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

UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

auditor.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 456 posts

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#121

Post by barkingcat »

wegs wrote: post #28
adaisadais wrote: post #12

Upon close examination I think we would find the ALL schools do this. This is just a symptom of the underlying problem with our education system in the US. It’s no longer about educating but about $. When the almighty dolla gets in the way judgment is clouded. Come to think of it... maybe this happens in politics and medicine too? ;)

All schools do NOT do this. I went to MIT: * MIT wouldn't be caught dead with JUST 64 students admitted on the basis of connections and donations. * MIT wouldn't be caught dead letting external auditors look at this stuff. * MIT wouldn't be caught. None of this would be public for MIT. That's what NDAs and non-disparage agreements are for. I'm sorry, but all schools don't do this. Most are smart enough to stay out of…

You want money? You gotta do something to earn it. You either accept in some riched and money folk, or you get it from rapists

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/23/jeffrey-epst...

What I'm trying to say is that it's a world of greys and putting things in black and white terms doesn't do any good. MIT doesn't get money from selling spots, but they misstep and get money from other even less savoury places. You gotta get your money somehow.

If MIT did let in some legacy admissions due to donations, could it be said that the donations department would have been more discerning about not taking money from someone like Jeff Epstein? It's impossible to revisit history, but nobody is clean in this higher ed game.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#122

Post by jackedtheripped »

blobbers wrote: post #92

I have not attended an american school. People seem to want robotic admission standards. Is there no room for circumstance? Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached? Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence? By being the child…

> Is there no room for circumstance?

There is and there should be. Affirmative action has already been help up by the US supreme court.

> Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached?

Yes.

> Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence?

A donation should not be used as a way to get one's child into a university. That's not a donation. That's an entrance fee.

> On the other side, does the education have the most impact on the person who was denied entrance (bottom of the applicant pool), assuming they would get through to graduation.

That seems reasonably true, though I have no source to back this up.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#123

Post by baddox »

kenhwang wrote: post #44
CharlesMerriam2 wrote: post #34

Have a rule. Our republic, and the California state government, is based on rule of law. One group makes the laws, another enforces it, and a third interprets the conflicts. This works. What we have here is a 'no rules' set of actions. How about rules that say "we will take any student for $200K/year". This is enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student.

1 for 1 isn't worth it, and the UC system already plays that game with international students where one international pays for 3 in-states. Make the buy-in price pay for 10 and I'm in support.

You obviously have to balance the legitimate cost against the illegitimate costs people will incur to get kids admitted. I don't know if 3x or 10x is the right value, but it's definitely not "more is better." If you make it cost a billion dollars to legitimately buy your kid into the school, there will still be millionaires utilizing these sorts of bribes.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#124

Post by mattnewton »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

A large part of the prestige comes from being associated with the people who got in on merit. A school that did this would implicitly devalue that prestige for anyone from an obviously wealthy background. Instead they pretend this doesn’t happen to keep the prestige of “got into x school” valuable.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#125

Post by NullPrefix »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

>I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admissions into two pots

These universities also provide valuable networking opportunities. Would it be appropriate to completely segregate the pots so that they couldn't network?

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#126

Post by mrxd »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

That would probably be illegal for a public university. Elite private universities frequently defend themselves against the criticism that they reinforce social hierarchy and class privilege. They would incur significant reputational damage if they had official policies that did just that.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#127

Post by ihumanable »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #57

At the end of the day, why would I care what the rich waste their money on? If they want to pay twice as much for half the education, eh its their dollar. I'm pretty sure college is a business, and asking businesses to leave paying customers on the table is the kind of anti-market thinking that leads to situations like this. If you incentivize "anti-social behavior" (this seemed like a reasonable middle ground word),…

For every purchased admission there are two parties, the rich person spending their money and the academically qualified candidate that loses out on the admission.

I don't care what the rich person spends their money on, but I do care about the student that worked hard, played by the rules, and deserved to be admitted but because of corruption was denied their spot.

UC is not a business, it's a public institution. Every Californian tax-payer pays for this institution, the administrators are there to be stewards of the public funds for the public good.

As a Californian tax-payer, I care about the mismanagement of the institution that my tax dollars fund.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#128

Post by belorn »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

There are three systems. People who pay their way in, people who has the highest grades, and people who get in through diversity quota. Transparency in all three would cause a major waves into the public perspective of admission practices.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#129

Post by grumple »

CharlesMerriam2 wrote: post #34

Have a rule. Our republic, and the California state government, is based on rule of law. One group makes the laws, another enforces it, and a third interprets the conflicts. This works. What we have here is a 'no rules' set of actions. How about rules that say "we will take any student for $200K/year". This is enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student.

This is already the way education works. You’ve heard of “needs-blind” admissions? Anywhere they don’t say that, it means the ability of students to pay full price is part of the admission process.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#130

Post by Balgair »

setgree wrote: post #84

If you had asked me yesterday what percent of students I thought got into UC schools due to personal connection or wealth, I would have estimated between 10-20%. But this report seems to suggest otherwise: > In Violation of University Policy, the Campuses We Reviewed Admitted 64 Applicants Because of Their Families’ Donations and Connections > UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted 42 other applicants the UC schools as…

Since when were Water Polo, Golf, or Volleyball rich person sports? Costs are pretty cheap at public courses.

Beach Volleyball, I guess, kinda, but sand is pretty cheap even in cold weather climates.

Crew, sure. The 'field' is hard to get things to, typically. Lacrosse, well, maybe 20 years ago, but it's everywhere now.

Now, (horse) Polo and Dressage. Those are rich people sports.

Post reply on HN