4 ms·

Yeah, I don’t know. Most of the kids in the elite education system are alright, they didn’t build this world and generally believe in an equitable one. College

Yeah, I don’t know. Most of the kids in the elite education system are alright, they didn’t build this world and generally believe in an equitable one. College campuses are pretty much the most liberal places in the United States. For every 1 rich kid buying their way in, there are 10 normal kids. It’s a big red herring to worry too much about a handful of admissions to eg USC. It’s hardly an elite institution anyway. The big problem is the competition between the normal kids. Most people can’t relate to inequities in the funnel for normals in ways other than race and class. The fastest growing sectors of education—private, effectively segregated schools and test preparation—reflect this reality but I wouldn’t call it unfair or a fraud. Being a white parent and putting your kid into a school with no Asian kids, or being a middle income parent and putting your kid into a test prep program with no dirt poor kids—the reason these are bad is that they obscure actual outcomes based analysis of education in favor of useless retail indicators like test scores, income after graduation, racial composition and income levels that parents actually use to determine where to send their kids. It takes an incredible amount of sophistication, on the part of parents and students, to make wise decisions in education. So much pressure to look at easily comparable but relatively meaningless things. I sympathize with the parents with no high school education who bought their daughter’s way into USC. They didn’t know any better and most of the supposed entrepreneurs/good ideas in Ed-tech reinforce the bad trends, not work against them. Most of the programmers, product managers and businesspeople working at those companies are bought into that reductive retail system. There is basically no one with “bad grades” working on Blockly at Google. It’ll really open your mind up and make you less cynical when you realize how ill equipped well meaning institutions are to actually address inequities in education.

chess93 8y ago
What's the difference between someone getting in because their parents bought a building and someone getting in because their parents spent 50k/year on a highschool?
- magnetic 8y ago
  The kid from the $50K/year high school got an education for that price (albeit expensive) and got in through his/her own work & dedication (you could say that the expensive high school "paid off"). That kid is supposed to be competent, since he got in through merit. The other kid, on the other hand...
- analog31 8y ago
  Two different competitive pools of different sizes. The pool of kids with buildings might be small enough that they can be accepted at a 100% rate, whereas the pool of $50k/y high school kids can only be accepted at a lower rate, maybe 20% ballpark. Realistically, the kids with buildings also went to $50k/y high schools. If I understand the article, the bribery service was for upping the odds from 20% to 100% without the house getting their cut.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The difference is are they getting in because of money and connections vs qualifications money helped acquire. Natural aptitude and/or sheer obsessive determination can allow anyone to compete with the second - and crucially the money must be spent well to help - if it is just more posh in surroundings but doesn't actually prepare them better than say an average Brooklyn High School then money isn't actually propping them up. Meanwhile in the first only those with money and connections can "compete".
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  In one case, $200k is being given to a high school in exchange for an education that may be of significantly higher quality than the public schools in that area (it varies widely). In the other case, $10M is being given to the university in order to fund a building. The better question is, what are the similarities? Different amounts of money are being given to different parties for different purposes. Everything is different. The only thing that's the same is that they're all sort of vaguely related to education.
firstplacelast 8y ago
>Most of the kids in the elite education system are alright, they didn’t build this world and generally believe in an equitable one. When I went to (not an Ivy, but a well known) college I ended up in a very nice fraternity with ridiculous numbers of guys that had trust funds (I think the highest number I knew of was 30M - although that guy was a chill stoner than didn't want much from life). A few had families with private jets. One owned a chandelier in their house that was worth 2x the house I grew up in. I absolutely believe that these people would say they believe in an equitable society. I also know 90% of them are pretty solid people, a few assholes but I know lots of middle class and poor people that are assholes, too. The issue is, they do not understand what life is like for middle class people, much less lower-class people. They do not understand the degree that making a society equitable would take and much of those ideas when discussed, even among friends, were vehemently scoffed at. The problem is, lots of these people get to go on to become the decision makers of our society. And while completely fine people, they do not understand the realities of 80% of the country. I'd much rather Harvard and Yale and USC take the Cal-tech route and fill their halls with much more deserving kids (who are moreso likely to come from middle and lower class families than what's happening in present day). It's ultimately the question, are you a bad person if you make a decision without understanding or knowing all the implications? I think the answer is no. But these people do not understand all the implications because they don't understand how most people in our society live. We should do our best to make our decision makers people that truly understand how most of us live - as unrealistic as that idea seems.
- LanceH 8y ago
  A private institution can successfully build a top flight school by selling off admissions slots. Even in (especially in) the eyes of these people crying "unfair", these schools have apparently done a very good job of building a successful schools. They've sold off spots and built schools everyone wants to be in. They want to go to a school with the prestige of money and connections, but those things came with a cost.
  - firstplacelast 8y ago
    Sure. The question is the type of society we want to live in. Do we want to credential sub-par kids becuase “money” and give them a better chance at life to run the country? Or do we want to promote the best and most astute thinkers and give them the best chance to run our country?

chess93 8y ago

What's the difference between someone getting in because their parents bought a building and someone getting in because their parents spent 50k/year on a highschool?

magnetic 8y ago
The kid from the $50K/year high school got an education for that price (albeit expensive) and got in through his/her own work & dedication (you could say that the expensive high school "paid off"). That kid is supposed to be competent, since he got in through merit. The other kid, on the other hand...
analog31 8y ago
Two different competitive pools of different sizes. The pool of kids with buildings might be small enough that they can be accepted at a 100% rate, whereas the pool of $50k/y high school kids can only be accepted at a lower rate, maybe 20% ballpark. Realistically, the kids with buildings also went to $50k/y high schools. If I understand the article, the bribery service was for upping the odds from 20% to 100% without the house getting their cut.
Nasrudith 8y ago
The difference is are they getting in because of money and connections vs qualifications money helped acquire. Natural aptitude and/or sheer obsessive determination can allow anyone to compete with the second - and crucially the money must be spent well to help - if it is just more posh in surroundings but doesn't actually prepare them better than say an average Brooklyn High School then money isn't actually propping them up. Meanwhile in the first only those with money and connections can "compete".
CydeWeys 8y ago
In one case, $200k is being given to a high school in exchange for an education that may be of significantly higher quality than the public schools in that area (it varies widely). In the other case, $10M is being given to the university in order to fund a building. The better question is, what are the similarities? Different amounts of money are being given to different parties for different purposes. Everything is different. The only thing that's the same is that they're all sort of vaguely related to education.

firstplacelast 8y ago

>Most of the kids in the elite education system are alright, they didn’t build this world and generally believe in an equitable one. When I went to (not an Ivy, but a well known) college I ended up in a very nice fraternity with ridiculous numbers of guys that had trust funds (I think the highest number I knew of was 30M - although that guy was a chill stoner than didn't want much from life). A few had families with private jets. One owned a chandelier in their house that was worth 2x the house I grew up in. I absolutely believe that these people would say they believe in an equitable society. I also know 90% of them are pretty solid people, a few assholes but I know lots of middle class and poor people that are assholes, too. The issue is, they do not understand what life is like for middle class people, much less lower-class people. They do not understand the degree that making a society equitable would take and much of those ideas when discussed, even among friends, were vehemently scoffed at. The problem is, lots of these people get to go on to become the decision makers of our society. And while completely fine people, they do not understand the realities of 80% of the country. I'd much rather Harvard and Yale and USC take the Cal-tech route and fill their halls with much more deserving kids (who are moreso likely to come from middle and lower class families than what's happening in present day). It's ultimately the question, are you a bad person if you make a decision without understanding or knowing all the implications? I think the answer is no. But these people do not understand all the implications because they don't understand how most people in our society live. We should do our best to make our decision makers people that truly understand how most of us live - as unrealistic as that idea seems.

LanceH 8y ago
A private institution can successfully build a top flight school by selling off admissions slots. Even in (especially in) the eyes of these people crying "unfair", these schools have apparently done a very good job of building a successful schools. They've sold off spots and built schools everyone wants to be in. They want to go to a school with the prestige of money and connections, but those things came with a cost.
- firstplacelast 8y ago
  Sure. The question is the type of society we want to live in. Do we want to credential sub-par kids becuase “money” and give them a better chance at life to run the country? Or do we want to promote the best and most astute thinkers and give them the best chance to run our country?