Live data from Hacker News

UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

auditor.ca.gov

441–450 of 456 posts

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#441
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is basically the same way you'd pronounced "caché" in French Just... No. I don't get it, what is wrong with you people for trying to teach a French how a French word is pronounced?! "é" is pronounced /e/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-mid_front_unrounded_vo... "è" is pronounced /ɛ/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_front_unrounded_vow... The Wikipedia page contains audio samples which are accura…

> "cachet" (phonetically "cachè") Do you understand? This is the statement that we're saying is incorrect. The english word cachet is not pronounced phonetically "cachè" in english. There is another word, cachet, in french. It is not the same word. It does not mean the same thing. It has a common etymology, but that doesn't make you the authority on its pronunciation. You are trying to argue with an American how an E…

Alright, I concede.

I was looking at the English wiktionnary but in the French section of the word which mentions /ka.ʃɛ/. The English section indeed uses /ˈkæʃ.eɪ/.

My apologies, you were right.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is basically the same way you'd pronounced "caché" in French Just... No. I don't get it, what is wrong with you people for trying to teach a French how a French word is pronounced?! "é" is pronounced /e/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-mid_front_unrounded_vo... "è" is pronounced /ɛ/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_front_unrounded_vow... The Wikipedia page contains audio samples which are accura…

lol, I speak French. Québecois French, but still. I'm not telling you how it's pronounced in French, I'm suggesting how I pronounce it in English using French as a reference. I don't really think an accent aigu sounds anything like an accent grave. I don't pronounce "cachet" as "cachè" but rather "caché".

Indeed, I got confused reading the English pronunciation on wiktionnary.

You are right it's pronounced like "caché" in English. My apologies.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#443
post #428
post #385

This should be considered tax fraud for the donors. The donations they made are charitable contributions, which they surely deducted from their income taxes. When you donate to charity you can only deduct the amount in excess of the benefit provided to you. For instance if you buy a $50 ticket to a charity dinner where they give you $50 of food and drinks, you can't deduct that at all. So these people donated and the…

I'm not familiar with the American tax system, but couldn't they just not claim that charitable donation when filing their tax returns? Surely it's not illegal not to tell the IRS about a charitable donation you made, and therefore not get any tax deduction for it, regardless of whether or not you received benefits from the organisation you donated to? (Of course, that wouldn't mean that nobody ever does report this…

I truly can't imagine someone donating a large sum in the US and not reporting it on their taxes. The tax preference for donations in America is the primary driver of large individual donations.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#444

I am really impressed by the reporting format here. The illustrations are fantastic.

It was not anyone from within the UC System, nor anyone from within higher education. The Auditors of the State of California wrote it. A body of auditors who are officially part of the executive branch, but wholly independent of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Auditor They are extremely professional.

> The Auditors of the State of California

I didn't look at the page header, only the domain (.ca.gov) and skimmed the illustrations and was wondering why a Canadian govt body is researching an American university. I didn't know California had its own domain.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#445
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but TAing might take 30 hours a week. Anyway, MIT professors should be the best in their field, if they can’t support the small amount more it takes for the grad student with the NSF grants that sounds like a problem

MIT students are a bit ahead of students at other schools. Faculty hiring is such that there are no substantial differences in faculty quality. The difference between an MIT professor and a state school professor is mostly random chance. Oh, and the MIT professor has a lower teaching load, a great brand stamp, and a huge PR department. MIT overhead is roughly 2/3 of the money which comes into NSF. Perhaps this might…

The faculty ultimately have the power to change this is they want...

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#446
post #424
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fairly common in India in private institutions, especially professional schools such as for Engineering, Medicine, Dentistry and Business Administration. A certain percentage of places are designated 'Management Quota', i.e., the management is free to do with them as it wishes. They are used in many ways. For example, if a certain religious community/sect/order runs the place, it may set aside a large chunk o…

I'm curious - here in England, calling a person or a group of people "backward" would be rude/demeaning. Is that different in India, or is it a case or mixed wires in translating terms to English? Or do the people being called that find it demeaning but it's still socially acceptable among other people?

"Backward" has negative connotations here, in the west. But generally, the abbreviation "OBC" (Other Backward Castes) is used. From my personal observation, SC/ST/OBC folks are as caste-conscious as anyone else, but have successfully translated their caste identity into political power in India. In fact, it is fair to say that people from these categories (who comprise a numerically significant portion of the population) have a pretty good grip on power at every level of government, down from your local municipality ward up to the offices of the Prime Minister/President (do you know that the current Prime Minister of India is from a OBC)?

Generally, in polite conversation, no one ever talks about the other person's caste. A lot of the time, this is unnecessary, though. There are tons of caste signifiers, such as your last name, your skin tone, your language (both speakers can use the same language but the set of words used and usage/abusage can tell you a lot about the person's background. Like how you could tell a cockney from an upper-crust West Londoner.) Don't even get me started on food. If you are a "pure vegetarian", then it's a very good chance you are high-caste. With the professions also, things are changing a bit more quickly, but age-old divisions remain. You would be hard-pressed to find a Brahmin working a construction site (there's a good chance a Brahmin would be in an air-conditioned office drawing up the plans for said site); almost zero chance you'd see an upper-caste person going out fishing to sell the catch and make a living, and so on.

If you participate in a conversation with a group of Indians who have just met (at the workplace, say), just observe how they interact: they will put out direct or subtle questions like: "Where are you from originally?", "Where did you attend college?", "What do your parents do?", "Are you vegetarian or non-vegetarian?"... It just goes on and on. You can tell a lot about a person within 15 minutes of meeting him, if you have been raised in India.

EDIT: BTW, the terms "Scheduled Caste", "Scheduled Tribe" (perhaps even "Other Backward Classes") were introduced by the British! The British bureaucrats who ruled the country had an obsession with making tidy lists to categorise people (hence the "Schedule" in "Scheduled"!) and came up with the (original) lists of these castes and tribes!

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#447
post #439
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the amount of books in a household was a strong predictor for IQ. Background matters a whole lot... That doesn't follow at all. IQ is correlated with parental IQ, due to genetics. Equally plausible, if not more so, than "books cause high IQ" is "high IQ causes books". Smart people a) like to read, and b) have smart children. I don't think it's likely that kids are boosting their IQ scores by cracking open their pare…

Then you’re ignoring the whole study for Intellectual convenience.

Well, you didn't provide a link to the study, and people mistaking correlation for causation is a frequent thing even in science (replication crisis).

The hypothesis "smart people are likely to buy more books, and smart people are likely to have smart children" sounds quite plausible to me. Does it seem implausible to you?

The best way to convince me that books directly increase IQ is to donate a ton of books to kids who need it, and measure the gains. (As a side effect, you would probably win a Nobel price if that worked.) My experience with charity says that actually many people are willing to donate books to charities; charities refuse them, because they already have enough books and the kids are not reading them anyway.

There are many ways how poverty can hurt intellectual development. This is not one of them.

There are many people who want to get rid of old books for kids, because the kids grew up and don't need them anymore; if you asked them to donate the books to you, you would be doing them a favor -- saving them from a dilemma between the bad feeling of throwing the book away, and the wasted space at home. If any NGO would bring a truck and say "please give us the books for kids you no longer need", the truck would be full in an afternoon. Then... according to your theory, the truck could go a few blocks further and turn hundred poor kids into Einsteins. I would be so happy if that worked! Unfortunately, it does not.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#449

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 enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student." Imagine there are 10 students for 5 spots, and there is an objective ranking from most-qualified (#1) to least-qualified (#10). Now let's assume student #10 can pay that $200k. That funds their spot plus another spot. So instead of admitting: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} You can now admit: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10} Doesn't this se…

#7 to #9 would never get admitted anyway.

The question you should ask is whether being able to admit #6 is worth it.

If #10 is some trust fund baby who couldn't study himself out of a wet paper bag, then probably not.

But if #10 is merely 'good' it might be worth it to be able to admit just-0.1-GPA-short-of-great #6.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#450
post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student." Imagine there are 10 students for 5 spots, and there is an objective ranking from most-qualified (#1) to least-qualified (#10). Now let's assume student #10 can pay that $200k. That funds their spot plus another spot. So instead of admitting: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} You can now admit: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10} Doesn't this se…

#7 to #9 would never get admitted anyway. The question you should ask is whether being able to admit #6 is worth it. If #10 is some trust fund baby who couldn't study himself out of a wet paper bag, then probably not. But if #10 is merely 'good' it might be worth it to be able to admit just-0.1-GPA-short-of-great #6.

Consider the degree not as education, but as a signalling device.

If you admit #10, then they will beat out #7-#9 in the job market, increasing lifetime earnings at the expense of the others.

If you don't admit #10, then #6-#10 will compete on an equal footing.

The latter may be the outcome you want.

Post reply on HN