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

531–540 of 815 posts

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

#531

Post by hunson_abadeer »

chaostheory wrote: post #435
hunson_abadeer wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it would be sad for Harvard to get unaffordable.

Noted your sarcasm, but it would be sad for Harvard and its ilk to get EVEN MORE unaffordable for anyone not upperclass.

I think the argument rings hollow to me mostly because it's not that Harvard has to charge this much. I'm sure they could be providing the same quality of education for 1/5th the price. In fact, with the endowments many of these schools have, they could probably go tuition-free for a couple of decades and still be fine.

They charge this much essentially because they can (govt-subsidized loans), and because it helps them maintain a certain reputation.

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

#532

Post by [deleted] »

wredue wrote: post #477
dionidium wrote: post #394

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]

[deleted]

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

#533

Post by az226 »

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.

If they were admitting legacy students who were hundreds of points lower on the SATs and bad grades, then yeah, it’d be as bad as affirmative action. But in practice it’s only ever used to break ties.

If affirmative action was implemented the same way legacy admissions is, I doubt the lawsuit against Harvard would ever exist, and opposition essentially non-existent.

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

#534

Post by janalsncm »

simplyluke wrote: post #413
msla wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The presence of athletics at these institutions clearly demonstrates that it's part of their purpose, just as the sciences, humanities, and arts/music are.

Sure but we are talking about what the purpose should be not what it is.

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

#535

Post by saghm »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #501
Shacklz wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.

So because billionares will try to fight legislation to keep them from trying to make things more equal, instead we should have them just voluntarily give their money to universities, as if that somehow isn't even more susceptible to being spent the way they want rather than to make things more equal? I admit I'm biased in favor of using taxes instead of university donations to redistribute wealth, but even for a position I disagree with, this seems like a fairly weak argument.

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

#536

Post by tivert »

dbish wrote: post #362
philwelch wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT and Harvard are almost completely different. The promise of MIT, as I understand it, is sort of a ruthless no-compromise academic excellence. The promise of Harvard or Yale is that you are going to be inducted into the American ruling class. These are different goals.

For students, sure, but when being hired (or funded) they all have similar “elite” tier intelligence/potential, nothing about ruling class

>> MIT and Harvard are almost completely different. The promise of MIT, as I understand it, is sort of a ruthless no-compromise academic excellence. The promise of Harvard or Yale is that you are going to be inducted into the American ruling class. These are different goals.

> For students, sure, but when being hired (or funded) they all have similar “elite” tier intelligence/potential, nothing about ruling class

Being suited to "ruthless no-compromise academic excellence" may actually tend to make one unsuited to a whole host of "ruling class" jobs, so maybe they're not so similar after all.

IMHO, people who are personally focused on intelligence (especially when they're "intelligent" themselves) tend to overestimate its value in a lot of endeavors. Even in academic sphere, I understand a lot of extremely successful scientists are intelligent but not that intelligent. Their success comes from their attitude, personality, and other factors.

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

#537

Post by thebooktocome »

xdennis wrote: post #457
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #406

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…

> You say 400 years, but the United States didn't exist 400 years ago.

As a historical fact, West Germany and East Germany both paid reparations to Holocaust survivors, despite neither being legally identical to the German Reich.

If for various reasons you find that unconvincing, it’s also the case that the Funding Act of 1790 has the federal government assume the debts of the colonies.

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

#538

Post by rank0 »

Shacklz wrote: post #463
kulahan wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Enlighten me. Which G20 nation has better economic conditions than the United States?

According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average...

The PPP adjusted median income is highest in the US (not counting Iceland/Luxembourg for obvious reasons).

And as a follow up, how stable is the government in your example countries? The US has the worlds oldest document-based government. The rest of the “western countries” have constantly collapsing systems/borders with the exception of France who has historically done exceptionally well in this regard.

TL;DR - Why should we take notes on wealth redistribution from other societies which are less successful?

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

#539

Post by bamfly »

laverya wrote: post #197
thebradbain wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

Essays are incredibly biased though! Do you really think that for some reason essays actually have to be written by the person applying, and can't be gamed with money? That an overworked public school teacher is going to write a better letter of recommendation than a private school teacher? That a rich kid is going to have worse extracurriculars, portfolio or achievements? The Common App is great, but it's not magica…

> That an overworked public school teacher is going to write a better letter of recommendation than a private school teacher?

LOL. My understanding is the really good prep school college counsellors golf with one or more high-up folks in elite university admissions offices, and get the inside scoop on exactly what they and their peers in other universities are looking for in any given year, such that they can even tune an essay or letter of reference for a given school based on that non-public information and advise students which schools to focus their application efforts on, based on their background & activities.

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

#540

Post by rayiner »

dogleash wrote: post #510
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…

> The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. To whom? Anyone who would have been accepted to CMU or Pitt but for the legacy apps will be accepted to another school and still be able to get a high quality education. What harm is caused? They have a slightly worse starting hand in status posturing games during the short period of their lives where anyone gives a shit where anyone went…

Look at the list of people appointed to run executive agencies, serve as judges, etc., and see the degree to which our society is run by elites from a handful of schools. The Supreme Court that issued this decision has one Justice who didn’t go to either Harvard or Yale.
Post reply on HN