6 ms·

I understand the outrage of racial discrimination in this case, but I'm saddened over the lack of outrage over Harvard's self-described "Z-List" students who ge

I understand the outrage of racial discrimination in this case, but I'm saddened over the lack of outrage over Harvard's self-described "Z-List" students who get into the school solely based on their family's money and power. No one is suing Harvard over the fact that you can buy your way in. We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. If that more fundamental problem was solved, many of these others would melt away on their own.

strstr 8y ago
Z-list probably isn't illegal (despite it being pretty disheartening).
- speedplane 8y ago
  Of course it isn't illegal. Folks with money and power create the rules, and obviously one of the first rules you'd make is that those with money and power can use that money and power to get what they want. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right or it should be. And you could potentially make a case that it's illegal, even though it's flimsy and you'd probably would lose. Harvard makes all sorts of claims that they pick the best and the brightest based on merit. That's false advertising, and potentially even fraud. I could see a Harvard grad suing the school for admitting Z-List students because it waters down the prestige of their degree. Again, they'd almost certainly lose, but my point is that there are existing legal hooks into this bad behavior.
  - chii 8y ago
    > Harvard makes all sorts of claims that they pick the best and the brightest based on merit. they didn't lie - they do pick the best and brightest. But they don't claim that's the _only_ people they pick.
  - drb91 8y ago
    > I could see a Harvard grad suing the school for admitting Z-List students because it waters down the prestige of their degree. In my experience the social access of the Z-list is the primary draw of an “ivy-league” education.
lsc 8y ago
I always thought that historically, the elite schools were for the children of the elite; the idea behind letting "scholarship students" in is that if the children of the elite are going to run the world (and they always have in the past) it's really in everyone's best interest if we set them up so that they build relationships with some people who are competent and will have to work. I think the fact that there does seem to be some grumblings about 'legacy admissions' is progress.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > historically, the elite schools were for the children of the elite Based on what I read several years ago, social mobility in the U.S. used to be significantly higher, such as in the 1980s, and I know the U.S. used to define itself on social mobility - the Land of Opportunity and of Liberty, where a person is free to do and accomplish what they can through merit and hard work. I'll add that the U.S. long has been run by children of the working and middle class, such as Clinton, Obama, and LBJ, as well as elites (Trump, Bush, Bush, Kennedy, etc.). (I'm not cherry-picking; I just don't remember the economic backgrounds of Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc.). Of course it still was very imperfect, but my point is that we shouldn't think that the way things are is the way they've always been.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > the idea behind letting "scholarship students" in is that if the children of the elite are going to run the world (and they always have in the past) it's really in everyone's best interest if we set them up so that they build relationships with some people who are competent This has always been the reason I'm not as eager as lots of people to smash universities and elitist admissions. The children of the rich and powerful took the reins without trouble before widespread university attendance, and they'll probably keep doing so after it declines. In this narrative, the breakthrough of the last ~70 years is running a whole bunch of highly-qualified non-elites through what are effectively elite finishing schools, introducing them to the existing elite and in many cases giving them the shared experiences and cultural habits to enter the halls of power. It's not a great system, it leaves people trying to hide their lack of a Vineyard summer home from their classmates, but it's far better than a lot of older systems like "anyone who has to work for their money can't be an elite" or "if you don't learn Latin you can't go to college". I certainly think this is a major flaw in the grand hopes for MOOCs; the aspirational Ivy League and top 20 experiences are the part of college they're least capable of replacing.
sadamznintern 8y ago
It’s because the people pushing the lawsuit don’t care about the issues, rather they just want to divide 2 minority groups and pit them against one another.
- majos 8y ago
  I don't think so, rather I think everyone involved tacitly accepts that a ton of money and power is sufficient to buy your way into pretty much anything, even (especially?) top universities that enjoy cultivating money and power. There's a clear quid pro quo though. It's less clear what the quid pro quo is for racial discrimination against Asians, so people are less okay with it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
golergka 8y ago
It's a private university. Why shouldn't you be able to buy your way in?
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  Well, the problem is that they serve as a credential issuing authority, but they also provide what is essentially a credential laundering service for the people who can pay.
- posting2fast 8y ago
  For quality of education and quality of reputation.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Given the sheer amount of taxpayer dollars they absorb via tax breaks etc they should be subject to oversight. Harvard costs taxpayers billions of dollars, perhaps with good ROI given their stature but at a huge cost.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  I do not know specifically about Harvard, but generally when you receive a lot of federal money, you have to comply by certain rules. I don't know if there are existing rules that govern this, but if not, I'm sure plenty are trying to create those rules.
fmajid 8y ago
Well, how else would George W. Bush get in?
gammateam 8y ago
> We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. Or were sold a merit based social contract and it has always been an ineffective set of rules that has no bearing on the way goods and resources are apportioned. Your cognitive dissonance comes from how you expect goods and resources to be apportioned. How you expect people should "earn" access, when the elites/oligarchs/connected rarely earn anything. They merely maintain access.
- droopyEyelids 8y ago
  Your point sure makes me angry, but I see the logic to it. Positions based on merit may be the aberration!
Aunche 8y ago
If you're buying your way into Harvard, you aren't taking a spot from someone else. You're essentially paying for a new spot to be created.
- pitt1980 8y ago
  This assumes that the space at Harvard is currently constricted by the budget rather than other factors. That doesn't appear to be a good assumption given Harvard's current budget situation. And really begs the question, given Harvard's current budget situations, why haven't their practices created significantly more spots.
BeetleB 8y ago
>We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. The argument cuts both ways. The reason there is this lawsuit is because many came to accept that merit provides access and opportunity. Both views are extremes.
totalZero 8y ago
> We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. Nah, because such an admissions policy impacts reputation. All else being equal, you probably wouldn't hire a civil engineer with a BS from Harvard over one from MIT.

strstr 8y ago

Z-list probably isn't illegal (despite it being pretty disheartening).

speedplane 8y ago
Of course it isn't illegal. Folks with money and power create the rules, and obviously one of the first rules you'd make is that those with money and power can use that money and power to get what they want. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right or it should be. And you could potentially make a case that it's illegal, even though it's flimsy and you'd probably would lose. Harvard makes all sorts of claims that they pick the best and the brightest based on merit. That's false advertising, and potentially even fraud. I could see a Harvard grad suing the school for admitting Z-List students because it waters down the prestige of their degree. Again, they'd almost certainly lose, but my point is that there are existing legal hooks into this bad behavior.
- chii 8y ago
  > Harvard makes all sorts of claims that they pick the best and the brightest based on merit. they didn't lie - they do pick the best and brightest. But they don't claim that's the _only_ people they pick.
- drb91 8y ago
  > I could see a Harvard grad suing the school for admitting Z-List students because it waters down the prestige of their degree. In my experience the social access of the Z-list is the primary draw of an “ivy-league” education.

lsc 8y ago

I always thought that historically, the elite schools were for the children of the elite; the idea behind letting "scholarship students" in is that if the children of the elite are going to run the world (and they always have in the past) it's really in everyone's best interest if we set them up so that they build relationships with some people who are competent and will have to work. I think the fact that there does seem to be some grumblings about 'legacy admissions' is progress.

forapurpose 8y ago
> historically, the elite schools were for the children of the elite Based on what I read several years ago, social mobility in the U.S. used to be significantly higher, such as in the 1980s, and I know the U.S. used to define itself on social mobility - the Land of Opportunity and of Liberty, where a person is free to do and accomplish what they can through merit and hard work. I'll add that the U.S. long has been run by children of the working and middle class, such as Clinton, Obama, and LBJ, as well as elites (Trump, Bush, Bush, Kennedy, etc.). (I'm not cherry-picking; I just don't remember the economic backgrounds of Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc.). Of course it still was very imperfect, but my point is that we shouldn't think that the way things are is the way they've always been.
Bartweiss 8y ago
> the idea behind letting "scholarship students" in is that if the children of the elite are going to run the world (and they always have in the past) it's really in everyone's best interest if we set them up so that they build relationships with some people who are competent This has always been the reason I'm not as eager as lots of people to smash universities and elitist admissions. The children of the rich and powerful took the reins without trouble before widespread university attendance, and they'll probably keep doing so after it declines. In this narrative, the breakthrough of the last ~70 years is running a whole bunch of highly-qualified non-elites through what are effectively elite finishing schools, introducing them to the existing elite and in many cases giving them the shared experiences and cultural habits to enter the halls of power. It's not a great system, it leaves people trying to hide their lack of a Vineyard summer home from their classmates, but it's far better than a lot of older systems like "anyone who has to work for their money can't be an elite" or "if you don't learn Latin you can't go to college". I certainly think this is a major flaw in the grand hopes for MOOCs; the aspirational Ivy League and top 20 experiences are the part of college they're least capable of replacing.

sadamznintern 8y ago

It’s because the people pushing the lawsuit don’t care about the issues, rather they just want to divide 2 minority groups and pit them against one another.

majos 8y ago
I don't think so, rather I think everyone involved tacitly accepts that a ton of money and power is sufficient to buy your way into pretty much anything, even (especially?) top universities that enjoy cultivating money and power. There's a clear quid pro quo though. It's less clear what the quid pro quo is for racial discrimination against Asians, so people are less okay with it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

golergka 8y ago

It's a private university. Why shouldn't you be able to buy your way in?

SiempreViernes 8y ago
Well, the problem is that they serve as a credential issuing authority, but they also provide what is essentially a credential laundering service for the people who can pay.
posting2fast 8y ago
For quality of education and quality of reputation.
creaghpatr 8y ago
Given the sheer amount of taxpayer dollars they absorb via tax breaks etc they should be subject to oversight. Harvard costs taxpayers billions of dollars, perhaps with good ROI given their stature but at a huge cost.
BeetleB 8y ago
I do not know specifically about Harvard, but generally when you receive a lot of federal money, you have to comply by certain rules. I don't know if there are existing rules that govern this, but if not, I'm sure plenty are trying to create those rules.

fmajid 8y ago

Well, how else would George W. Bush get in?

gammateam 8y ago

> We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. Or were sold a merit based social contract and it has always been an ineffective set of rules that has no bearing on the way goods and resources are apportioned. Your cognitive dissonance comes from how you expect goods and resources to be apportioned. How you expect people should "earn" access, when the elites/oligarchs/connected rarely earn anything. They merely maintain access.

droopyEyelids 8y ago
Your point sure makes me angry, but I see the logic to it. Positions based on merit may be the aberration!

Aunche 8y ago

If you're buying your way into Harvard, you aren't taking a spot from someone else. You're essentially paying for a new spot to be created.

pitt1980 8y ago
This assumes that the space at Harvard is currently constricted by the budget rather than other factors. That doesn't appear to be a good assumption given Harvard's current budget situation. And really begs the question, given Harvard's current budget situations, why haven't their practices created significantly more spots.

BeetleB 8y ago

>We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. The argument cuts both ways. The reason there is this lawsuit is because many came to accept that merit provides access and opportunity. Both views are extremes.

totalZero 8y ago

> We've come to accept that money and legacy power provides access and opportunity regardless of merit. Nah, because such an admissions policy impacts reputation. All else being equal, you probably wouldn't hire a civil engineer with a BS from Harvard over one from MIT.