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

281–290 of 294 posts

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

#281

Post by kortilla »

munk-a wrote: post #126
stale2002 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there would still be less of those donations. There would be some, yes. But significantly less. And less money means that these school are unable to let in as many poor people as they did before.

In general terms regarding systems in our society - If the system is dependent on charity to support it... it isn't supported, if the system is valued by society then society should support it up to the cost of it's value. Education is absolutely worth the cost and the need to charity is highlighting the underfunding here[1]. [1] Also, the inefficient use of money, higher education is absolutely guilty of inefficient…

>In general terms regarding systems in our society - If the system is dependent on charity to support it... it isn't supported

Whoops, you got that backwards. If a system is dependent on compulsory taxes, it isn’t supported. If nobody cares to voluntarily donate to it or pay for services on their own, then it’s not something really valued by society.

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

#282

Post by kortilla »

drb91 wrote: post #72
throwaway287391 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if we're actually talking about donating a building (maybe I took that too literally?), we're talking about 3 kids a year, tops. It would barely change the 2nd decimal place in an acceptance percentage at a lot of schools.

Yea but why would they? Their prestige is grounded in the illusion of elite meritocracy.

Because they don’t want the illusion of meritocracy to be tarnished. It’s better to say 10k students were accepted on merit and an addition 3 building donation students.

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

#283

Post by dang »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #119
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

And whiners in the middle, apparently. Maybe you weren't as competitive of an applicant as you thought you were?

Posting like this will get you banned on HN. Can you please review the site guidelines? They include: "Be kind."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#284

Post by dang »

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.

Please do not take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. It's against the site guidelines and leads to much worse discussion quality.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#285

Post by gnicholas »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #275
gnicholas wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Big firms care about what schools an associate went to. For partners (10+ years out), they care more about the book of business you'll bring. But there's definitely elitism that lasts well beyond your first few years.

I recall being asked by a visiting partner who was considering having me work on his case where I went to undergrad. At the time, I was a senior associate, so I had a decade of schooling and experience since undergrad.

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

#286

Post by gbrown »

darawk wrote: post #147
gbrown wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elite schools are a great mechanism to entrench privelege. Paying to get your slacker kid a middling GPA at an elite school is a great way to connect them to a business network of other wealthy people, and fast track them for high paying jobs at the top of the corporate ladder. Also some poorer kids get a good education, while not quite being able to tap into those same connections. In terms of research output, it's…

> Elite schools are a great mechanism to entrench privelege. Paying to get your slacker kid a middling GPA at an elite school is a great way to connect them to a business network of other wealthy people, and fast track them for high paying jobs at the top of the corporate ladder. Also some poorer kids get a good education, while not quite being able to tap into those same connections. The children of the wealthy alre…

Then why are wealthy people paying (and in many cases risking) so much to get their kids into elite schools? It's an important signalling complement to existing networks, and a way to extend them.

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

#287

Post by CydeWeys »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #277
CydeWeys wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah, these tests aren't real measures of intellectual capability, and that isn't a huge difference anyway.

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

#288

Post by WillPostForFood »

asdff wrote: post #187
WillPostForFood wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you want to get into data then at least cite the most recent numbers. I'm not going to bother doing the due diligence you should have done on your numbers, but at least for the USC acceptance rank, the most recent figure is 11%.

Hey, that's a great number, thanks for sharing it. It helps make my point. USC acceptance rate is now better than UCLA, so it is ludicrous to say it is not comparable to schools like UCLA.

How much due diligence do I you think I owe you in a comment on HN? If you google USC acceptance rate, the primary result is 16.6%. I was referring to Niche rankings, which says 17%. I think having a source and an accurate (albeit a couple years old) number is better than 99% of comments. So maybe you believe you are entitled to more, but if so, then maybe you should lead by example and share more data yourself instead of just sniping.

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

#289

Post by FabHK »

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…

> 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.

My understanding is that research shows very low levels of social mobility in the USA.

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

#290

Post by anon12345690 »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #121
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.

You shouldn’t be condemned for life for not being elite material when you were 18. Disclaimer - I was not elite material when I was 18 and feel like I’m condemned for life when I read these posts.

you argued that people who said some bad words in a youtube video and they should be condemned for life
Post reply on HN