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

151–160 of 815 posts

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

#151

Post by enkid »

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.

People don't want to donate to fixing something old, they want to donate to making something new, even when fixing something old is way more effective.

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

#152

Post by ecshafer »

thebradbain wrote: post #115
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” s…

I want to get rid of letters of recommendation as well. I would personally like to go off of only a single nationwide standardized test.

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

#153

Post by thebradbain »

Brusco_RF wrote: post #122
lisper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yeah the SAT is the worst admissions metric, besides all the other ones. What would you use in its place? You think grades don't have bias?

Interviews, transcripts, (optional) test scores, letter of recommendation, a set of common essays across all schools, and an optional supplemental section or portfolio to showcase any personal achievements not covered by the other standard categories.

Oh wait! That exists — it’s called the Common App, and it’s what most private colleges today use, from the Ivies to elite tiny liberal arts colleges with the largest share of students from the 0.1% that you’ve never heard of, like Pomona College.

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

#154

Post by kypro »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #14

Very good decision. Let’s see if them Ivy Leagues with enormous endowments would follow…likely not because that’ll cause a big drop in gifts and donations.

> likely not because that’ll cause a big drop in gifts and donations.

This is a topic that I haven't had much interest in so sorry if I'm being dumb here, but I struggle to see how this could be a good thing?

I guess the way I'm seeing this is that if you're too not smart enough to get into these universities but are lucky enough to have parents with lots of money, you can basically bribe your way in.

While this seems unfair on the surface, and I suppose it is from certain lenses, it is surely also in effect acting as a "stupid rich person" tax for higher education?

I mean to your point here, if Ivy League universities receive a big drop in donations wouldn't that practically guarantee they'll either need to charge higher tuition fees to those less fortunate who get in on merit, or they'll need to lower the quality of their education?

Could someone help me out here? I'm aware I'm saying something stupid. I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing for those less well off who get in on merit? Are they not in favour of their education costs being partly offset by large donation from wealthy people?

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

#155

Post by JKCalhoun »

underlipton wrote: post #149

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.

Or people are less emotional about wealth. (Or people are wealthy.)

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

#156

Post by RhodesianHunter »

caterpi11ar wrote: post #117
lisper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When your history ensures that some groups are socioeconomically disadvantaged, every possible method will be biased. It's unavoidable.

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

#157

Post by at_a_remove »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #141
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.

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'…

I only know a little dirt about the one I worked in and it was pretty bad. The redirection of funds, the word games, and so on ... I would have a better chance of making improvements I desired by making little paper airplanes out of hundred dollar bills and trying to hit areas I though needed help.

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

#158

Post by mlyle »

el_nahual wrote: post #67
mlyle wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, we're getting rid of testing in admissions decisions. So instead we're in an era of squishy, difficult-to-judge metrics... and of course, the places where one could stand out-- interesting stories on one's transcript or essay-- are increasingly being evaluated by AI.

The cynical(?) explanation is that it is precisely because of the dismantling of standardized testing that getting rid of legacy admissions tenable...because it means schools can still proxy for class in admissions decisions (except veiled as extracurriculars, or "oh, this student knows calculus" in boston/sf). If Harvard or USC were on the list I'd wager this to be the case, but MIT, Mellon & Pitt are serious school…

I'm not sure it's deliberate, but I broadly agree with you that getting rid of tests favors class (despite the reasons purportedly being for equity). While you can buy small improvements in test scores, most things that have replaced tests in admissions decisions are easier to buy.

> MIT, Mellon & Pitt

MIT still requires SAT scores, so it's a non-factor there.

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

#159

Post by reaperducer »

pessimizer wrote: post #23
reaperducer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the private sector. In many governments, it is quite illegal.

Making a distinction about the "private sector," but being vague for some reason about the country we're discussing?

Making a distinction about the "private sector," but being vague for some reason about the country we're discussing?

I wrote "many governments" because I am not fully versed in the policies and laws of every nation on the planet. Perhaps you can fill us in?

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

#160

Post by ameister14 »

LanceH wrote: post #108
haroldp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the way many public universities without legacy admissions actually function as well. They have a high published tuition, but if you are a half decent student, there are many discounts and scholarships that can reduce it significantly. Only less qualified students pay full price.

They love to tell this story. It's absolutely laughable how limited scholarships are for actual academic performance.

I think that depends on the school - Georgia Tech is free for high academic performers from Georgia, for example.
Post reply on HN