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

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#211

Post by curiousllama » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

currymj wrote: post #26

nirajd wrote: post #3

Not surprising at all; however, I am curious how someone who didn't meet the admissions criteria is able to graduate CAL with a passing GPA...

i guarantee you there are a number of people every year who get rejected from Berkeley but accepted to Stanford (or equivalent) -- just a lot of noise in the process and after a certain point it becomes pretty arbitrary. i bet this fact is how the admissions officials rationalized this corruption -- if the line between acceptance and rejection is arbitrary anyway, how much worse could it be to try to get some money o…

> Just a lot of noise in the process

Agreed. I was accepted to a top-5 school and rejected from more than one school ranked 25+ (one was >50). I know someone for grad school applied to 5 schools: they got rejected from all 5 schools, reapplied the next year, and got accepted to 3/5.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#212

Post by renewiltord » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

wyxuan wrote: post #186

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…

If you read the report, a lot of the student athletes aren't actually athletes, but have been designated as such to overcome poor scores in the admissions process. In any case, it might be negatively impacting the school's athletic program because real athletes have spots taken by opportunists.

Interesting. You accuse that guy of not having read the report but his comment doesn't make sense unless he's aware of the idea described in it. Ironically, if you had read his comment you would not have needed to have said "if you read the report".

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#213

Post by acruns » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #195

_pd19 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can only sell prestige if there is strategic ambiguity between the two categories.

And that ambiguity is an economy: the rich slackers are seen as smart by association with the achievements of (past) students admitted by merit, and the rabble students acquire aristocratic social cache by the same token. I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a self-powering machine.

That is an absolutely wonderful use of the word cache.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#214

Post by tzs » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

maedla wrote: post #147

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.

That's probably true if done the way suggested, where the auctioned slots are open to anyone who pays enough money.

Suppose that instead the auction was only open to people who got put on the wait list after the regular admissions process?

Top schools get a lot more qualified applicants than they have openings for, and a lot of people end up on the wait list who are just as qualified as people who were admitted.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#215

Post by arcticbull » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

acruns wrote: post #213

rhizome wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that ambiguity is an economy: the rich slackers are seen as smart by association with the achievements of (past) students admitted by merit, and the rabble students acquire aristocratic social cache by the same token. I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a self-powering machine.

That is an absolutely wonderful use of the word cache.

You're looking for cachet ("the state of being respected or admired; prestige") not cache ("hidden away for future use").

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#216

Post by throwawayay02 » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

Sigh, this again. This is a solved issue. Many countries, large countries, with lots of rich people and smart kids have figured this out. Standardized tests for every single student at the same time. Once per year, no exceptions. Best graded students have first pick, nationwide, to all universities in the country. No other factor in place.

Yes, rich kids will on average have the advantage because they are more likely to afford good studying conditions and a tutor, nothing to do about this, rich kids will always have some advantage on average. This system motivates everyone, rich or poor, that what matters most to climb the social ladder (or just not fall) is effective studying.

It really is a great system, you can see what were the grades the previous year for your dream university and course, and give it your all with knowledge that it is solely in your hands, and not depending on alumni, quotas, distance, wealth, etc.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#217

Post by scandox » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

hatmatrix wrote: post #194

scandox wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to a boarding school in the UK that followed this model. Ultimately you lose the prestige. Not necessarily quickly enough for any individual to care. But that's the path. Lots of boys sitting in their rooms smoking weed and ordering pizza and having to be edged out over 2 or 3 years because their parents paid for a swimming pool...

Probably depends on the portion of donor vs. merit positions though doesn't it? As long as the overwhelming majority is merit-based, the academic reputation of the school should be maintained.

This also completely ignores the effect on the other pupils. It's like any form of corruption, it lowers morale and makes people view their situation in a reductive and transactional manner. Ultimately it fosters an attitude which is characterised by a desire to game, control and exploit as opposed to learn, understand and engage.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#218

Post by jdkee » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

The fact that universities in the 21st century place such a great importance on athletics is anachronistic and regressive.

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#219

Post by jwilber » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

Can’t wait to bring this up whenever they call for alumni donations!

Never giving a penny.

(In all seriousness, the people who call are usually just students working a job, so be respectful of you plan to do the same. Just ask to mark that as the reason for no donation).

Re: UC Berkeley inappropriately admitted students as favors to donors

#220

Post by nradov » Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #141

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 s…

Is grade inflation for rich students really an issue at many colleges? Most majors at most colleges are honestly not that hard. Anyone who shows up and does a modicum of work can skate by with a gentleman's C.

At D1 schools the football and basketball programs generate huge revenue, which is used to subsidize less popular sports (particularly women's teams under Title IX). For better or worse a lot of prospective students care about sports and it's a factor in making colleges more attractive.