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

781–790 of 815 posts

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

#781

Post by meetingthrower »

CraigRo wrote: post #734
meetingthrower wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah just heard that come up in another context. Confirmed. Heard the price tag was $3m and you have to take a gap year.

One special gifts officer told me that the U had rejected a rather limited number of people whose families had 8 billion dollars. 3 million might get you into Brown, but it isn't going to get you into Harvard.

I think this is a "we call you" situation, so if the kid is on the bubble they ask for the bribe. It doesn't work the other way if the kid is unqualified. No more Kushners...

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

#782

Post by spullara »

meetingthrower wrote: post #622
spullara wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT is different though as they don't have legacy or athletic admissions.

False. They do have slots for athletes.

"Unlike many other schools, MIT does not send “likely letters” or do “signings,” nor do our coaches have discretionary “slots” which they may fill."

https://mitadmissions.org/help/faq/does-mit-recruit-athletes...

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

#783

Post by digging »

sokoloff wrote: post #773
digging wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

I agree with that 100%! My only disagreement was with the conclusion that such remedies should be ordained at this moment to be "always be a topic deserving of special dispensation" since always is a very/infinitely long time.

I never said it should be ordained for all time. I said it should be ordained until the issue is solved. If that takes another hundred years, we shouldn't just stop because too much time has passed - in fact we should probably double down and accelerate our efforts in that case.

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

#784

Post by sokoloff »

digging wrote: post #783
sokoloff wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that 100%! My only disagreement was with the conclusion that such remedies should be ordained at this moment to be "always be a topic deserving of special dispensation" since always is a very/infinitely long time.

I never said it should be ordained for all time. I said it should be ordained until the issue is solved. If that takes another hundred years, we shouldn't just stop because too much time has passed - in fact we should probably double down and accelerate our efforts in that case.

You didn't (nor did I suggest you did); someone else did; that's what started this sub-thread.

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

#785

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #753
rayiner wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decade later, turns out I was wrong. Ironically, it’s because the racial identity politics of the last decade made me realize I’m not white, and that race is such a pernicious concept that even the good white people can’t be trusted with it.

That's fine , but you can't reasonably adopt a tone that there are obvious answers to this, or feign surprise that people disagree with you, when you yourself argued the exact opposite --- and when your reason for changing your mind is so idiosyncratic. I assure you that most people do not arrive at their opinion on racial preferences based on a realization that they aren't white. If that's the reason racial preferen…

[deleted]

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

#786

Post by abduhl »

tptacek wrote: post #753
rayiner wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decade later, turns out I was wrong. Ironically, it’s because the racial identity politics of the last decade made me realize I’m not white, and that race is such a pernicious concept that even the good white people can’t be trusted with it.

That's fine , but you can't reasonably adopt a tone that there are obvious answers to this, or feign surprise that people disagree with you, when you yourself argued the exact opposite --- and when your reason for changing your mind is so idiosyncratic. I assure you that most people do not arrive at their opinion on racial preferences based on a realization that they aren't white. If that's the reason racial preferen…

You can think it's idiosyncratic, but I can assure you (both as an Asian and as someone who knows quite a few Asians) that many (maybe the majority of) Asians whose views on race-based treatment/preferences have changed were driven by the eventual recognition that they exist in the racial in-between. They get almost none of the "privilege" that white people do while getting none of the "protections" that other minorities do. And, at the same time, they are often penalized for being Asian.

It's not surprising or idiosyncratic that an Asian's viewpoint on race has evolved as they've spent more time being exposed to America's racial hypocrisy and experienced more and more of this in-betweenness.

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

#787

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #753
rayiner wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decade later, turns out I was wrong. Ironically, it’s because the racial identity politics of the last decade made me realize I’m not white, and that race is such a pernicious concept that even the good white people can’t be trusted with it.

That's fine , but you can't reasonably adopt a tone that there are obvious answers to this, or feign surprise that people disagree with you, when you yourself argued the exact opposite --- and when your reason for changing your mind is so idiosyncratic. I assure you that most people do not arrive at their opinion on racial preferences based on a realization that they aren't white. If that's the reason racial preferen…

My reason isn’t idiosyncratic at all: any system of racial preferences necessarily racializes people. Being racialized is unpleasant. I don’t like it for the same reason I imagine the majority of non-white people oppose racial preferences. They don’t want to be treated like that, don’t think it’s fair, etc.

Growing up as someone who wasn’t racialized and then becoming racialized as an adult is something most people don’t experience. That is idiosyncratic, sure, but that’s the reason my view on racial preferences changed, not the reason I oppose them now.

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

#788

Post by rayiner »

abduhl wrote: post #786
tptacek wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine , but you can't reasonably adopt a tone that there are obvious answers to this, or feign surprise that people disagree with you, when you yourself argued the exact opposite --- and when your reason for changing your mind is so idiosyncratic. I assure you that most people do not arrive at their opinion on racial preferences based on a realization that they aren't white. If that's the reason racial preferen…

You can think it's idiosyncratic, but I can assure you (both as an Asian and as someone who knows quite a few Asians) that many (maybe the majority of) Asians whose views on race-based treatment/preferences have changed were driven by the eventual recognition that they exist in the racial in-between. They get almost none of the "privilege" that white people do while getting none of the "protections" that other minori…

I think we’re making a similar point, but I’d frame it slightly differently. For Asians, racialization is situational. Growing up, I rarely thought about race. Outside of dating and sports, physical differences never came up.

And now, Asians are racialized from both sides. And on the left, it’s this pernicious sort of racialization where we’re “people of color” when they’re trying to show how big their coalition is, but expected to “check our privilege” like white people and defer to the interests of black people and Latinos.

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

#789

Post by abduhl »

rayiner wrote: post #788
abduhl wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can think it's idiosyncratic, but I can assure you (both as an Asian and as someone who knows quite a few Asians) that many (maybe the majority of) Asians whose views on race-based treatment/preferences have changed were driven by the eventual recognition that they exist in the racial in-between. They get almost none of the "privilege" that white people do while getting none of the "protections" that other minori…

I think we’re making a similar point, but I’d frame it slightly differently. For Asians, racialization is situational. Growing up, I rarely thought about race. Outside of dating and sports, physical differences never came up. And now, Asians are racialized from both sides. And on the left, it’s this pernicious sort of racialization where we’re “people of color” when they’re trying to show how big their coalition is,…

I agree we are making a similar point. My original post had a long rant about Asians only being minorities when it benefits someone's argument (on the left or right) but I deleted it before posting. Suffice to say that there is a long history of marginalizing racism against Asians in America (recall that the Chinese Exclusion Act or some form of it was in effect until the World War 2) and the fight that the left has put up to try to excuse or hide the clear facts that affirmative action policies have (had?) an adverse impact on Asians is the latest example of that.

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

#790

Post by meetingthrower »

spullara wrote: post #782
meetingthrower wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. They do have slots for athletes.

"Unlike many other schools, MIT does not send “likely letters” or do “signings,” nor do our coaches have discretionary “slots” which they may fill." https://mitadmissions.org/help/faq/does-mit-recruit-athletes...

Yeah right. From same doc.

"If you’re a prospective student interested in playing varsity sports at MIT, you should contact the coach of your sport by completing a recruitment form. Depending on your potential contribution to MIT’s varsity athletics, they may choose to advocate for you in the admissions process..."

Heavy thumb on the scale with 90% accept rate.

Post reply on HN