721–730 of 815 posts
Has anyone done the analysis on how this is expected to impact overall university funding if it becomes widespread?
No skin in this game, just curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concede that maybe it’s not the way “things ought to be” But what’s your legal argument for why this practice should be prohibited?
What is your argument for why this practice should be allowed? It’s a public school, why should your family has an advantage because you went there? Is the goal of public school to maintain a club or provide access to education? If the latter, I don’t see how any kind of exclusivity other than merit makes sense.
A preference for family members of alums is totally legal. Are you suggesting that the federal government should dictate admission procedures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that should not be allowed. The best should get in, not a relative.
I concede that maybe it’s not the way “things ought to be” But what’s your legal argument for why this practice should be prohibited?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concede that maybe it’s not the way “things ought to be” But what’s your legal argument for why this practice should be prohibited?
It’s currently straightforwardly legal AFAIK, how could one make a legal argument against it? Do you mean some sort of legal philosophy argument, not literally a legal argument?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only we could track down the author of this take and ask what they think about it.
How would the current thoughts of someone commenting about the same topic a few years ago be particularly relevant to our conversation today? As far as I see, the argumentation isn't particularly novel or unusual either. It's a pragmatist take, discounting methodological concerns in favour of expected outcomes. I think that take probably summarizes a quarter of the current debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's worth pointing out that income inequality is much worse in the US; the Wikipedia page you referenced reflects this somewhat: "2020 average wage in the United States was $53,383, while the 2020 median wage was $34,612." If you define 'better economic conditions' as meaning more wealth in total, sure, the US is at or near the top. But however, if you're interested in knowing how most people are doing, the…
Median (not average) PPP income is highest in the US. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income While it’s true our income inequality is larger, the fact still remains that the median American makes more money than the median European (or any other comparable region). Ask yourself: Is it better for everyone to be richer and have high inequality? Or is it better for everyone to be poorer but more equal? EDIT:…
> The following table represents data from OECD's "median disposable income per person" metric; disposable income deducts from gross income the value of taxes on income and wealth paid and of contributions paid by households to public social security schemes. The figures are equivalised by dividing income by the square root of household size.
According to that metric, public healthcare, public pensions, and subsidized education and childcare lower disposable income, while private versions of the same services don't. Additionally, cultures where adult children often live with their parents have higher incomes by that metric than those where they move out earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would the current thoughts of someone commenting about the same topic a few years ago be particularly relevant to our conversation today? As far as I see, the argumentation isn't particularly novel or unusual either. It's a pragmatist take, discounting methodological concerns in favour of expected outcomes. I think that take probably summarizes a quarter of the current debate.
The take is relevant because it's being quoted in answer to its own author.
I guess this is an example of how little personal brand visibility HN provides next to the comments itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But favoring legacy status in admissions is a form of racial discrimination because non-white people are much, much less likely to have legacy at elite institutions.
I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Everything correlates with race. Height, disease, money, eye color, divorce, number of pokemon cards, you name it. You may as well call it eye-color discrimination, height discrimination, pokemon card discrimination, etc, as well. It just makes no sense at that point. So what exactly is the poi…
We should point it out when it happens. Most of us know what sorts of stunts were pulled with Jim Crow era laws. None of these were explicably racist on paper, but we all know they intended racism and exclusion. And these sorts of policies continue that tradition, even if it wasn't meant to.
If a policy winds up being discriminatory like this, we should call it out and change it. Not doing so means silently agreeing with the discrimination. The justification matters little.
Isn't every single policy racist then?
Obviously not.
Some worries though:
Reproducing learning is way over-evaluated, as it can be reliably tested. Its the most worthless skill though, ever since the internet was invented. The ability to recombine approaches and create novel solutions to novel problems, that adhere to engineering approaches and principles, thats were the money is. Hard to test for that and i guess the tiger-mum kids will have to learn TRIZ inside out.
Also i find the cohort timing pressure detrimental. In my opinion, the option to study (because you are bored and dissatisfied with your station in life) should be open to anyone at any time. Even if it does not work out, it creates the ability to move and propels the person on.
Finally, i would detach the political and not society survival relevant pieces of university from the other parts. Sports, sociology, arts go into one university, physics, math, machine building, biology, chemistry and agriculture go into another. Keep the whole bipartisanship from the science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is pretty spot on about the admission dynamics. > Legacy I think it is more of a tip than you are making it out to be simply due to yield farming - the smart kid who has a Harvard parent is more likely to go to Harvard over Yale than a generic smart kid, so if you want to keep your admission rates as low as possible you tip legacy. > 10-20 kids/year who get in this way who wouldn't otherwise. They certai…
Hah just heard that come up in another context. Confirmed. Heard the price tag was $3m and you have to take a gap year.