Live data from Hacker News

The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

ft.com

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#11
post #7

This is a very good summary of my own thoughts regarding the Supreme Court ruling. The American obsession with race in this specific case translates into focusing on a more superficial problem and polarizing the debate, as opposed to finding an easier solution to the bigger problem of ALDC admissions (namely: ban them), which I assume would be less controversial.

They should just increase the price of admission for non merit based spots. but the universities want to take the money as a “donation” instead of cost of goods, so the parents can save on taxes as well and donate twice as much. maybe tuition should be tax deductible for everyone instead.

No they shouldn't: anything that's "pay for play" is morally bankrupt. It reinforces the stigma that there are different rules for the rich in this country.

Bribery of congressmen (a.k.a lobbying) or university deans (ALDC admissions) are forms of legal corruptions. You might argue that a private institution can do whatever it wants, and I agree. But in this case it should get 0 tax benefits/subsidies, esp. when they have $B+ endowments.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#13
HN seems to be chock full of people who have vendettas against so called "elite" schools probably because they didn't get in. Which is weird since there also is large number of people who were self taught and didn't even go to school and are very successful. These schools are private businesses, forget private universities being some about some bastion of knowledge and discovery of truth, their primary concern is funding ongoing operations. There are plenty of schools that can provide a similar education if that is what you are going for.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#14

> " The genuinely radical Ivy League option — spending their vast endowments to sharply increase student numbers — is unlikely to be entertained. " This is often said but doesn't seem to be realistic if one digs into the numbers. Endowments aren't one big slush fund that the university can use however they want; they are a collection of individual donations, many of which can only be used in accordance with the donor…

I am paywalled from the article, so maybe I’m misunderstanding the quote you pulled due to lack of context, but you also can’t just double the acceptance rate over night. Even if you could admit more students and cover their tuition, you run into a number of issues, e.g.:

1) Students have to live somewhere. More students living off campus will drive up apartment rent in the area. You can build dorms to increase the housing supply for students and reduce the demand for off campus apartments, but that requires large building projects.

2) Similarly, increasing the student population means more class rooms, teaching labs, and possibly larger lecture halls for the most popular classes (e.g., calculus courses taken by every STEM student). That means more building projects.

3) You need to hire more faculty. While you might be able to get away with adjuncts or postdocs teaching a few things, people that want to go to these schools want to have the opportunity to interact and learn from the top experts in their field, i.e. faculty professors. Expanding the faculty is not an easy thing to do overnight. Even if the will is there to grow, departments are highly selective when it comes to hiring. The person you are hiring is joining the university potentially for life. Moreover, if you choose wrong and deny them tenure, the result blows back on the department. Hot tenure track candidates get many offers, and they don’t want to risk moving somewhere and building a lab for 5-7 years only to be denied tenure and having to move their life elsewhere (they’ve already done that quite a bit throughout their student and postdoc days). Moreover, those candidates need to be courted with resources like spaces for their research lab, so, again, more construction is needed.

4) Where do you build all these buildings? Many of the Ivies are located in major cities (e.g., Boston, New York, Philadelphia). There isn’t a lot of open space to build big new buildings. Moreover, while they often own buildings adjacent to campus and lease them to businesses and tenants, decimating a city block to displace these people in favor of building more lectures or residential halls is a bad look politically and a hard sell to local governments. These schools already draw complaints from the locals about their expansion gentrifying areas and driving locals out through the resulting rise in rents and taxes. Even suburban Princeton has been rapidly consuming their green spaces lately to build new facilities. An option might be to start opening separate campuses, but that’s unappealing to their prospective students.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#15
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just increase the price of admission for non merit based spots. but the universities want to take the money as a “donation” instead of cost of goods, so the parents can save on taxes as well and donate twice as much. maybe tuition should be tax deductible for everyone instead.

They basically already do. It’s called people that pay full tuition (and subsidize people that don’t - full usually doesn’t mean cost, it means cost+). Private universities are typically only using legacy status to add a slight advantage to candidates that are in the paying full freight pool (I.e. they’re not giving a spot to a below average legacy candidate that needs financial aid)

They certainly give away a few of those spots, but the price is a significant donation that will cover more than one student who needs financial aid, and the Ivies give very generous aid to those that need it. I know more than one person that chose an Ivy because they got significantly more aid than from other elite schools to which they were accepted.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#16

HN seems to be chock full of people who have vendettas against so called "elite" schools probably because they didn't get in. Which is weird since there also is large number of people who were self taught and didn't even go to school and are very successful. These schools are private businesses, forget private universities being some about some bastion of knowledge and discovery of truth, their primary concern is fun…

The article was not written by "HN." The author, Edward Luce, is an Oxford University graduate whose father holds the title of a baron in the UK, was at some point the Governor of Gibraltar, and then a member of the British parliament for 20 years. Do you think what he wrote stems from an anti-elite agenda? Or could it perhaps simply be good journalism, even if it means upsetting the powers that be?

I can't speak for the collective "HN" but the interest in this topic might have something to do with the fact that a lot of people here believe anything but meritocracy is suboptimal and ultimately self-defeating in the longer run.

I decided to share this also because, no matter the topic, it's been a while since I've read anything so succinctly put, and getting to the gist of the matter, gloves off.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#17
post #14

> " The genuinely radical Ivy League option — spending their vast endowments to sharply increase student numbers — is unlikely to be entertained. " This is often said but doesn't seem to be realistic if one digs into the numbers. Endowments aren't one big slush fund that the university can use however they want; they are a collection of individual donations, many of which can only be used in accordance with the donor…

I am paywalled from the article, so maybe I’m misunderstanding the quote you pulled due to lack of context, but you also can’t just double the acceptance rate over night. Even if you could admit more students and cover their tuition, you run into a number of issues, e.g.: 1) Students have to live somewhere. More students living off campus will drive up apartment rent in the area. You can build dorms to increase the h…

> I am paywalled from the article [...]

Just a technical note: by HN guidelines, the submission URL must point to the original source but I also linked to a mirror that bypasses the paywall in a parallel comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36603895

(Perhaps I should've labeled it "paywall bypass" instead of just "mirror" but I can't edit that post anymore.)

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#18
post #14

> " The genuinely radical Ivy League option — spending their vast endowments to sharply increase student numbers — is unlikely to be entertained. " This is often said but doesn't seem to be realistic if one digs into the numbers. Endowments aren't one big slush fund that the university can use however they want; they are a collection of individual donations, many of which can only be used in accordance with the donor…

I am paywalled from the article, so maybe I’m misunderstanding the quote you pulled due to lack of context, but you also can’t just double the acceptance rate over night. Even if you could admit more students and cover their tuition, you run into a number of issues, e.g.: 1) Students have to live somewhere. More students living off campus will drive up apartment rent in the area. You can build dorms to increase the h…

Maybe there could be a Harvard Lite online academy that wouldn't need any extra buildings and just a little staff, but supply very high quality courses.

Also, it could be available to English-speaking people worldwide, including places like Africa, where wider availability high-quality education could make a huge difference - wouldn't that be a win for anyone who is concerned about social justice?

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#19
post #16

HN seems to be chock full of people who have vendettas against so called "elite" schools probably because they didn't get in. Which is weird since there also is large number of people who were self taught and didn't even go to school and are very successful. These schools are private businesses, forget private universities being some about some bastion of knowledge and discovery of truth, their primary concern is fun…

The article was not written by "HN." The author, Edward Luce, is an Oxford University graduate whose father holds the title of a baron in the UK, was at some point the Governor of Gibraltar, and then a member of the British parliament for 20 years. Do you think what he wrote stems from an anti-elite agenda? Or could it perhaps simply be good journalism, even if it means upsetting the powers that be? I can't speak for…

I didn't even read article, and my point was entirely fulfilled by your response and other comments here. There are plenty of places where things are sub optimal but the amount of attention received by this is disproportionate. All I am saying is an observation

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#20

i don’t get why the chief beneficiary of AA is elite whites as quoted by the article conclusion? are they referring to the legacy and the donors? how is that AA?

It wasn't worded in the clearest way but I believe the author is talking about AA in the context of Ivy leagues specifically, and that AA at those institutions has done nothing to offset the % of (mostly white) elites who gain access through athletics/legacy admissions, etc. How this benefits those same elites is that by having universities push AA as a part of their public image (i.e., we're doing our part in fixing the damage done by our slave-owning founder) it draws attention away from the privileged forms of admission that actually impact who attends Ivy Leagues. Basically AA at those schools is a smokescreen that does very little while allowing those schools to pretend like they're helping fight for anti-racism, social equity, and so on.
Post reply on HN