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

461–470 of 815 posts

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

#461

Post by digging »

sokoloff wrote: post #448
dionidium wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you think in theory, in practice we have an actual legacy of the extraction, relocation, and enslavement of a particular group of people on the basis of race. We fought a civil war about it and it remains the most enduringly contentious and difficult conflict -- the defining conflict, in many ways -- in our nation's history (right up through today). It will always be a topic deserving of special dispensation…

> It will always be a topic deserving of special dispensation. I completely disagree. Still after another 50 years? Another 150 years? Still 1000 years from now? 10,000? At some point, it has to be eliminated as a special dispensation topic. When exactly that is, and whether that is in the past or the future can reasonably be debated, but to conclude that it should be permanent is well beyond reason, IMO.

> At some point, it has to be eliminated as a special dispensation topic

If white supremacy would stop being perpetuated, we could stop worrying about the effects of white supremacy. But the discussion doesn't have to end after a specific timeframe just because you feel uncomfortable with it.

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

#462

Post by xdennis »

bilbo0s wrote: post #436
Larrikin wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a top high school baseball prospect take up a spot at a college instead of a spot on a local A league team?

Because money. Sorry. That's the reality that everyone fails to talk openly about when discussing athletics. It brings in a lot of money for the top schools like Stanford, Michigan, Texas, Alabama and so on. You find a way to replace that revenue, a lot of schools would be happy to get rid of it. But until then? I mean the B1G has a tv split of almost 100 million a year "per". Once all the former PAC12 schools unite…

But they're already filthy rich. Maybe I'm being too much of an idealist, but universities should be about education, not sport centers.

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

#463

Post by Shacklz »

kulahan wrote: post #451
s17n wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the admissions situation. Now that's gone. As far as the freedom of association goes, that's not an argument in favor of legacy admissions but it is possibly an argument that the government should stay out of it. Given the central role that universities play in ou…

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itse…

> This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad?

Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do.

Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

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

#464

Post by sangnoir »

kulahan wrote: post #451
s17n wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the admissions situation. Now that's gone. As far as the freedom of association goes, that's not an argument in favor of legacy admissions but it is possibly an argument that the government should stay out of it. Given the central role that universities play in ou…

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itse…

The fundamental question is: do we want admissions based on merit (or not)? Saying "Yes" and then carving out an exception for the wealthy is dishonest (IMO); if the answer is "No, admission is not on merit" then we need to talk about what other considerations would be fair game.

Also, implicit in your argument is that universities getting more money is always a good thing - I take umbrage at that prior as universities should not be driven by the desire for perpetual capital growth.

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

#466

Post by digging »

chaostheory wrote: post #393
hunson_abadeer wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. I've heard this repeated nearly verbatim in a couple of places, and it's such a puzzling framing. Why was this practice any less ethically challenged prior to the SCOTUS decision?

Not sure why this wasn't mentioned more often but it's because of donor money. Donor money that funds things like new cafeterias and other facilities ultimately benefits everyone at school and helps keep tuition prices in check, also complicates the ethics ie if they didn't have enough donors, then tuition will go up and it'll be even less affordable

But there's no actual evidence that ending legacy admissions will dry up donor funding that I've seen.

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

#467

Post by nemo44x »

dbish wrote: post #253
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…

Is MIT still worth the price of admission? I would certainly say so and they don't do legacy, and I would trust the Princeton/Harvard line on a resume a lot more if it was guaranteed they didn't get in because of non-academic reasons (like parents, sports, etc.)

MIT still has standards and you need to be able to play at a very high level there. Most everyone is too dumb to go there. The others not so much.

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

#468

Post by jlawson »

rafram wrote: post #355
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> A rather popular podcast > Unsure if they said > But either way, its quite astounding You’re not making a terribly strong case here. What’s your source? What does “most disfavored” mean? Is there actually anything to show that Jewish students are favored in college admissions?

I'll help. Of Harvard students:

39.7% are white. (American white population share: 59.3%. So whites are already dramatically under-represented).

17% (43% of 39.7%) of all students are white and legacy.

So of all students, 22.7% are white and not legacy.

Harvard class is 10% Jewish overall (American Jewish population share: 2.1% [2], so they are 5x over-represented)

Jews are nearly all counted as white. If they're legacy at the same rate as other whites, about 4.3% (43% of 10%) of total students are Jewish legacy, while 5.7% are Jewish non-legacy.

Subtracting 5.7% from 22.7%, that means that 16% of Harvard students are white non-Jewish non-legacy.

The US is 59.3% white [1] and 2.1% Jewish [2], so 57.2% non-Jewish white.

57.2% of population is funneled down to 16% of the slots - this is a massive under-representation; non-legacy non-Jewish whites basically cannot get into Harvard. Their chances are 4x (!) lower even than the overall population's very low chances.

No other major ethnic group is nearly this under-represented in the Harvard non-legacy admission process. This is the result of this group being disfavored.

Source is the article above, and Harvard's own statistics, available from many sources. Here's one [0]

[0] https://admissionsight.com/harvard-diversity-statistics/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews

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

#469

Post by oblio »

kulahan wrote: post #451
s17n wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the admissions situation. Now that's gone. As far as the freedom of association goes, that's not an argument in favor of legacy admissions but it is possibly an argument that the government should stay out of it. Given the central role that universities play in ou…

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itse…

This perspective seems naive. Rich people tend to not spend a lot of money on stuff that doesn't make them more money.

So if they do spend a lot, they think it's worth the expenses, including the "charity" part.

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

#470

Post by vkou »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #460
vkou wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is nonsense, in any moral framework worth its salt. Consider a simple situation: 1. Lying is wrong. 2. Someone's running from a mob that wants to kill them. They went right. 3. The mob stops, and asks you if the person in question went right. 4. Two wrongs don't make a right, so you tell the truth. Or don't say anything, and let the mob go off in the correct direction and chase t…

Your example is backwards. Lying is the right, and truth is the wrong in your example. So in arguing for two wrongs are OK, you are suggesting you'd direct the mob to the person running away (maybe they were a person you didn't like, or were of privilege you resent).

> Lying is the right, and truth is the wrong in your example.

Lying is wrong! Except, according to you, when it leads to good outcomes!

It sounds like outcome-driven morality is what you're pushing for..? Then what's the problem with AA? Not using it to compensate for structural disadvantages is being in the wrong in its case...

Post reply on HN