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

791–800 of 815 posts

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

#791

Post by rayiner »

ves wrote: post #693
tekknik wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has to do with correcting specific and massive historical wrongs in which our government was complicit, not lifting up disadvantaged people generally. And I tuned out. I’m not paying for the sins of our fathers.

You’re definitely happily collecting the proceeds of those sins, though, I’m sure.

Most Americans came here after slavery ended, so no they’re not. If you can trace the “proceeds” of slavery anywhere, it’s not the pocket of some Polish guy whose parents got here in 1920, or some German American from the Midwest or some Appalachian. It’s to places like Harvard and the banks, insurance companies, etc., that Harvard graduates end up working at.

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

#792

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #787
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…

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 d…

I'm not saying that you're making a risible argument, though I disagree with it. I'm simply saying that you're making a non-obvious argument, and the evidence that I offer for my claim is that you yourself didn't believe it just a few years ago, despite being one of the "token conservatives" in your law school class. It couldn't have too much to do with how you grew up, because you came by it lately.

Make whichever argument you like. I'll only object to your use of the rhetorical frame that implies surprise that someone else would disagree with you. You disagreed with you until recently, as I do now.

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

#793

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #791
ves wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re definitely happily collecting the proceeds of those sins, though, I’m sure.

Most Americans came here after slavery ended, so no they’re not. If you can trace the “proceeds” of slavery anywhere, it’s not the pocket of some Polish guy whose parents got here in 1920, or some German American from the Midwest or some Appalachian. It’s to places like Harvard and the banks, insurance companies, etc., that Harvard graduates end up working at.

The Chicago suburb that I live in right now was debating a quota system to prevent Black families from moving here within my own lifetime, and was until the late 1990s spending tax dollars to subsidize apartments being held vacant for white families. The harm these programs attempt to correct wasn't in the distant past.

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

#794

Post by YeBanKo »

rank0 wrote: post #722
YeBanKo wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My argument is that the university is free to conduct admissions as it sees fit within the bounds of the law. A preference for family members of alums is totally legal. Are you suggesting that the federal government should dictate admission procedures?

Yes, even for private orgs federal money always come with strings attached. This is also how fed can force states do things states may not necessarily want. Here we aren’t even speaking about private orgs, but public universities that often are part of state run systems. They aren’t free to conduct admissions as they see fit, but as the public sees fit.

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

#795

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

Auracle wrote: post #719
nradov wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAT scores are correlated with wealth. This CNBC article is a decent introduction to the issue, but be aware that anything you read on the subject is likely to be pushing a particular narrative so it's tough to find a neutral primer anywhere. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...

It’s funny how that article doesn’t mention the most obvious reason - it turns out intelligent people generally don’t get jobs as janitors, retail workers, or other minimum-ish wage jobs. Those intelligent people then have intelligent babies. For some reason a large part of our society doesn’t want to acknowledge that genetics (highly) influence intelligence.

Anyone who has lived in the real world knows that the conditions in which you grow up have a massive effect on where you end up. There are entire communities of people who live in deep poverty. It's not because they're all - uniformly down to the last person - dumb. The parents are poor, don't have a high-quality education, work long hours, can't afford tutoring, can't help their children with their coursework, etc.

There are entire countries trapped in poverty. China was desperately poor until just a generation ago. Did Chinese people suddenly become smart for some reason? Which is the next country that will magically go from being filled with dumb people to being filled with smart people?

As I said, just a bit of experience with the real world and critical thought will show that your explanation is nonsense.

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

#796

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #792
rayiner wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I'm not saying that you're making a risible argument, though I disagree with it. I'm simply saying that you're making a non-obvious argument, and the evidence that I offer for my claim is that you yourself didn't believe it just a few years ago, despite being one of the "token conservatives" in your law school class. It couldn't have too much to do with how you grew up, because you came by it lately. Make whichever a…

You’re mixing up two separate issues.

The argument I’m making about why a system of racial preferences is bad is the standard conservative argument against racial preferences. It reinforces the racialization society and perpetuates it to the next generation. “The only way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

But the question you asked me above was different: why my view changed. The reason for that may be idiosyncratic and non-obvious—I didn’t appreciate color blindness as a social norm until it wasn’t my reality anymore—but that’s a different issue than the first point.

It’s like if someone is a pro-taxes and regulation Democrat and then changes his view because he inherits his dad’s small business when he passes unexpectedly. The reason for the change in view might be idiosyncratic, but the reason for opposing taxes and regulation is standard.

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

#797

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #793
rayiner wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Americans came here after slavery ended, so no they’re not. If you can trace the “proceeds” of slavery anywhere, it’s not the pocket of some Polish guy whose parents got here in 1920, or some German American from the Midwest or some Appalachian. It’s to places like Harvard and the banks, insurance companies, etc., that Harvard graduates end up working at.

The Chicago suburb that I live in right now was debating a quota system to prevent Black families from moving here within my own lifetime, and was until the late 1990s spending tax dollars to subsidize apartments being held vacant for white families. The harm these programs attempt to correct wasn't in the distant past.

But what benefit are you deriving from that?

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

#798

Post by ryzvonusef »

gizmo wrote: 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…

*(ceteris paribas; and assuming that the argument is valid...)

the problem is that ALL the powerful kids are concentrated in select few universities, mostly in the Ivy League, NorthEast US.

If Legacy admissions are eliminated, then the powerful kids will be spread about, IMHO, and the network effects will be spread about.

right now the NorthEast US unduly benefits heavily with the concentration of powerful kids, and the network thereof.

____

BTW, right across Harvard is MIT, and I believe they do not factor legacy admissions. Harvard's loss is MIT's gain, so I doubt there is anything to be unduly concerned about. (not to mention the 7 or so other world class research universities a stone's throw from Harvard Yard.)

Harvard will have to just pull itself together by its bootstraps.

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

#799

Post by pastacacioepepe »

ativzzz wrote: post #306
OO000oo wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will only feel better when the working class controls the society it built.

Once they do that, they become the ruling class and the elites. Then their children are no longer working class, and are now the enemies.

You're missing the point: If the working class becomes the ruling one finally the majority rules, not a rich elite.

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

#800

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #796
tptacek wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that you're making a risible argument, though I disagree with it. I'm simply saying that you're making a non-obvious argument, and the evidence that I offer for my claim is that you yourself didn't believe it just a few years ago, despite being one of the "token conservatives" in your law school class. It couldn't have too much to do with how you grew up, because you came by it lately. Make whichever a…

You’re mixing up two separate issues. The argument I’m making about why a system of racial preferences is bad is the standard conservative argument against racial preferences. It reinforces the racialization society and perpetuates it to the next generation. “The only way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But the question you asked me above was different: why…

Yes. Once again: I'm not saying that your argument is invalid because you've changed your mind. I'm saying that because you've deeply held both positions on the issue, it is disingenuous to pretend that one of those positions is obviously false. Perhaps you know something new, as the metaphorical inheritor of the family business. It's incumbent on you to share that, rather than posturing as if you knew it all along.

(Again, I agree with Rayiner Classic on this point, and not with New Rayiner, but that's neither here nor there.)

Post reply on HN