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

Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

triblive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 815 posts

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#501

Post by oatmeal1 »

Shacklz wrote: post #463
kulahan wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itse…

> This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do. Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

> Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution.

I don't think the word "simply" applies when you are suggesting the government take money from billionaires with their armies of lobbyists and redistribute the money to the masses.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#502

Post by vkou »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #40
philip1209 wrote: post #20

Next step: Ending use of athletic ability in admissions.

Sports programs at university pay for themselves. They pay for themselves because people buy tickets to games, which they do to see exceptional athletes.

> Sports programs at university pay for themselves.

Then spin them out as a sports club, owned by the university. Don't waste the athlete's times with classes, and don't waste class space with athletes that can't cut it.

(The reason that doesn't happen is because the athletes will actually start asking for a share of the billions of dollars earned by the club.)

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#503

Post by WillPostForFood »

vkou wrote: post #470
WillPostForFood wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example is backwards. Lying is the right, and truth is the wrong in your example. So in arguing for two wrongs are OK, you are suggesting you'd direct the mob to the person running away (maybe they were a person you didn't like, or were of privilege you resent).

> Lying is the right, and truth is the wrong in your example. Lying is wrong! Except, according to you, when it leads to good outcomes! It sounds like outcome-driven morality is what you're pushing for..? Then what's the problem with AA? Not using it to compensate for structural disadvantages is being in the wrong in its case...

"Lying is wrong" is a non-sequitur - like West is to the left. It is morality for 5 year olds or Sam Harris.

>Then what's the problem with AA? Not using it to compensate for structural disadvantages is being in the wrong in its case...

AA fails on that criteria as well. It isn't compensating the people who were wronged and the burden falls on people didn't do the wrong. Poor asian immigrant gets kicked out so Harvard can virtue signal and put a black face on their web page and course catalog. Never mind that kid is a wealthy immigrant from Kenya.

And to make it even worse, the AA admits do worse, drop out at higher rates, and drop down to lesser majors because many aren't academically competitive. They would have done better if they were matched on merit to schools.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#505

Post by [deleted] »

hnboredhn wrote: post #431
elil17 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But favoring legacy status in admissions is a form of racial discrimination because non-white people are much, much less likely to have legacy at elite institutions.

Harvard posted that 70% of their legacy admits were white and 30% non-white. That's higher than the population of 18 year olds but maybe not as extreme as some would think.

[deleted]

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#506

Post by vkou »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #262
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. I don't see why this even matters (besides the fact that it's not really true except for the biggest sports at some of the biggest sport schools). The debate is over whether it's fair that some students get the benefits that come with being an Ivy League grad without having the academic prowess to otherwise be admitted. Whether or not they are able to cover their co…

It boils down to this: If you have some fraction of your students who get in, not on their primary merits as students, but for some other reason that benefits the rest of the student body in some way, eliminating that fraction of the students benefits a handful of students who were at the very top of the waitlist to get in, at the cost of the benefits those preferentially selected students provided. In both athletics…

I can make the same argument for AA. A diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, including students who managed to overcome a lot more adversity than the average rich kid, or white-collar family admittee will make for a better, richer learning experience for everyone.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#507

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kulahan wrote: post #451
s17n wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the admissions situation. Now that's gone. As far as the freedom of association goes, that's not an argument in favor of legacy admissions but it is possibly an argument that the government should stay out of it. Given the central role that universities play in ou…

I never really understood the complaint. Rich people spend massive amounts of money to send their kid to a school. That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school, who come from all different backgrounds. This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Maybe we should limit it, but the actual practice itse…

> That massive, completely unnecessary investment is then reinvested across the students attending the school

You're confusing legacy and donor. My only issue with children of donors getting on the Dean's List is the donation's tax deductibility. Legacy, on the other hand, isn't linked to resource contribution.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#508

Post by MandieD »

Apocryphon wrote: post #206
thebradbain wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally could not think of a more boring way to curate a student body, but even more so than that, I think that’s completely unfair to the many, many way-more interesting people who make up top schools’ student bodies: why does Jimmy Also-Ran with the perfect score on a single test and nothing else get to go to college while track-star Olympiad with a 4.0 doesn’t?

Aren’t plenty of PISA high-ranking nations from the East Asian countries to Germany highly reliant upon placement examinations in student educational destinations? It might not feel very American, but it’s widely practiced.

In Germany, it's all about Abitur results: comprehensive exams and portfolio of work in a few subjects you've chosen to focus on, and really only for a few high-demand majors like medicine or law (everywhere) and computer science (at the top tech schools); for every other major, it's a matter of getting decent marks that prove you're likely prepared for university. Not picking mathematics as one of your major Abitur subjects would probably be disqualifying for computer science.

There's nothing like the SAT (single, high-stakes general aptitude test used nationwide); Abitur standards are set and evaluated by each state.

While there's a reputational difference between, say, Technisches Universität München and Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Amberg-Weiden, fees are the same at both, and cost of living of course is higher for TUM just because Munich is really expensive.

At least in tech in Germany, there is nothing resembling the prestige merely attending MIT/Stanford/CMU carries in the US. Of course there's a network effect from studying at TUM or RWTH instead of OTH-AW, but not nearly as pronounced. There are no private, elite universities, no university-sponsored sports teams, no legacy admissions, no giant individual donors hoping to secure a university spot for a lazy/dull kid. Lazy/dull rich kids go to private high schools if they can't hack it in public university-prep school.

Re: Children of alumni no longer have admissions edge at Carnegie Mellon, Pitt

#510

Post by dogleash »

s17n wrote: post #438
dionidium wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the end of affirmative action, legacy status in admissions becomes much harder to justify. I just don't see this. In our society we believe it to be illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of race. We believe that to be a special kind of uniquely harmful prejudice, one that fractures the deepest structures of society, and that it therefore clears the very high bar required for limiting freedom of association…

The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice. One effect of affirmative action was to (partially and imperfectly) ameliorate the admissions situation. Now that's gone. As far as the freedom of association goes, that's not an argument in favor of legacy admissions but it is possibly an argument that the government should stay out of it. Given the central role that universities play in ou…

> The point is that legacy admissions have always been an egregious injustice.

To whom? Anyone who would have been accepted to CMU or Pitt but for the legacy apps will be accepted to another school and still be able to get a high quality education.

What harm is caused? They have a slightly worse starting hand in status posturing games during the short period of their lives where anyone gives a shit where anyone went to school?

I’m not saying it’s the ideal world or anything. But “egregious”? C’mon

Post reply on HN