Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

auditor.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 456 posts

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#141

Post by ajkjk »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

I'm generally opposed to this kind of acceptance-of-bad-things but in this case I kinda agree. If people are willing to pay millions to go to college, that's potentially a great advantage to students who otherwise have trouble affording it -- let the rich kids subsidize it for everyone else. By not funneling the donations through weird under-the-table transactions it can be more directly used for a net good for the student body.

It is tricky to maintain the 'prestige' associated with an institution doing this, so I don't really agree with making it too public. But, after all, it was kinda an open secret that this happens and the prestige was maintained away, so if it kept happening with a bit more legitimacy it probably wouldn't change much. Prestige doesn't just mean academic credentials: for some people, if they see Berkeley on a resumé they probably want it to be because that applicant is super-rich and well-connected!

My ideal reform would be a simultaneous enactment of several things:

* allow people to pay millions to go to college; allow this to fund student aid for other students. Explicitly stop using it to build buildings

* stop having all of these overfunded and weirdly inappropriate sports institutions as a core part of academia.

* stop with massively-inflated grades that allow the rich-but-undercapable kids to graduate with the appearance of successful academics. They can buy their way in but they have to do as well as everybody else after that.

* ensure that the influx of money from rich kids' applications doesn't go to administrators in any way, as that would incentivize them to over-prioritize these people.

This reframes things so that the point of strong applications isn't to _get in_, it's to get the scholarships required to get in for free instead of paying the absurd tuition. Meanwhile the school has to keep admitting remarkable kids in order to maintain its brand as prestigious. All of this is already how it works, but making it explicit ought to align incentivizes in a way that makes the whole thing less disturbingly bizarre.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#142

Post by vkou »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #88
jedberg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re-leaglize. It was legal until the 90s. When it became illegal, the diversity on campus dropped significantly. There is an argument to be made that the race-based admissions help make up for prior injustices.

Yes, we need to rectify the injustices commited by Asian Americans by discriminating against them in college admissions.

Is that the only result of affirmative action admissions, or are there a few you are leaving out?

Do you have a better plan for dealing with systemic racism[1], that does not have the drawback you cite? Do you believe that systemic racism doesn't exist? Or do you believe that it does exist, but we shouldn't do anything about it?

Which of those three options are you championing?

[1] I understand that the mere mention of this concept is a dogwhistle for negative karma.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#143

Post by ipnon »

nicoburns wrote: post #94
ipnon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of privilege first entered the public sphere in the prelude to the French Revolution. "Privilege" in Old French literally means "private law".[1] It was the idea that a different set of rules for each of the Estates (Clergy, Nobles, and Commoners) was both fair and natural. Are we are starting to see similarly different sets of rules for each class in the United States? Is such privilege in accordance with o…

Starting? When has this not been the case?

Before the 18th century most people could not read. Literacy rates began rising dramatically starting in the 17th century with the invention of the printing press and the proliferation of reading materials that it spawned. By the third quarter of the 18th century, an extraordinary milestone was passed in France. For the first time in history more people could read than could not. The commoners of Paris were obsessed with the plays, novels and essays of Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot. The satire and wit of these thinkers inspired a new form of popular discourse we now call critical thinking. Commoners from rich merchants to petty artisans started examining and discovering the contradictions and injustices endemic to their lot in life. The idea of privilege came from this tempest of new ideas. While the hierarchy of power and its unequal treatment are as old as time, this newly educated population was for the first time able to see this hierarchy of power for what it is: an inherited system of control based on fraudulent claims to divinity that is inherently unfair and unjust.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#144

Post by dragonwriter »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #135
q3k wrote: post #15

I thought this was common practice in US universities, in the form of so called 'legacy admissions' [1]? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

There are some universities and colleges that choose openly or non-openly consider. However, the policy of the UC System Board of Regents expressly forbids legacy and donor preference. Additionally, as a public institution there are due process concerns with not evaluating applications in accordance with the published factors and criteria, which in this case do not include legacy.

> Additionally, as a public institution there are due process concerns with not evaluating applications in accordance with the published factors and criteria, which in this case do not include legacy.

Those would simply be fraud considerations in a private institution that charges an application fee.

Of course, a private institution also has Equal Protection / (Substantive) Due Process considerations at play as to what the published factors and criteria can be, as well as (Procedural) Due Process considerations as to whether it actually follows them.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#145

Post by jrochkind1 »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #39
czzr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that related to this?

Because universities such as Berkeley claim they are a bastion of "diverse admission policies" as opposed to meritocracy which they call "a tyranny" which make them hypocrites as they have corrupt admission policies and practice cronyism.

So there are tons of people in this thread saying "it seems fine to me, of course wealthy people should get special treatment, that's fine."

It was never a "meritocracy". Wealthy people and well-connected people have always had an advantage, and still do.

This seems to me an argument for things like affirmative action. To try to balance the scales a bit. Not sure why you see it as an argument against.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#146

Post by kondu »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

This is pretty much what happens in most of the top private engineering schools in India. About a third of the seats are earmarked for "management quota", meaning you pay the management to get in. The rest qualify via various exams.

Works well, doesn't really devalue the prestige of the uni or the students who get in by paying like some of the sibling comments are speculating.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#147

Post by maedla »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

This would completely erode any public perception of prestige of any University that implements it.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#148

Post by rjsw »

mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

That is how ancient universities used to operate, there were several types of student who paid different amounts for their tuition, some background here [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoner_(academia)

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#149

Post by pge »

belorn wrote: post #128
mywittyname wrote: post #89

People are always going to use their money to buy status. So as long as these college offer prestige & status, people with money are going to use it to get in. Much like doping in sports, you have two paths you can take: try to combat cheating, or accept the cheating as part of the game. I think these universities should accept that they are providing an education, but they are selling prestige, and split their admis…

There are three systems. People who pay their way in, people who has the highest grades, and people who get in through diversity quota. Transparency in all three would cause a major waves into the public perspective of admission practices.

you neglected to mention athletes, the “acceptable” non-academic path in. In this case, they used that opening to get big donors in.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#150

Post by paulkennedy »

ffggvv wrote: post #119
dragonwriter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so it was legal until then but didn’t make a dent in inequality? It did make a dent in inequality. It didn't end it, but then it wasn't around nearly as long as the structural disadvantages that entrenched inequality, and it was a much gentler push than those it sought to mitigate the effects of.

it’s been legal since the 70s outside of california and outcomes for minorities have steadily gotten worse not better.

You don't think it's possible that affirmative action isn't the only variable there?
Post reply on HN