UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors • Hacker News Board

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#171

Post by supercanuck » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

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…

So if it happens, why hide it?

Nobody is complaining about fairness or that it happens, let it happen but be open and honest about these transactions so other market participants can behave accordingly.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#172

Post by samatman » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

vallard wrote: post #100

wegs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All schools do NOT do this. I went to MIT: * MIT wouldn't be caught dead with JUST 64 students admitted on the basis of connections and donations. * MIT wouldn't be caught dead letting external auditors look at this stuff. * MIT wouldn't be caught. None of this would be public for MIT. That's what NDAs and non-disparage agreements are for. I'm sorry, but all schools don't do this. Most are smart enough to stay out of…

I appreciate your zealousness for MIT but your response doesn't mean that it hasn't happened at MIT nor other revered places of higher learning in the past, just that it hasn't been made widely known. The people I associated with at Cal I thought were above this kind of behavior as well, but apparently not. I would be sad to hear about this for MIT or any other college. However there's a lot of deals that happen behi…

I think you missed the thrust of the post you're replying to.

Read it again.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#173

Post by compiler-guy » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #9

I am really impressed by the reporting format here. The illustrations are fantastic.

It was not anyone from within the UC System, nor anyone from within higher education.

The Auditors of the State of California wrote it. A body of auditors who are officially part of the executive branch, but wholly independent of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Auditor

They are extremely professional.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#174

Post by compiler-guy » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

kneel wrote: post #155

blakesterz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I wasn't really sure what to expect, but you're right. Whoever designed this did a GREAT job.

Academia is filled with administrators who make powerpoint presentations, it's not a complete waste.

It was not written by anyone in academia. It was written by the Auditors of the State of California.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#175

Post by edmundsauto » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

potatochup wrote: post #131

setgree wrote: post #84

If you had asked me yesterday what percent of students I thought got into UC schools due to personal connection or wealth, I would have estimated between 10-20%. But this report seems to suggest otherwise: > In Violation of University Policy, the Campuses We Reviewed Admitted 64 Applicants Because of Their Families’ Donations and Connections > UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted 42 other applicants the UC schools as…

Side note, but why are water polo and volleyball considered upper-class sports in the USA? I understand regular polo, rowing, etc, because of the cost of equipment. But at my school (on the other side of the world), volleyball was for the islanders, and water polo was for the misfits who couldn't make it in a more popular sport. What sports in the USA are for the plebs? Baseball?

Water polo requires a pool, which is expensive. Baseball requires a large field, also expensive. I believe basketball is so popular in part because of the (relatively) low equipment/space cost.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#176

Post by orangecat » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #32

I have failed to be outraged. 1/3 of them were admitted as student athletes. Everyone knows that it is official policy at most schools to accept people with athletic ability who would not qualify academically. Why? Because those athletic programs make the university a lot of money! How is admitting someone because their family gave a lot of money any different in principle? It is just a question of reducing how many…

That's an excellent point. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating both legacy admissions and athletic scholarships at public universities.

It reminds me of the Lori Loughlin case, where she was arrested not because bribing a university to admit your child is unfair to other applicants and sullies the ideal of an academic meritocracy, but because she didn't follow the university's established process for bribery. (Matt Levine expounds on this with his usual hilarity at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...)

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#177

Post by compiler-guy » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

joncp wrote: post #19

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

Since Berkeley is public, there's an expectation of more fairness. ... I'm more surprised it was only 64 kids.

They were extremely conservative in their counting. It wasn't enough to have suspicious circumstances, they had to be able to prove it.

The real number is likely much, much higher, and they say so.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#178

Post by compiler-guy » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

ciarannolan wrote: post #58

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.

I think you also have to determine the purpose of a university. It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students (economically and educationally). Mixing these two doesn't work.

Totally the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are many ways to work the two goals together. And understanding it in these very limited dimensions is a complete mistake.

The very definition of what a "top student" is varies a great deal.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#179

Post by oh_sigh » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

kevincrane wrote: post #161

awillen wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where on earth do you think inner city kids are playing water polo and golf? Just because golf courses aren't that expensive to play on doesn't mean they're accessible to poor people (plus there's the cost of clubs, obviously). And water polo... even if there are public pools near you, they probably aren't dedicating space for competitive water polo.

I played water polo at my public high school and only had to buy a swimsuit?

Your public high school had a swimming pool?

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#180

Post by samatman » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

beervirus wrote: post #165

amithassan wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who decides what merit is, and who deserves it? And certain kinds of merit can come primarily/only from high caste individuals. How do you choose merit that isn't coloured in race or otherwise?

> But who decides what merit is, and who deserves it? Academic merit, evaluated by testing.

What you're proposing is testocracy.

Which has a storied history, being the primary means of governance of China for millennia.

But to call it meritocracy, we must do two things: elide the correlation between tested excellence and academic performance, which correlation is strong but not perfect, and then conflate academic merit with meritoriousness generally, which I firmly reject.

Call it what it is: testocracy. A quick search shows that the word is not unknown. I'd accept a better one, so long as it doesn't involve pretending that grinding ones life away for a chance at the top is equal to merit.