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

#341

Post by msla » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #282

philip1209 wrote: post #20

Next step: Ending use of athletic ability in admissions.

People against athletic admissions have zero clue about what excellence requires and means. It's an attitude I can only describe as disgusting because it creates a prejudice against people who have actually worked at something and taken risks to succeed. It is equivalent to banning music scholarships. Who benefits from removing those who actually develop a physical competence and commit to training and competition?

> Who benefits from removing those who actually develop a physical competence and commit to training and competition?

The people who are there for academics, as opposed to being there to play a game.

There are only so many places in a class. Reserve them for people who go to a school to learn.

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

#342

Post by esafak » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

importantbrian wrote: post #330

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of begging the question to assume multigenerational family ties to a university are "not merit" when a big part of a university's value proposition is social networking: One doesn't go to Harvard just to take courses; one goes to Harvard to bump shoulders with the scions of dictators / diplomats / "captains of industry" etc. Personally I didn't understand that at the time, would have rejected the notion on…

Yeah, I think part of the problem is that people don't really understand this. I have taken classes at a community college, a directional state school, an R1 and my master's degree is from a highly selective school. My n=1 experience is that the coursework from any accredited program is largely the same. The professors at the state school were actually better than at any of the other schools from a pure teaching pers…

So be sure to network when you get there. Socialize! Attend the parties! It's not just for fun's sake.

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

#343

Post by criddell » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

Brusco_RF wrote: post #327

dropofwill wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAT score floor + lottery?

What makes you think that is better?

Vox had an article about college lotteries earlier this year you might find interesting:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/4/19/23689402/colleg...

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

#344

Post by msla » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

nluken wrote: post #123

philip1209 wrote: post #20

Next step: Ending use of athletic ability in admissions.

I go back and forth on this. Athletics definitely have outsize influence on college admissions that should be diminished, but surely it should still count for something, right? Most people wouldn’t argue against considering artists’ portfolios and musicians’ performances in admissions. What makes athletics a less important pursuit?

> Most people wouldn’t argue against considering artists’ portfolios and musicians’ performances in admissions.

I would, unless it was an arts college.

The point is, schools are institutions with a purpose. For most of them, that purpose is education, not playing games. Therefore, being able to play games shouldn't have any relevance in whether you're admitted to those schools.

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

#345

Post by MengerSponge » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #109

I recently came across a somewhat provocative defense of legacy admissions. The argument is that the iveys are great because they bring together the children of the rich and powerful (legacy admissions with connections) with really smart and hungry students (children of the middle class, mostly). It's arguably a good deal for both. Smart kids get access to wealth and power and they get to learn how the world works. T…

Legacy is a weak proxy for rich, though. There's a separate entrance for rich-rich kids: donors are evaluated based on the size of their gifts and their ability to continue giving, and their kids are given preferential admission.

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

#346

Post by tekla » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

importantbrian wrote: post #330

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of begging the question to assume multigenerational family ties to a university are "not merit" when a big part of a university's value proposition is social networking: One doesn't go to Harvard just to take courses; one goes to Harvard to bump shoulders with the scions of dictators / diplomats / "captains of industry" etc. Personally I didn't understand that at the time, would have rejected the notion on…

Yeah, I think part of the problem is that people don't really understand this. I have taken classes at a community college, a directional state school, an R1 and my master's degree is from a highly selective school. My n=1 experience is that the coursework from any accredited program is largely the same. The professors at the state school were actually better than at any of the other schools from a pure teaching pers…

Not necessarily true. The more prestigious schools have more budget to hire better professors, but more importantly, can fund top class research that costs ALOT of money.

Your random college probably can't afford a research nuclear reactor, but MIT sure as hell can if they want.

Getting a position as a undergrad on those research projects is incredibly competitive.

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

#347

Post by koheripbal » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #336

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.

That's a separate category of admissions advantage - "dean's list" or "donor" is usually what it's called. "Legacy" is just children of alumni regardless of whether they've donated, and "staff" or "faculty" is relatives of workers.

Exactly, this will likely increase donations.

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

#348

Post by philwelch » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

kelipso wrote: post #317

philwelch wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sports investments, ballooning administration staff, or flashy construction projects Construction projects are typically the result of specific earmarked donations and sports investments often create lots of income. NCAA Division I programs should be thought of as a side business that generates revenue for the university. Administrative staff is the major problem here. It’s also where most organizations tend to dum…

Universities shouldn't have side businesses, don't they have some non-profit status that's specific to education? They should be heavily restricted to education and research alone.

I’m not a huge fan of the NCAA system myself. A lot of universities don’t have major sports programs, and that’s a respectable choice on their part. But NCAA sports are tremendously profitable for the universities that invest in them. No Division I school would actually save money, in the long run, by defunding their football and basketball teams.

And when it comes to side businesses, sports pale in comparison to endowments.

Edit: Just to clarify, my only point here is that criticizing these Division I schools for how much they spend on their sports programs is fallacious. If you have a different criticism of college sports, that's fine but I'm not sure why you're addressing it to me.

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

#349

Post by bradleyjg » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #285

julienchastang wrote: post #187

Good. With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. [0] The number of kids entering elite universities via non-meritocratic avenues is incredible. > "[The researchers] examined four kinds of nonracial preferences—for recruited athletes, and for children of Harvard graduates, financial donors and members of faculty and staff. The researchers found that more than 43% of…

It's kind of begging the question to assume multigenerational family ties to a university are "not merit" when a big part of a university's value proposition is social networking: One doesn't go to Harvard just to take courses; one goes to Harvard to bump shoulders with the scions of dictators / diplomats / "captains of industry" etc. Personally I didn't understand that at the time, would have rejected the notion on…

The public makes a huge investment in Harvard, both directly through grants and indirectly through waived taxes. Is subsidizing social networking with and among the privileged a good use of public dollars?

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

#350

Post by jstarfish » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

ticviking wrote: post #258

evancox100 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

Seems simple enough to get someone that vain to cough up an annuity to pay for maintenance and some admins for that building, “we’d hate for your building to wind up like poor Jefferson Hall, we can’t even afford to pressure wash it every 5 years.”

Yeah. Stadiums and landmark buildings don't work this way, so why universities diverge is beyond me.

Whoever pays for upkeep should get the naming rights.