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

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

triblive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 815 posts

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

#141

Post by ARandumGuy »

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.

Most universities have really messy financials. A lot of money gets spent on projects and programs that don't directly benefit the education students receive, or the research output of the university. Things like sports investments, ballooning administration staff, or flashy construction projects. At the same time, TAs, grad students, adjunct professors, and other staff are frequently underpaid and overworked.

There's a lot of room to debate on what colleges should spend their money on, and what they should be providing. But American universities are not strapped for cash, and should be spending more of it on things that directly benefit students and researchers.

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

#142

Post by LatteLazy »

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.

Now we just need widely agreed, easily measurable, non game-able definition of "merit". :)

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by RhodesianHunter »

LegitShady wrote: post #125
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.

This is a little bit ridiculous. There is no connection between alumni donations and capital investments except decisions that university leadership chooses to make. The issue isn't the donations, its the university leadership thats choosing to make large capital expenditures. The donations could go to other things and do go to other things. Any blame you're putting on the donations actually belongs to the people run…

I think you're referring to small incremental donations while their person you're replying to is referring to the giant "you must name a building after me" ones.

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

#145

Post by tayo42 »

Im kind of surprised how much media attention and outrage admissions to schools generates. one year of out school, the whole thing just is so irrelevant. Idk who really cares what these small subset of schools does. There are so many public schools that offer education and opportunities and even those are blown of proportion.

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

#146

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by ghaff »

DaSHacka wrote: post #140
ghaff wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should athletics be uniquely disadvantaged among activities that aren't exclusively academic? Perhaps you think that a test result is all that should count though in which case we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd assume it's because academic ability and knowledge makes more sense for determining admissions in an academic context, and has a higher chance of being relevant after the student graduates. This is unlike athletics where unless you go pro, the skill becomes functionally useless once you enter the workforce.

But schools will also take into account things like being a concert pianist, volunteer activities, etc. You can argue that they should just admit the "smartest" students as well as they're able to determine same but basically no university does that. Selective schools do obviously look at academics; it's just not the only thing they look at.

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

#149

Post by underlipton »

It's funny to me how cynical and skeptical HN is about diversity-related admissions, but how quickly everyone jumps to point out the positives of legacy admissions.

These aren't people who are being objective. We are now mask-off with regard to how this is simply an emotional matter centered around what is most advantageous to whatever group. The least we could do is be open about the role of self-interest here.

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

#150

Post by jononomo »

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…

standardized tests are not biased.
Post reply on HN