3 ms·

I mean now that they expanded the enrollment every admission comes at the expense of one other. If they said “maximum 200 students over 6 foot 2” then anyone ov

• btilly 8y ago
  In the long run, this is also not necessarily true. It is generally possible to expand enrollment by paying money to construct larger dorms, open classrooms, and hire staff. Virtually no university in the country is anywhere near its theoretical physical capacity. If I give an institution a large grant earmarked for doing this to create slots for a particular minority, that institution can create those slots without changing what is available to any other minority. Now I provided a hypothetical case of a large grant from a single individual. That's an admittedly unlikely scenario. But Harvard's affirmative action programs are one of the wonderful things that can be talked about to potential donors. How many were pushed over the edge into donating because of it? Particularly given the fact that a former minority student who went to Harvard was in the press a lot over the last decade. Being the first black President will do that. The point remains. The fact that one group got something doesn't mean that another group had to get less. For another area where the same type of fallacy is rampant, consider immigration. People object to immigrants because "they are taking our jobs". When in fact immigrants make a net contribution to our economy, and make a net contribution to how many jobs are available for existing workers.
  • fipple 8y ago
    This is true for say Google employees but not true for Harvard. 90% of the value of a Harvard degree is the knowledge that it is exclusive.