Live data from Hacker News

I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

vice.com

211–220 of 232 posts

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#212
Tons of rationalization for this behavior in the post and in the comments here.

There is one reason why this is wrong. When you participate in this kind of business, you are helping to perpetuate inequality in the world and making it less meritocratic, one essay at a time.

No need to expound on that I'm sure college educated minds capable of forging essays for profit will get my gist.

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#213
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And today C and O admit based on comprehensive objective tests just like almost all of the world's elite universities outside the USA. Huh? Qualified students are invited for a subjective interview, and then based on the results of this about half of them are given offers.

And there is a cottage industry in helping students perform well in those interviews its why public schools who know how the game is played do so well in getting their students into Oxbridge. I know that even back in the 70's our head of 6th form at a comprehensive helped the brighter students cram for Oxbridge - that was when you had to have a Latin O level to get in.

That's cool. I wish I had a headmaster who can prepare me for an interview in which I ended up discussing project euler questions, prolog, how jpeg works and how the way humans sort relate to how computers sort.

In maths interview, they give you an open question of some sort and want you to have a go at it. It's generally trivial and obscure so you cannot know the answer. How do you prepare for that?

It might work in history but simply not in STEM subjects.

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did it turn our for her? Is that strategy working for her after college as well?

Good question. She has a degree from Cal., so that opens doors for her. Last I checked she was VP of marketing for a chain of Valero gas stations in California. Much of her work seems to consist of negotiating large sums of money from various vendors for placing their products/refrigerators at key locations in their stores. It's astonishing what a generic-brand ice-cream vendor will pay a gas station to replace Hagen…

You've pretty much identified her with this description. Did you mean to?

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#215
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Writing ideas that superiors represent as their own, or clients do. If they actually do that, it'd be considered unethical. While specific credit isn't always given to the originator of an idea, superiors shouldn't pretend they actually had the idea. In many organizations, explicitly passing off an idea as your own would be a pretty serious offense.

No, it'd be business as usual. It is exactly how things are expected to work in industry. Industry is not academia, and crediting the originator of the idea is not a concern. Especially when it makes you look bad (why couldn't you come up with this? etc.)

I don't know what you mean by "industry." I don't think there are many generalizations that hold true between, say, government contractors and internet startups. Also, many companies have their own cultures - deliberately so.

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#216

First of all - wow, what a talented writer. No wonder her clients have done so well. Forgery of college admissions essays is rampant not just in China but also in the US (and I suspect in many other places), but actually the problem is really much worse than that. With the boom of the "college consultants" industry, professionals are essentially "forging" entire high school careers on behalf of their clients - tellin…

I was paid $50/hour for quite some time to do "marketing consulting" for a company started by a douchebag studying at Harvard. It was vaguely interesting work, and I over delivered on every expectation, but grew tired of his increasingly demanding explanations (pages long at times) of why I did what I did and who the market was. Those two questions were asked of me obsessively. Eventually, after I told him I was sick…

Please tell me you reported him to the professor?

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#217
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't you described a copy editor? That's their job. Its common everywhere (where people can afford one)

Well, I did my best to desribe how this is different from a copy editor. But it looks like it wasn't enough.

My wife has worked as an editor for 30 years. That description fits her job perfectly.

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#218
"Follow the money."

Yes, ethics and all that long interpretative jazz. Give the author credit for taking one step forward, but the money was the motivator. It is the motivator for these kids and their folks to go to the author, for the author to do something unethical, and for the admissions committees to turn a blind eye. The incentives are just too strong here. Follow the money.

But why? Why are people spending perfectly good coins on this system? Why are they working long days and weekends to make their kids work long days and weekends at 16 years of age? Why did the author work for them? Why do the admissions do this work, make these easily faked essay requirements that they have to then read? Why? Where is the money going?

I don't have a prefect answer, but I do know that Hope and dreams, and all that gummy stuff is the reason. It's a 'get your's' mentality that extends to the family and the children. 'I don't care if my kid cheats, because it's my kid, not your's' Anyone with a semblance of brain will put 2 and 2 together and realize this cannot last. If everyone cheats, then you ruined the world you were trying to get you child into. You are your own worst enemy in this regard. You have no money to follow.

And, from reading a lot of the comments here, it seems we are about 30-50% of the way there. We can do the stats there on this tragedy of the commons, but a tipping point has been reached: You'd be a fool to be honest, and now even the biggest dupes know it. Follow the money.

So what then? The admissions departments know it, or will have to formally recognize it in about 5-7 years. Then the cat really is out of the bag. And what happens then? It's an arms race like any other. Those with the pockets that reach past the shoes are the only winners. We have see this before may times in history (the exam system of China is most instructive, whole villages had to produce the funds to take the tests, Villages!). And, bob's you uncle, we end up back where we were 200 years ago. Follow the money.

Ahh, but no. HNers know better. The internet disrupts everything. It not only levels the field, it makes it inverted. The recent hack of phones, systems and anyone's computer make that world of coin and cash impossible. Admissions committees, even 20 years ago, were saying that it was effectively chance at getting into Stanford. The next 30 sets of classes were just as good as the one they accepted, it was luck. There is no money to follow with luck.

So, again, the internet comes into play. We have 30 sets of Stanford students, young people with brains, smarts and access to at least enough capital to get through the tests. Yes, do your stats, but you still get more real smart kids than there are elite colleges to get into, thanks to the internet. Pretty soon, and we're talking under a century, these places get a bad rap, as the admissions just can't keep up and never will. The lesser, the newer, the smaller schools, hell even places that aren't real schools, they get going. The entire idea of an elite school gets to be passe. Why, because the selectivity and the cash just don't make sense to go there. Follow the money.

So, we get something that is very different than what we had before. The cash, the aristocracy, it means less. Because money means less. Because status means less, because who the hell cares you went to Harvard or Cal. It's chance getting there anyways. Why waste all the coin and those August Saturday nights of your youth? The money won't make sense there, because the status is eroded, because the internet tells us it's all a lotto anyways, because the admissions departments can't pretend anymore that it's not aristocracy, because the internet tells us, because the coin did make sense before we all knew better. Follow the money.

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#219
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really sad when you think about it. It implies, on average, our minimum viable college students go into education. Not our best and brightest. Who ends up being the majority of the people teaching our children? Probably those same people.

I agree this is sad. On the other hand however one needs to consider how much is really lost this way. Given the inefficiency/pointlessness of much of the effort involved in compulsory education, I'm not sure better teachers would be able to significantly improve the system. We need a structural change here first, and only then start to look around for brigther people. Otherwise, any bright people that may enter the…

> We need a structural change here first, and only then start to look around for brighter people.

If you do things this way, the effectiveness of the current people is likely to suffer (in pretty much any area, not education specifically).

Re: I Ghostwrite Chinese Students' Ivy League Admissions Essays

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than just grade inflation -- in high schools across the united states the quality of courses vary so much as to be incomparable. Suppose you and I are both taking the most advanced English classes our schools offer. If I get an A and you get a B, but you're in a high school with just 300 people in it and I'm in a high school with 3000 people, I have no idea which grade 'means' more.

Theoretically, those grades should "mean" the same, because they should be measures on an absolute scale. What matters ins the quality of the school, which is not directly tied to the number of students at it.

Agreed that the quality of the school is really the fundamental determiner of grades. In the original comment I considered adding in a suggestion that a larger school could support more levels of classes, but it felt clunky so I just left it out. Of course, schools can be good and bad for many reasons orthogonal to their size. A small school might be a magnet school drawing the top students of a larger area. Or it might be a rural area which has a hard time recruiting teachers.
Post reply on HN