Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt • Hacker News Board

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#111

Post by 1234letshaveatw » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

ahi wrote: post #73

CSMastermind wrote: post #16

Don't legacy admissions often mean that their parents have donated significantly to the University? In a sense wouldn't that just mean that those students are essentially paying a very high premium to attend there and subsidizing the education of all the other students? I'm not against abolishing them but I do wonder if this will have any impact on alumni donations.

Large alumni donations can and often do increase the cost of education of all the other students. They frequently lead to large capital investments that then have uncovered operational costs. I used to work for one of the wealthiest universities with 100s of millions in capital improvements annually that couldn't provide functional HVAC and a fresh coat of paint to the buildings it had.

What about smaller, recurring donations? Does that increase the cost?

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#112

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #82

mason55 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is whether the donations create more resources than what is used up by a legacy admission. For example, imagine I donate $1B to the university, with two stipulations. First, they admit my child to the CS program. Second, they use the money to perpetually expand the size of every incoming CS class by 10 students. In that respect, the legacy admission is a net good. Yes, for four years there's a sp…

Why tie it to legacy though? The university could just offer a secondary admissions pool with a higher tuiting cost.

Then your $1B is provably not a donation, and hence subject to taxes.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#113

Post by kansface » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #82

mason55 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is whether the donations create more resources than what is used up by a legacy admission. For example, imagine I donate $1B to the university, with two stipulations. First, they admit my child to the CS program. Second, they use the money to perpetually expand the size of every incoming CS class by 10 students. In that respect, the legacy admission is a net good. Yes, for four years there's a sp…

Why tie it to legacy though? The university could just offer a secondary admissions pool with a higher tuiting cost.

They could, but they make more money by keeping the clearing price unknown.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#114

Post by bluepod4 » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

nancyhn wrote: post #4

The end of both legacy admissions and race-based admissions makes me feel hopeful that we're finally pivoting to a productive, merit-based approach.

“Merit-based” is such a loaded term.

What do you mean by that exactly? What are you envisioning?

EDIT: Wow, a downvote. For this comment? Yikes!

EDIT 2: Oh, I see. I was using the phrase “loaded term” incorrectly. I only meant that “merit-based” is a phrase that can mean a lot of different things.

However, thinking about this more, I do still think it’s a loaded term. Politicians and the adjacents have visibly been using it to push an agenda. (I’m not saying this agenda is right or not. But it’s still clearly an agenda. I mean, that’s what their jobs are: to literally have agendas lol.)

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#115

Post by thebradbain » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

nancyhn wrote: post #4

The end of both legacy admissions and race-based admissions makes me feel hopeful that we're finally pivoting to a productive, merit-based approach.

Except for, you know, Letters of Recommendation, which at top schools are often the deciding factor. All else being near-equal (or not), a letter from a Kennedy is going to get you into Brown versus say, a regular high school teacher that many of comfortable-but-not-connected suburban students applying to college will be using. Maybe a local lawyer, if you’re special.

Those are who families who scream “meritocracy” should be directing their ire at, not the applicants (usually with more impressive results and stories considering the background they grew up in, compared to—sorry!—a hum-drum suburban also-ran) _think_ they’re better than, which ultimately is what a meritocracy boils down to.

Ultimately the only answer that will give you, or your kids, peace is accepting the fact that schools will curate the student body they want. They’ve admittedly done a good job at it! Complain all you want about Harvard tilting the scales, they’ve done an amazing job maintaining their reputation and exclusivity. If they don’t accept you, they don’t want you. If they do, they do. It’s that simple.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#116

Post by moduspol » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #32

nancyhn wrote: post #4

The end of both legacy admissions and race-based admissions makes me feel hopeful that we're finally pivoting to a productive, merit-based approach.

I hate to burst your bubble but unfortunately this just kicks the can down the road. How do you measure merit? Because [EDIT] many measures of "merit" (was: standardized testing) can be (and often are) biased by race, cultural background, and economic status. For example: Student 1 has built a fully automated chip manufacturing line in his basement. Student 2 has build a robot that solves a maze in fifteen minutes (a…

We'll never have a perfect way to measure merit, but that doesn't justify the status quo. It would likely reject both students for a third student that checks the right intersectional boxes, even if coming from a more privileged upbringing than the other two students.

We should be constantly improving our ways of measuring merit, not throwing up our hands and pretending it's meaningless to try.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#117

Post by caterpi11ar » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #76

boeingUH60 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s as if you’re trying to make perfect the enemy of good. Standardized tests aren’t perfect but they give less privileged kids the best choice at attending a good college. The kids of the upper class and the rich will always have an upper hand compared to the poor. However, standardized tests limit how wide the upper hand is. An upper class kid still has to study and pass the test, and the poor kid can also do that…

I think you are underestimating the extent to which standardized tests can be (and have been) biased. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis...

What is the evidence that the tests now are biased other than that different groups score differently?

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#118

Post by JKCalhoun » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

ahtihn wrote: post #25

jacobsenscott wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Does history show things working out better when other groups make rules?

I don't think that was the point of the person you are resounding to. I think the point was that no single group should make all the rules.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#119

Post by evancox100 » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #111

ahi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large alumni donations can and often do increase the cost of education of all the other students. They frequently lead to large capital investments that then have uncovered operational costs. I used to work for one of the wealthiest universities with 100s of millions in capital improvements annually that couldn't provide functional HVAC and a fresh coat of paint to the buildings it had.

What about smaller, recurring donations? Does that increase the cost?

Probably not, because they don’t come with the string attached that “you must build a new building and name it after me to receive this donation”.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#120

Post by OO000oo » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #91

noobermin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fundamentally do not understand why merit is something you should focus on when it comes to admission into a university. The entire point of an education is to learn, may be you need the bare minimum to enroll but universities shouldn't be chasing the brightest students, they need an education the least. Just because thats how it should work in some people's heads as the ideal doesn't mean it makes any actual sense…

Perhaps it’s politically incorrect to say, but students learn best when they’re around students that are of similar intelligence and motivation to succeed. Taking a brilliant kid and putting them around underachievers doesn’t do anyone any good.

Students learn best when they have a quiet home to study in, 3 quality meals a day, parents who aren't working 3 jobs they can ask questions to, parents who aren't fighting about paying the bills that month, good school supplies, etc.