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

131–140 of 456 posts

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#131

Post by potatochup »

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…

Side note, but why are water polo and volleyball considered upper-class sports in the USA? I understand regular polo, rowing, etc, because of the cost of equipment. But at my school (on the other side of the world), volleyball was for the islanders, and water polo was for the misfits who couldn't make it in a more popular sport. What sports in the USA are for the plebs? Baseball?

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#132

Post by kenhwang »

Loughla wrote: post #74
gibolt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 for 10 seems reasonable, assuming there is also a strict academic requirement for that privileged student. Even more points if it supports their housing and food plan.

The incentive in that system is to ensure the wealthy student absolutely meets their academic requirements, regardless of ability. How can you fail out Timmy Upperclass, if 10 students lose their funding next year with him gone?

If you fail out Timmy, he has to pay for tuition again thus paying for even more students. Or just charge the 10x upfront + normal tuition/year after that.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#133

Post by microtherion »

ciarannolan wrote: post #58
jedberg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re-leaglize. It was legal until the 90s. When it became illegal, the diversity on campus dropped significantly. There is an argument to be made that the race-based admissions help make up for prior injustices.

I think you also have to determine the purpose of a university. It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students (economically and educationally). Mixing these two doesn't work.

Or you can choose to define "top students" as those who performed best, relative to their starting conditions. You could make an argument that such student are most efficient at using the opportunities they are given, and thus would benefit most from the education.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#134

Post by pkaye »

willturman wrote: post #95
lacker wrote: post #55

This is bad, but 64 students isn't all that much. It pales in comparison to private colleges. For example, Harvard accepts about 1/3 of its students as "legacy". If you believe the lawsuits about Harvard's anti-Asian discrimination, that also affects hundreds of potential Harvard students every year. Once you consider that UC Berkeley is about five times larger than Harvard, and that there are at least a dozen top-ti…

> It pales in comparison to private colleges. As it should. One student admitted in this fashion is too many for a public university.

All private universities that do this should not qualify for non-profit status.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#135

Post by morpheuskafka »

q3k wrote: post #15

I thought this was common practice in US universities, in the form of so called 'legacy admissions' [1]? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

There are some universities and colleges that choose openly or non-openly consider. However, the policy of the UC System Board of Regents expressly forbids legacy and donor preference. Additionally, as a public institution there are due process concerns with not evaluating applications in accordance with the published factors and criteria, which in this case do not include legacy.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#136

Post by jjeaff »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #73
jjeaff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just in case anyone thinks the idea that an elite school won't help a rich kid, there have been studies indicating that is the case. The one that comes to mind was the study that compared long term outcomes of students who were accepted to Harvard and attended to those who were accepted but did not attend. Average future incomes were not statistically different. But the study did note that the starkest improvents…

Do you have a cite for this? Not saying you're wrong as it's my prior that selection bias is the most important factor in any difference in educational outcomes. But I'd love to have something solid to point to. I will say I don't totally understand how future income differences can be not statistically significant and also be "stark" between lower income students at the same time.

This article appears to reference both the original study and a more recent update to the study.

https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/...

The no-difference in financial outcomes was based on comparing the average incomes of the two groups. So naturally, you will have outliers on both sides. They found that minority students tended to be the outliers.

Part of that probably has to do with the more prestigious school getting them a job they wouldn't have had. But also probably has to do with minority students getting access to the rich, well connected network that they wouldn't have had access to otherwise.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#137

Post by MiroF »

belorn wrote: post #128
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.

Cal doesn't have a "diversity quota."

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#138

Post by Uhhrrr »

NullPrefix wrote: post #125
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?

That's where the value comes in, right? Bright people meet people with capital and valuable social networks and vice versa.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#139

Post by ihumanable »

fiftyfifty wrote: post #118
ihumanable wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it millions of dollars? I saw one donor give a few thousand and one person get admitted for babysitting. Almost all the donations in the report went directly to athletic departments, which would only seem to help student athletes and not academically qualified students that were bumped.

You've got to admire the kid that got in for babysitting for the director of undergraduate admissions...maybe they are smarter than most of the other applicants or they just happened to live next door.

Yea, that kid had some strong hustle game.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#140

Post by ianmobbs »

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…

> This system isn't "fair", but the outcome is effectively the same as our current setup. With the most notable difference being that, at least this system is transparent and acknowledges that X% of incoming students paid for their post.

With the current setup, there are consequences to trying to pay your way in if you're caught. What's the point of removing those consequences?

Post reply on HN