6 ms·

Not surprising. These are primarily businesses after all with billions of dollars of investments and brand value to maintain. You can’t expect them to give an e

by drb91 9y ago

Not surprising. These are primarily businesses after all with billions of dollars of investments and brand value to maintain. You can’t expect them to give an education to just anyone off the street!

DenisM 9y ago
The skew discovered was in favor of two groups: 1. existing financial-background applicants 2. diversity candidates. The former improves average post-graduation median salary, so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way. Not that quick. I'm familiar with a certain department in a certain party school in the Midwest. The faculty in that department is entirely white, with the exception of one Indian, who was hired long ago. There is no reason to believe that the applicant pool contains mostly white people or that the top applicant is invariable white - the job market in the Sciences has been LOUSY the last ten years! But the department is all-white. You'd think it tells something about the atmosphere in that institution, and indeed it's frankly xenophobic.
- mistersquid 9y ago
  > The former improves average post-graduation median salary, > so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter > contributes in the same way. No need for doubt when there's data. In particular, the data time and again show that in the US wage gaps persist for women and minorities. [0] [1] So if "diversity candidates" who matriculate to Stanford have above average median salaries post-graduation, these scholarships are "good for the reputation" in the same way. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States EDIT: specify scholarship recipients, verb-noun agreement.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Just ran across this, this morning. https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/ https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/
- shas3 9y ago
  The argument for diversity as a good investment: 1. With high-income whites some dumb blokes may sneak in due to privilege and winging it based on family connections, etc. This might be happening at the expense of spunky smart low income whites or blacks who worked harder and were smarter to overcome their disadvantage to get to a point where they’re in the pool of those being considered for admission into Stanford. 2. Diversity hires bring fresh perspectives and help break group-think. In my experience, all-white, all-Indian, all-Asian, etc. teams were always inferior in terms of the experience of working there to diverse teams.
  - plandis 9y ago
    Yeah but gender and race diversity (the qualifications mentioned in the article) still discriminate against poor white males. I am fairly certain that a poor white guy would have a very different perspective from one who grew up in a life of privilege but that socioeconomic diversity doesn’t look as good I guess.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      No one is suggesting they should only have diversity related scholarships.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      > Yeah but gender and race diversity (the qualifications mentioned in the article) still discriminate against poor white males. Am I the only one to notice that HN goes full communist when, and only when, affirmative action for minorities and women is the topic. Those poor white men don't really get mentioned much otherwise.
      - watwut 9y ago
        I observed the same. When women and blacks are topic, white poor men are consideration and victim or huge unfairness. Any other time, they are suckers, lazy, should have learn coding, don't have merit, yadda yadda. Kinda like gentrification is good thing and people pushed away got what they deserve and no one is entitled to live there. Untill it is tech workers who can't afford live in SV and suddenly it is all about egoism and YIMBY etc.
- extra88 9y ago
  You're getting downvoted, presumably for your last sentence, but I read what you wrote literally and agree. "Diversity candidates" do not contribute in the same way as those with a financial background. But they do contribute. They've earned their places and make it a better school. I do not buy into the cynical idea that big universities with big endowments are really just businesses trying to make money.
  - DenisM 9y ago
    Yep. I'm afraid nuances are being left unnoticed in the heat of the argument. Oh well, guess I won't be joining such anymore. Nice of you to chime in, for a while it looked like I'll be on my own here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by drb91 9y ago

DenisM 9y ago

The skew discovered was in favor of two groups: 1. existing financial-background applicants 2. diversity candidates. The former improves average post-graduation median salary, so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way.

HarryHirsch 9y ago
But I doubt the latter contributes in the same way. Not that quick. I'm familiar with a certain department in a certain party school in the Midwest. The faculty in that department is entirely white, with the exception of one Indian, who was hired long ago. There is no reason to believe that the applicant pool contains mostly white people or that the top applicant is invariable white - the job market in the Sciences has been LOUSY the last ten years! But the department is all-white. You'd think it tells something about the atmosphere in that institution, and indeed it's frankly xenophobic.
mistersquid 9y ago
> The former improves average post-graduation median salary, > so it's good for the reputation. But I doubt the latter > contributes in the same way. No need for doubt when there's data. In particular, the data time and again show that in the US wage gaps persist for women and minorities. [0] [1] So if "diversity candidates" who matriculate to Stanford have above average median salaries post-graduation, these scholarships are "good for the reputation" in the same way. [0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States EDIT: specify scholarship recipients, verb-noun agreement.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Just ran across this, this morning. https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/ https://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/
shas3 9y ago
The argument for diversity as a good investment: 1. With high-income whites some dumb blokes may sneak in due to privilege and winging it based on family connections, etc. This might be happening at the expense of spunky smart low income whites or blacks who worked harder and were smarter to overcome their disadvantage to get to a point where they’re in the pool of those being considered for admission into Stanford. 2. Diversity hires bring fresh perspectives and help break group-think. In my experience, all-white, all-Indian, all-Asian, etc. teams were always inferior in terms of the experience of working there to diverse teams.
- plandis 9y ago
  Yeah but gender and race diversity (the qualifications mentioned in the article) still discriminate against poor white males. I am fairly certain that a poor white guy would have a very different perspective from one who grew up in a life of privilege but that socioeconomic diversity doesn’t look as good I guess.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    No one is suggesting they should only have diversity related scholarships.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    > Yeah but gender and race diversity (the qualifications mentioned in the article) still discriminate against poor white males. Am I the only one to notice that HN goes full communist when, and only when, affirmative action for minorities and women is the topic. Those poor white men don't really get mentioned much otherwise.
    - watwut 9y ago
      I observed the same. When women and blacks are topic, white poor men are consideration and victim or huge unfairness. Any other time, they are suckers, lazy, should have learn coding, don't have merit, yadda yadda. Kinda like gentrification is good thing and people pushed away got what they deserve and no one is entitled to live there. Untill it is tech workers who can't afford live in SV and suddenly it is all about egoism and YIMBY etc.
extra88 9y ago
You're getting downvoted, presumably for your last sentence, but I read what you wrote literally and agree. "Diversity candidates" do not contribute in the same way as those with a financial background. But they do contribute. They've earned their places and make it a better school. I do not buy into the cynical idea that big universities with big endowments are really just businesses trying to make money.
- DenisM 9y ago
  Yep. I'm afraid nuances are being left unnoticed in the heat of the argument. Oh well, guess I won't be joining such anymore. Nice of you to chime in, for a while it looked like I'll be on my own here.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]