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

Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 235 posts

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#201

Post by leereeves »

tptacek wrote: post #197
rayiner wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Bernie is a great example because identity politics was specifically used against him; his supporters were derided as mostly white male "Bernie Bros". And the abiding irony of that was that most of the people who did that supported Elizabeth Warren, who had vanishingly little support from actual minorities. She finished behind Tom Steyer in South Carolina and behind Mayor Pete in Nevada (states where the democr…

All that aside, it seems like the original point being made was roughly that Occupy and Bernie were popular causes among young and online people, but not among the broader electorate. And that's basically true, right?

It seems to me that 43% support among Democrat primary voters is fairly broad, but I guess that's just a debate about semantics.

I would argue, however, that he faced tremendous opposition from the wealthy, and that translated into most corporate media either attacking him or ignoring him, so his supporters could only be heard on social media.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#202

Post by tptacek »

leereeves wrote: post #201
tptacek wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that aside, it seems like the original point being made was roughly that Occupy and Bernie were popular causes among young and online people, but not among the broader electorate. And that's basically true, right?

It seems to me that 43% support among Democrat primary voters is fairly broad, but I guess that's just a debate about semantics. I would argue, however, that he faced tremendous opposition from the wealthy, and that translated into most corporate media either attacking him or ignoring him, so his supporters could only be heard on social media.

Look at the Michigan county-by-county primary results (better yet: compare 2020 to 2016) and tell me that Democratic Socialism is a viable position in the modern Democratic party. Sanders didn't even take Washtenaw this go-round. I think it's very likely that Sanders overperformance in 2016 was really an artifact for a lot of deep-seated dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton (something Biden himself was reported sour about in the wake of the 2016 fiasco).

Corporate opposition is a just-so story. Until his campaign fell apart, Sanders stomped Biden in earned media coverage.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#203

Post by billiallards »

lolinder wrote: post #107
Spivak wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One school cuts their financial aid program, sucks but not illegal. Every school cuts their financial aid program, smells like price fixing. Students would have chosen a school with a more attractive financial aid program, which is a real effect — it’s super common to apply a bunch of similar schools and go to the one that gives you the most financial aid but the allegation is that all the programs dried up all at on…

> it’s super common to apply a bunch of similar schools and go to the one that gives you the most financial aid but the allegation is that all the programs dried up all at once and not going to college at all pretty much isn’t an option for a lot of fields. Not going to one of the "elite" schools is, though, and it's not like financial aid disappeared at all the state schools. The reputational difference between the…

>The reputational difference between the state schools and the ivy league has been narrowing a lot in recent years in response to numerous scandals like this and a lot of improvement from the state schools.

The elite schools are considered "elite" not because they offer a better education, but because they ensure that your classmates will be valuable network contacts after you graduate.

From the perspective of the school, admitting people who are already wealthy/successful is preferable to admitting people who may become successful in the future. The school's status depends on having a disproportionately large population from the former group.

They act this way because the business world works similarly: you are more valuable if you are already on a first-name basis with high-level executives and politicals, because you can listen to the wind and bring your contacts in on the businesses that you are involved in.

All of that is a long-winded rephrasing of the old truism: it's not about what you know, but who you know.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#204

Post by credit_guy »

xmddmx wrote: post #144

This is one of those complex topics which on HN, seesm to lead to "it's simple, do X" types of analyses, which tend to be simple, confident, and wrong. Some facts to consider: At Harvard, over 40% of non-minority students received special treatment for admissions (which includes factors such as being a legacy, athlete, or the 'dean's list' which was a list of high donating parents). 75% of those would not have been a…

It does not look to me the SAT study you linked to concludes what you claim it concludes.

You are saying in 81% of the cases the SAT score is useless. They are saying this:

  When HSGPA (high school GPA) and SAT are combined, the correlation with FYGPA jumps to .61, an increase of .08 and a 15% boost in predictive utility over using HSGPA alone.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#205

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #110
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

To the people complaining about this: this is actually a very positive development that I welcome and you should too. This entire time, elite U.S. colleges have been carefully steering conversations about admissions in the direction of racial quotas, to avoid talking about how by far the largest driver of unfairness in the admissions process is legacy admissions and donation quid pro quo arrangements. If you want to…

The degree to which the elite institutions have managed to co-opt the left by playing identity progressives against economic progressives is both brilliant and scary. They've managed to paint adding some privileged, Ivy League educated minorities to corporate boards as progressive victories on behalf of minority groups who mostly don't even attend college. Meanwhile there has been zero progress on adding workers to c…

On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren, the apotheosis of the elite institutional left you're talking about, ran for president on a platform of getting workers onto boards, and got absolutely crushed.

It's possible that race simply has more charge than class does, regardless of the axiomatic arguments people have for why it should be the other way around.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#206

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #197
rayiner wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Bernie is a great example because identity politics was specifically used against him; his supporters were derided as mostly white male "Bernie Bros". And the abiding irony of that was that most of the people who did that supported Elizabeth Warren, who had vanishingly little support from actual minorities. She finished behind Tom Steyer in South Carolina and behind Mayor Pete in Nevada (states where the democr…

All that aside, it seems like the original point being made was roughly that Occupy and Bernie were popular causes among young and online people, but not among the broader electorate. And that's basically true, right?

I would say Sanders is popular, and not just among "online people." He won Nevada, including a decisive victory among Hispanics. The state as a whole is a working class state, and Hispanics there especially so. While he's not more popular than Biden, but he represents the only other "lane" in the Democratic Party that has meaningful purchase with actual voters, especially "not online" voters. And of course, let's not forget that anti-Wall Street, anti-corporate sentiment is emergent on the right as well--especially among persuadable voters and independents.

What isn't popular among voters, by contrast, is the woke managerialism lane Warren has come to represent. That's significant both because it points to how the party should recalibrate its message, and also because of its implications for the party's management structure (where the woke managerialists have outsize power). I suspect Democrats' reshuffling of the primaries will significantly ameliorate both problems.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#207

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #206
tptacek wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that aside, it seems like the original point being made was roughly that Occupy and Bernie were popular causes among young and online people, but not among the broader electorate. And that's basically true, right?

I would say Sanders is popular, and not just among "online people." He won Nevada, including a decisive victory among Hispanics. The state as a whole is a working class state, and Hispanics there especially so. While he's not more popular than Biden, but he represents the only other "lane" in the Democratic Party that has meaningful purchase with actual voters, especially "not online" voters. And of course, let's not…

I may have gotten myself in trouble here implying that Sanders is unpopular; he's not. He's just not viable. You can't win the Democratic nomination without the Black vote, and, for whatever reason, Sanders just wasn't able to connect there. It's academic now, of course; Sanders isn't going to run again.

I'm not a Warren fan either. I'm the weirdo in this conversation who was actually rooting for Biden.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#208

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #205
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The degree to which the elite institutions have managed to co-opt the left by playing identity progressives against economic progressives is both brilliant and scary. They've managed to paint adding some privileged, Ivy League educated minorities to corporate boards as progressive victories on behalf of minority groups who mostly don't even attend college. Meanwhile there has been zero progress on adding workers to c…

On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren, the apotheosis of the elite institutional left you're talking about, ran for president on a platform of getting workers onto boards, and got absolutely crushed. It's possible that race simply has more charge than class does, regardless of the axiomatic arguments people have for why it should be the other way around.

That assumes people read platforms, which I think is incorrect. Warren got maneuvered by the media and activists into a "woke white lady with a plan" lane that just turned out to be a total loser. If she had campaigned on the worker stuff and didn't call people "Latinix" I think she would've done far better.

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#209

Post by fsckboy »

charlieyu1 wrote: post #177
fsckboy wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 75% of those would not have been admitted w/o that help this not making a claim anywhere near as interesting as it pretends. Since you're using a %, what is the % difference in quality that admitting these 75% makes (assuming it's even true, considering I don't believe much from the Guardian) and how does that (what the author calls "affirmative action") compare with other affirmative actions taken to achieve a bal…

Grades are the only metric that is difficult to cheat even with wealth.

unless you have especially rigorous grading (and look at the volume of comments here bitching about grading on a curve, so it's rare), it's easy to get good grades by just doing the normal amount of work, put in some time each day on each class. It's a measure of conscientiousness, not smartness, ability, etc., but yes, it's a good measure of getting a baseline amount of learning out of a course, nothing exceptional.

(people here who bitch about grading on a curve should take a course in statistics graded on a curve, then listen to their fellow students who got A's to explain how it works.)

Re: Students suing elite U.S. colleges seek 'wealth favoritism' information

#210

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #208
tptacek wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren, the apotheosis of the elite institutional left you're talking about, ran for president on a platform of getting workers onto boards, and got absolutely crushed. It's possible that race simply has more charge than class does, regardless of the axiomatic arguments people have for why it should be the other way around.

That assumes people read platforms, which I think is incorrect. Warren got maneuvered by the media and activists into a "woke white lady with a plan" lane that just turned out to be a total loser. If she had campaigned on the worker stuff and didn't call people "Latinix" I think she would've done far better.

Ok, but they didn't have to read about it? She talked about it a bunch. It didn't seem to light anybody up.
Post reply on HN