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

471–480 of 815 posts

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

#471

Post by timmg »

ceejayoz wrote: post #209
onetimeusename wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not, we're heading towards tribalism. The concern about legacy admissions is more that the legacies may be disproportionately white more so than anything else. With limited data on other schools, Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits.[1] That didn't stop people who wanted an alleged merit based admissions policy from continuing to call it a racist backdoor…

> Harvard recently reported that legacies actually had higher SAT scores than non-legacy admits. This likely indicates wealthy people can afford SAT preparation tutors.

It could also mean: smarter people make more money -- and they pass down intelligence -- both genetically and through teaching.

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

#472

Post by AbrahamParangi »

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…

I think this may have been true in like, the 1920s, when it was very difficult to connect merit and capital but today it’s fairly easy and the justification doesn’t really make sense.

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

#473

Post by oblio »

kulahan wrote: post #452
xdennis wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Athletics is the ultimate meritocracy ...but not in education. The US system of making athletes waste time in university is quite unique and ridiculous.

I like that we still emphasize education even if you're going for a job that doesn't even require you to know how to read.

Don't they basically get a free pass for regular courses as long as they behave and provide results?

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

#474

Post by boplicity »

dionidium wrote: post #394
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…

> With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. I just don't see this. In our society we believe it to be illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of race. We believe that to be a special kind of uniquely harmful prejudice, one that fractures the deepest structures of society, and that it therefore clears the very high bar required for limiting freedom of association…

> we believe it to be illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of race.

If there is significant and lasting harm done on the basis of race, should there be significant and lasting action taken to correct that harm?

What if such harm continues today, as it does in our society?

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

#475

Post by jimbob45 »

thebradbain wrote: post #425
kneebonian wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe the whole concept of “meritocracy” for purpose of admissions is a lie— choosing the criteria to measure against is itself a subjective act. Let me ask you. Do you also believe that requiring a display of proficiency in mathematics to get into the best schools is inherently discriminatory? What about requiring a demonstration of the capability to understand and complete basic subject matter material in the…

There’s no shortage of people who meet any of that criteria! The whole point of a selective college is they have to select from a pool of already qualified applicants. There is no objective measure to measure against when you’re splitting hairs. Even were you to limit it to “objective” requirements like test score and GPA, how do you decide between two students for one spot when both have the exact same scores? There…

There is no shortage of perfect scores applying to Harvard.

1,000 people typically receive a perfect SAT score yearly.

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

#476

Post by LatteLazy »

At university (UK, nowhere amazing) I was admitted on merit as a straight A student. My tutor had been forced to be the admissions officer for the school of Physics that year against his will. So he decided to have some fun and admitted everyone. I was scandalised when he told us this, I'd worked like a dog to EARN my place.

But he simply said "Anyone who can pass year 1 should get to do year 2, the same for year 2 and year 3. And anyone who passes all of them should get their degree." and I found this logic hard to argue with.

The result was that we had admitted 10 people with no maths qualification to a Physics degree. 8 failed, transferred subject or otherwise left. But 2 passed and got their degrees.

2 People got a life changing experience, I was no worse off and neither was the university. And this taught me an important lesson about opportunity. Ever since, when I am applying a standard/requirement to deny someone an opportunity (say a job interview, a date, or anything else) I stop and think hard about whether it's really necessary or if I am just being prejudiced.

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

#477

Post by wredue »

dionidium wrote: post #394
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…

> With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. I just don't see this. In our society we believe it to be illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of race. We believe that to be a special kind of uniquely harmful prejudice, one that fractures the deepest structures of society, and that it therefore clears the very high bar required for limiting freedom of association…

[flagged]

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

#478

Post by golemiprague »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #70
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 agree with you that the end of legacy and race-based admissions is a good thing. I think it's dangerous to think that a meritocracy always leads to good outcomes when there is huge inequality. This best analogy I can give is the "sports stars" analogy. Professional sports is probably the most even playing field I can imagine - there is such a huge incentive to win games that pretty much all else besides skills on t…

[dead]

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

#479

Post by vmladenov »

ethbr0 wrote: post #304
Brusco_RF wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped reading after the first sentence. Our current health insurance laws should NOT be a model for anything, ever!

What would you have done differently, in an attempt to evolve a complex, layered, and ossified industry that absolutely cannot stop providing service for even a day?

Repealed the McCarran-Ferguson Act at the time instead of waiting until 2021 to do it?

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

#480

Post by rhaway84773 »

dionidium wrote: post #394
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…

> With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. I just don't see this. In our society we believe it to be illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of race. We believe that to be a special kind of uniquely harmful prejudice, one that fractures the deepest structures of society, and that it therefore clears the very high bar required for limiting freedom of association…

I’m not in favor of affirmative action for a whole host of reasons.

However, if we consider discrimination against group A to be illegitimate and yet that discrimination and it’s negative effects to people of group A remain widespread, actions to remedy that discrimination, which in many cases will indeed require treating people of group A differently, is not automatically illegitimate.

Just like we consider violence to be illegitimate, but at the same time we draw a massive distinction between violence by an offender and violence done in self defense.

While that’s true in general, as far as affirmative action specifically is concerned, as the legacy removals in response to the ending of affirmative action indicates, affirmative action was essentially colleges paying lip service to reducing harm while using it to justify all sorts of inexcusable practices (like legacy).

Post reply on HN