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

761–770 of 815 posts

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

#761

Post by lostlogin »

Larrikin wrote: post #750
HDThoreaun wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but you're not the one running harvard admissions. And they figure top high school baseball players bring something to the table that engineers and economists don't.

The Ivy Leagues famously don't give athletic scholarships. It's always news when they have a team that doesn't suck in sports people care about. Someone getting into a school on merit that has a serious hobby isn't the point of this discussion.

They don’t give scholarships but that isn’t quite the full story. The below link discusses ways a good sports background can make entrance considerably easier and costs far lower.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-sports-scholarship-get-you-into-...

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

#762

Post by mynameisvlad »

sokoloff wrote: post #500
digging wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I mean, sure, but we’re not even close to there so I’m not sure why it’s relevant right now.

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

#763

Post by vkou »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #503
vkou wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

"Lying is wrong" is a non-sequitur - like West is to the left. It is morality for 5 year olds or Sam Harris. >Then what's the problem with AA? Not using it to compensate for structural disadvantages is being in the wrong in its case... AA fails on that criteria as well. It isn't compensating the people who were wronged and the burden falls on people didn't do the wrong. Poor asian immigrant gets kicked out so Harvard…

Fine. You think lying isn't always wrong. I don't care, it's not important, it's just an example.

Pick literally any other action that you think is always wrong. I'll give you a counterexample where failing to do it is wrong.

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is the 5-year old-level morality platitude that you should be turning your ire against. Because, as you're demonstrating, "Wrong" is entirely contextual. A 'wrong' that mitigates another wrong can make a right.

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

#764

Post by philwelch »

hervature wrote: post #709
philwelch wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In tech, sure, but that’s because it’s tech. How many MIT alums are on the Supreme Court?

MIT doesn't have a law school.

That goes to my original point, I think.

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

#765

Post by digging »

sokoloff wrote: post #758
digging wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How interesting that you think it's easier to destroy the USA than it is to end white supremacy in the USA.

I'm not advancing that argument at all, but rather arguing "even people who do believe that will surely agree that the USA will someday cease to exist and, later, will fall out of history to an extent that someone will have to ask who/what the USA even was and, therefore, the notion that we will forever need affirmative action because '[the USA had] an actual legacy of the extraction, relocation, and enslavement of a…

I see. We're misunderstanding each other.

A society with severe imbalances in wealth, health, and power should examine how those imbalances came about. If it turns out that they're directly caused by racism, that society should consider race-conscious remedies. This is true regardless of how long the racist policies have been perpetuated, and it's true regardless of whether or not the federal government of the USA still exists.

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

#766

Post by mlyle »

elteto wrote: post #548
mlyle wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, we're getting rid of testing in admissions decisions. So instead we're in an era of squishy, difficult-to-judge metrics... and of course, the places where one could stand out-- interesting stories on one's transcript or essay-- are increasingly being evaluated by AI.

It's because schools want to retain a measure of control over who they let in. A true merit based admissions system (say min SAT score + lottery after that) is uncheatable and therefore schools have _zero_ control on who they have to accept. The only reason why Harvard has kept its mythos of being the incubator of the next ruling class is because, well, they accept the children of the current one. Those are most like…

Schools have the ultimate control.

We're merely discussing whether certain things are used as inputs to a very complicated decision process.

Test scores are no longer being used as inputs in many places, in the name of equity: but I think almost anything you'll weigh higher will favor class, instead.

They're also removing race. And legacy status. The net effect is an admissions landscape that will look very different.

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

#767

Post by l33t233372 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #756
l33t233372 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally, high quality education would be democratized and made accessible to anyone who want it It pretty much is. Hardvard undergraduate classes aren’t substantially higher quality than at many other state schools.

People say this, not sure what it is based on, unless by “many other”s you just mean Michigan, UC, and UNC.

And University of Nebraska, and University of Wisconsin Maddison, and Texas A&M, and Ohio State, and many others.

It seems like you based what you said on some vague notion of prestige, but if you look at the courses offered/required, the topics covered, and the books used of any of the schools I listed, you’ll see it’s effectively the same education as Harvard and the rest.

Unless you think there’s something magical about the professors at Harvard that enables them to teach undergraduate classes far better than professors at state schools, there’s no reason to assume the classes are any higher quality.

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

#768

Post by saghm »

everforward wrote: post #688
saghm wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pos…

I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins". Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily. The only difference I can see with using taxes is that the billionaires' kids don't get to pick their school, and the government now has to waste time and effort collecting and auditing th…

> I just don't see a reason to pick a fight if the status quo is "everybody wins".

> Billionaires get to send their kids to good schools and everyone else at the school gets their education subsidized by those billionaires voluntarily.

That's not "everybody though"; most people _don't_ attend elite institutions like that, and every spot that goes to a billionaires' kid means one less spot for a kid without wealthy parents able to work the system like that. The argument being made is that having taxes instead and using them for public goods that are accessible to a much wider swath of the population would be worth doing instead; I tend to think that the answer to this question is yes, it's worth the effort, but even I'm skeptical that "it's all going to suck anyways" or "anyone who doesn't go to an elite school is irrelevant to the question of how individual wealth can improve society as a whole" are the best counter-arguments to my point of view.

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

#769

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

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 didn't want to name names. But if you must, it happened in the all-in-podcast. This was during episode 135, at the 23:15 mark. The show has a guide so it should be findable.

I believe hosts do research and in fact, have VC minions (paid staff) during the show pulling the data to demonstrate how the calc was derived.

(I'm actually quite surprised this is not immediately known, as I thought the podcast audience was primarily HN ..)

Also, sibling comment added his own independent analysis

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

#770

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #323
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

While I believe you are trying to make a good faith insight porn comment and I don’t think you should be (inevitably) downvoted, I am skeptical of the methods of the “rather popular podcast” that led them to make such a claim. Also, I’m not sure if it’s the gotcha you think it is. If I were you, I would take a long hard look at claims like these, and how even when they are not true, well, an item that says “So and so…

I didn't find it gentlemanly to name names here, and wanted to let my comment be developed independently, but since my comment is already flagged, I suppose i'll make it clear the source and the weight of the research that I'm simply referencing. This was saidin the all-in-podcast. This was during episode 135, at the 23:15 mark. The show has a guide so it should be findable.

I believe hosts do research and in fact, have VC minions (paid staff) during the show pulling the data to demonstrate how the calc was derived.

(I'm actually quite surprised this is not immediately known, as I thought the podcast audience was primarily HN ..)

Also, sibling comment added his own independent analysis

Post reply on HN