What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions? • Hacker News Board

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#81

Post by triceratops » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

exogeny wrote: post #35

Alright, I’m going to try to weigh in on this subject in good faith. Wish me luck! I grew up in suburban Pittsburgh and attended a very good public school. I had friends who lived only ten or fifteen minutes away but attended schools that were substantially worse by nearly every measurable standard. How should a university compare our applications on an apples-to-apples basis? Some people would say, “Just use standar…

> But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education...Is it a university’s job to account for [my advantages]?

I would argue: no. There are always applicants with even more advantages than you, and those with fewer.

Standardized tests level the playing field IMO. Money can only help you so much. Talent and hard work become the dominant factors.

Mommy and daddy can't pay for expensive hobbies, finagle unpaid internships at prestigious non-profits, or anything else. Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding. Think Leetcode: how much does coaching help a SWE vs just being good at coding and solving 2000 problems?

Now you may say: under-privileged students often have less stable home environments. So they have less time to grind problems. This is true. But it's also true for admissions as they're done today. They have less time, money, and opportunities for hobbies, volunteer work, sports, and internships. They can't hire essay coaches or admissions consultants.

Thrusting students into a more challenging academic environment than their current demonstrated abilities merit doesn't help anyone. On the other hand if poorer students can demonstrate merit without spending much money, just by writing a single test, this is as egalitarian as possible.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#82

Post by dahart » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #69

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were things like redlining, where blacks could only buy housing in certain areas. Those areas also tended to have worse schools, so the next generation of blacks was less well educated than whites of equivalent intelligence. That led to worse jobs, which led to worse financial outcomes, which led to living in worse parts of town, which led to the next generation having less education... So, yes, there was pre-e…

Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their group. To your redlining example: it’s true a black american who inherits a house may have lower home equity than a white american who inherits a house. But isn’t the white american who didn’t inherit anything worse off than both? You can’t lump white americans…

> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral

Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason.

> Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh.

Whoa. They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world? Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged”?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#83

Post by postflopclarity » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

baking wrote: post #15

"The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays." "Net effect: a $175k household with a house and a 401(k) is judged "full pay," pays near-sticker from already-taxed income, and receives essentially nothing." I never know how to resolve these two statements. In our case, my daughter happened to choose a good public university. Maybe that is what they mean.

it's easily resolvable. the first statement is a lie: MANY students pay the full, published cost of attendance.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#84

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #63

rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual on the premise that moral wrongs may have been committed against other individuals?

The death penalty is an example of two wrongs making a right in the minds of many people. It’s also at the same time an example of two wrongs not making a right. Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right. Whether affirmative action is a wrong is your presumption, and it’s hotly contested, absolutely no…

> Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right.

In that case, the punishment is not a “wrong” because the person being punished has moral culpability due to their bad act.

That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act. That’s a principle that some societies hold that ours does not. In clan based societies, a wrong committed by one member of clan A to a member of clan B can justify retaliation against a different member of clan A.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#85

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

esafak wrote: post #70

rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual on the premise that moral wrongs may have been committed against other individuals?

If you take something from me and the government takes it back that's two wrongs in your book??

If I steal something from you and then you retaliate by stealing something from my cousin, then that’s the definition of two wrongs.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#86

Post by cliglot » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

baking wrote: post #15

"The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays." "Net effect: a $175k household with a house and a 401(k) is judged "full pay," pays near-sticker from already-taxed income, and receives essentially nothing." I never know how to resolve these two statements. In our case, my daughter happened to choose a good public university. Maybe that is what they mean.

I gave up with a dreams of returning to school when I realized in my early 20s, despite paying my own rent, bills, taxes, etc, the financial aid system considered me a dependent of my father still and lumped his income in with the calculations done to determine what I get/don’t get.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#87

Post by dahart » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #84

dahart wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death penalty is an example of two wrongs making a right in the minds of many people. It’s also at the same time an example of two wrongs not making a right. Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right. Whether affirmative action is a wrong is your presumption, and it’s hotly contested, absolutely no…

> Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right. In that case, the punishment is not a “wrong” because the person being punished has moral culpability due to their bad act. That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act. That’s a principle that some societies hold…

I reject your presumptive framing that affirmative action is a “punishment”. If you help someone, you are punishing the entire world?

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#88

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 4:58 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #61

rayiner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong, unlike applying pressure to a pendulum. So your example doesn’t work because it doesn’t raise the disputed moral question. Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. It’s fundamentally mistaken to view the issue in terms of a pendulum that represents group outcomes.

> Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong? > Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? Did I imagine the 19th amendment?

> people pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong?

Wrong, but not illegal.

> What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist?

You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#89

Post by graemep » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 5:09 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #69

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were things like redlining, where blacks could only buy housing in certain areas. Those areas also tended to have worse schools, so the next generation of blacks was less well educated than whites of equivalent intelligence. That led to worse jobs, which led to worse financial outcomes, which led to living in worse parts of town, which led to the next generation having less education... So, yes, there was pre-e…

Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their group. To your redlining example: it’s true a black american who inherits a house may have lower home equity than a white american who inherits a house. But isn’t the white american who didn’t inherit anything worse off than both? You can’t lump white americans…

Your reasoning is exactly why I loathe any step towards this sort of thing in the UK. You cannot infer disadvantage from a simple racial categories. For example, the majority of South Asians I know in the UK have affluent and/or well educated parents. On the other hand I know there are people whose parents were poor educated, spoke English as a second language, went to schools in bad areas, etc. If you try to balance by ethnic group its the former who will get the most advantage from it. The Asian side of my ancestry was both more affluent, and had more people go to university than the white side.

As the article says the best universities here look at predicated A levels grades, their own admissions tests, and interviews. From what I have heard at open days etc. they are often clear that they do not care about ethnicity or skills at sports.

Re: What did SFFA vs. Harvard reveal about admissions?

#90

Post by kxyvr » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #79

kxyvr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a wonderful exchange in the movie Interstellar that speaks to this: Cooper: You're ruling my son out for college now? The kid's fifteen. Principal: Tom's score simply isn't high enough. Cooper: What's your waistline? 32? With, what, a 33 inseam? Principal: I'm not sure I see what you're getting at. Cooper: You're telling me it takes two numbers to measure your own ass but only one to measure my son's future?…

The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other. If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever. Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most close…

I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not.

My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preference, teacher recommendations, and other people involved with the process at the school. Outside of meeting state criteria, the numbers in the test were used to identify areas of strength and weakness to help understand a child and put this in perspective of a broader story. For example, if a child struggled with math, was it because they couldn't read well, struggled with the math itself, was distractable? There were also other instances where the test scores themselves were misleading. For example, did a child perform poorly because they were sick, or the AC of the building broke, or they set a test date on a school holiday when the child knew the other kids had a day off?

My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment. The SAT and college admission is not different.

Purely using a test score does provide an objective score to rank a collection of applicants, but I still contend strongly that it misses the point. Depending on your point of view, college is meant to educate a populace, provide job training, give economic opportunity, or a whole host of other goals. One can use test scores a proxy to determine which applicants best approximate these goals, but I think we should consider whether they really help achieve this.

I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either. I'd a friend who dated a guy who worked for Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. They were also very expensive. As a result, money and wealth can be used pretty directly to improve one's score. It's difficult for a university to fully address wealth inequality in society. However, since tests can be gamed so easily, I would caution against their over use.