 1% of the US, how much do you think the lives of the other 99% would improve?

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

#272

Post by kortilla »

acct1771 wrote: post #260
throwawaymath wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that system come with any notable drawbacks of its own?

What kind of issues usually arise with choosing based on merit?

Choosing based on merit is viewed as both racist and sexist in the US. For example, check out the controversy over the “meritocracy” rug at github.

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

#273

Post by websterisk »

p1esk wrote: post #269
websterisk wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad this distinction got teased out. I find that it rarely does. When people discuss the merits of Diversity (capital D), the implication is that they are referring to the value of bringing in people from a variety of walks of life that might bring with them a variety and breadth of unique/disparate experiences to bear and to share. That is not often the case. People want to SEE photographic diversity. Unfortuna…

Are you saying that for example if someone's parents make over $150k/year, he better show 800 on SAT, but if the income is less than say $50k, 600 is fine?

Absolutely not. I suspect that the folks in admissions had more than enough 800's (from all walks of life) to choose from admission-wise. Their balancing act was trying to offer competitive scholarship and aid packages that would seduce the right mix of kids into taking their admission offer over the other admission offers they received.

Not an easy task, but an important one!

600's (literally or metaphorically) were a non-starter. Those kids got chewed up and spit out. Putting a perfectly innocent, well-meaning, ambitious high-school grad in that position was not a desirable outcome for anyone.

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

#274

Post by kortilla »

asdff wrote: post #184
manfredo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People rarely give stuff away for free. Philanthropy often serves as a political tool, and a means to increase one's social status. University donations are no different. Families are more willing to donate if they believe that it improves the chances of their kids getting admitted to university.

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

I don’t think you know how deductions work. You can never make money by giving a donation.

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

#275

Post by lawnchair_larry »

gnicholas wrote: post #250
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This was in law, and I observed it with regard to both undergrad and law degrees.

Did that only apply to new grads with no experience to judge? Or does degree still trump a successful 5-15 year track record?

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

#276

Post by killjoywashere »

kortilla wrote: post #270
killjoywashere wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're not from the US? There is a strong current of sentiment in some quarters of the US that this is exactly what should happen if society's playing field is every going to be leveled.

How does letting in stupid people level the playing field? I want a doctor who is qualified to be a doctor, not someone who got by because they checked a diversity box. The reason graduating from a prestigious school is valuable is because the graduates have some expected level of quality. Letting in stupid people doesn’t do the stupid people much good, and it certainly harms the prestige of an institution that was s…

But it's not the Olympic track team, and we know disadvantaged kids placed into an advantaged situation demonstrate an IQ increase and perform up to par.

Education is uniquely different from training and certification. I say that as someone who has been through some of the most rigorous programs in both worlds. Education has no immediate impact on the outside world. You don't get to stamp a bridge design as a PE because you went to Stuy and MIT. You have to go through on-the-job training and certification exams. Same for physicians and attorneys. Education is part of it, but you absolutely have to pass the boards to practice.

Also, who would you have in mind to be the minority on a track team?

Also, this is Hacker News, why would you want to be getting stodgy about educational qualifications up around here?

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

#277

Post by akhilcacharya »

CydeWeys wrote: post #267
akhilcacharya wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my state school (rank #50+) is quite a bit different from yours in terms of quality (rank #25 or less) for starters. I didn't get anywhere close to an 800 on my Math SAT, whereas I'm sure a lot of people at UMD CS did (and a few at my school did too!). >I think to some degree that you're using the school you did go to as a facile excuse to explain why you "haven't done cool stuff", when it's quite possible that…

Ultimate accomplishment is driven more by hard work than by innate talent. I coasted on my talent in school through most of school and came into the working world unprepared to seriously go do cool stuff for quite awhile. It wasn't until much more recently that I buckled down and got better at applying myself that I really started to see an upward trajectory. And none of this has anything to do with what school you w…

Nice, I got a 1500/1600 so I'm naturally a bit behind intellectually.

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

#278

Post by [deleted] »

dvt wrote: post #68
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…

USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast ( especially in Southern California). It's obviously not on the same academic level as UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford/Caltech, but it's still very much an exclusive brand. You don't get it because you don't live here and aren't surrounded by wealthy 16-year olds that yearn to go to USC (often times over UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford). (Disclaimer: I'm a UCLA alum.)

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by ashelmire »

dvt wrote: post #107
WillPostForFood wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These three are clearly at the same academic level. Way below Stanford and Caltech though. 19: UCLA 22: Berkeley (tie) 22: USC (tie) https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...

Just so you know, no one takes USNWR rankings seriously -- it's well-known that public schools are dinged due to lower endowments and higher student counts. To wit, the idea that Berkeley is academically comparable to USC is a joke.

All are top 10 in engineering: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering...

This jives with engineering industries, where USC is a consistent producer of aerospace/mechanical and tech talent. USC is considered a top school in many other research fields as well.

I think it's more likely that you actually know very little about academics at these institutions.

Disclaimer: I work at UPenn (doing research!) and went to USC.

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

#280

Post by kortilla »

killjoywashere wrote: post #276
kortilla wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does letting in stupid people level the playing field? I want a doctor who is qualified to be a doctor, not someone who got by because they checked a diversity box. The reason graduating from a prestigious school is valuable is because the graduates have some expected level of quality. Letting in stupid people doesn’t do the stupid people much good, and it certainly harms the prestige of an institution that was s…

But it's not the Olympic track team, and we know disadvantaged kids placed into an advantaged situation demonstrate an IQ increase and perform up to par. Education is uniquely different from training and certification. I say that as someone who has been through some of the most rigorous programs in both worlds. Education has no immediate impact on the outside world. You don't get to stamp a bridge design as a PE beca…

You missed the point. Schools are only prestigious because of an expected quality of students. Nobody is clamoring to hire random folks that took free online MIT courses and there is a reason for that.

>Also, who would you have in mind to be the minority on a track team?

I don’t know, a gay Muslim, a queer Christian, what does it matter? Once you’ve started selecting for diversity rather than merit, you’ve failed no matter which minority you choose.

>why would you want to be getting stodgy about educational qualifications up around here?

I don’t care about education, but that’s because in my field it’s relatives easy to check expertise with hands on exercises. But that misses the whole point of the conversation.

The only reason anyone cares about education on the hiring side is that it’s supposed to be an intelligence/competency signal. If you just let whoever into the MIT electrical engineering department because their skin is the right color then there really isn’t much to say for the aptitude of MIT EE grads.

Finally, if disadvantaged people performed up to par when placed in school and intelligence didn’t matter, then schools could simply save hundreds of thousands of dollars by firing the admissions department and replacing it with a random number generator.

Post reply on HN