Live data from Hacker News

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

triblive.com

491–500 of 815 posts

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

#491
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it costs more than $60 million to build the stadium, sure. What good is a $60 million donation if it costs you $100 million on something you weren't going to buy in the first place?

Because now you have a $100M stadium that you only paid $40M for. That stadium generates revenue. You just need to make sure the numbers work

> You just need to make sure the numbers work

The entire point of this thread is that universities aren't doing that, because they're accepting $100 million donations with quarter-billion dollar lifetime price tags tied with them.

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

#492
post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

Whenever this obvious bs excuse is used, the glaring question becomes of why are Asians suppressed by it?

If it's about classically suppressed races and systematic racism, it's pretty hypocritical to be penalizing Asians. Especially when recent years have also seen a surge in people pretending to care about racism against Asians.

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

#493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is SAT score a good way to decide which student is more deserving of a spot? There should be some SAT score floor. But beyond that other factors should take over. If the floor is at n and two applicants appear - one with a score of 1.1n and the other 1.2n, I don’t think that’s enough information to decide who should get the spot.

> Why is SAT score a good way to decide which student is more deserving of a spot? Name a better way.

[dead]

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

#494
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…

>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. This is the one thing they can't get anywhere else. And the legacy students get the prestige and credibility of having gone to a top school, as well as access to hungry students who are eager to take advantage of the opportunities that come their way. I'm not 100% convinced by this argument, insof…

Just look at who runs the government at the highest levels—elected, and appointees, both. Heavy representation of Ivies and other elite schools... sure, OK, not surprising, but you look farther back and more often than not, yep, expensive prep school, rich-parish catholic private schools, or (less commonly) a well-into-the-top-1% public high school (usually with selective admission—basically by definition, since you can't realistically do that well, as a school, without it). Notably, the latter option is simply absent if you don't live in the right places, which tend to be rich, expensive ones, near or in a handful of major cities.

If you're in a normal-ass public school—even a good, but not exceptionally good selective-admission one—when you're 16 because your parents couldn't afford the straight-up costs, or relocation & other maneuvers (e.g. résumé padding), to get you into a top secondary school, let alone university—many doors of possibility in your life have already begun to swing shut, whether you realize it or not. It's not impossible you'll get into those kinds of positions despite that, but... your odds are even worse than one might suppose, had one not noticed this tendency.

(of course, it's worse still for certain other pursuits—for some sports and musical instruments, if you're not already damn serious about it and receiving excellent [$$$] coaching/instruction by age 8 or so, then that's already effectively cut off for you as a possible future career. Decide at 14 that's your passion and give it your all? Too bad, you're already too far behind, learn to enjoy participating as a hobby on weekends.)

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

#495
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're incorrect about better professors, but the extra money does allow for ease of research.

The only reason research is perceived to be better at certain institutions is due to the extra money, which allows ease of research.

Most researchers at any university can have the same ideas, and be equally intellectually qualified (if not more intellectually qualified at non-ivy league universities, explained in a bit) to do the research.

The difference comes in the availability of specific labs, with extremely expensive equipment, to perform tasks for collaborators. At ivy league universities, the graduate students effectively get to treat their work as if they were a manager who contracts out every price of work needed. Need cryo TEM of some samples? Send it down the hall, don't worry about it for a week, and then get nicely formatted results done for you by staff scientists that perform this service for the university daily. Need statistics to be done? Send it by email to the team, they'll let you know when it's done, etc.

Other universities don't have this luxury, but I would say it improves their capabilities as a scientist; hence my argument that non ivy league universities have more intellectually capable scientists. For example, instead of sending that sample for TEM, they learn how to do TEM, but not on a fancy new system; rather, the one that uses a car battery and a circuit board that you have to understand well enough to add some extra solder when needed.

I've worked in several different universities, and it's definitely still surprising to me, but the level of incompetence from grads coming out of ivy league institutions is astounding sometimes.

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

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem with a single nationwide standardized test is that kids will spend an inordinate amount of time (and money) studying for it. Major downside is that time is mostly wasted learning tricks to answer questions instead of learning something valuable. People spend years studying for IIT exam in India and there is zero chance of scoring well on the test without prep.

The fact of the matter is that unless you pick names out of a hat wealthy people will always have an advantage. But standardized testing can reduce the correlation with wealth in ways that other factors can’t.

Yes, standardized testing isn’t perfect. It is biased towards those with time and money to prepare. But it’s also biased towards people who are good at problem solving, critical thinking, and a work ethic to actually do the preparation.

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

#497
post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

[flagged]

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

#498
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…

> reinvested across the students attending the school

I do not know this for a fact, but I WILDLY doubt what you said here, and I cannot imagine what could possess anyone to believe this. Especially at so-called "elite" schools.

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

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not live in a perfect world. Instead, we live in a world where a collection of individuals has had the fruits of their labor stolen from them for most of the past 400 years, served in wars where promises were made and not kept upon their return, and are still being discriminated against in representative democracy. And when someone enumerates all the reasons that these people have been harmed, financially, spir…

It's quite revealing when you say that "fairness" (scare quotes) is not important. But that's not the only/main reason. The proponents of affirmative action are guilty of the very thing they say they're against: racism. When individuals are victims there's a system to deal with that. But you can't have "justice" for people based on birth, skin color, &c. You would have to have the same baseless criteria for discrimin…

I think it's clear that you don't want to treat the "shortcomings" with any solution that requires something tangible. The only time governments ever treat people on a per-person basis are during the census, during voting, and during the outcomes of trials. That's it. All other solutions are class based in nature.

I never said "black people." That's a you thing. And I'm an American citizen who knows that we've ALREADY had reparations for Japanese-Americans who were held for a few years during WWII but won't do the same for people whose ownership we can directly trace because we've still got the records of ownership and sale.

So if you're going to be flippant, go do it with someone who doesn't understand history, because your argument is silly.

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

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

When someone in the future inevitably asks "what was the United States of America?", it will be long past time...
Post reply on HN