4 ms·

There's a massive amount of daylight between wanting admissions to be completely oligarchic and recognizing that at some point a seat should have a price. For e

There's a massive amount of daylight between wanting admissions to be completely oligarchic and recognizing that at some point a seat should have a price. For example, suppose it was worth it to Bezos to fund the entire Harvard class of '23, and the price is that his child ought to be a member of that class. It would be absurd for Harvard to turn this down. There is no victim of this trade, except perhaps Bezos' heirs -- Harvard can use a small fraction of the money to create an extra seat for the would be freshman. That does not mean admissions would be oligarchic in its entirety. It would not have to affect the "meritocracy" by which the remaining seats are won. Being willing to accept profoundly large donations in exchange for a seat is not the same as turning the whole admissions process into an auction. There are not enough people willing to give such donations for a seat. Or, maybe a slightly more cynical take? Look at the parental wealth distribution of private colleges, and you'll notice that it already is "oligarchic." I mean in the sense that children of relatively wealthy parents are by far more likely to make the cut to get in in the first place.

munk-a 8y ago
Why should Bezos, poor billionaire that he is, need to pay such a ridiculous price for his child's education. Wouldn't it make more sense to just publicly fund the creation of these seats and have people pay their fair share? I think the scenario you set up for Bezos is actually unjust against him - maybe people should pay admission costs to support the education of society's children in a manner that fairly spreads that cost across those who benefit from that education.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  It's not up to me, or any of us. It's up to Harvard, and specifically its board of trustees. Presumably Harvard doesn't want just anyone to be able to donate the accounting cost of a seat, because the cost doesn't scale linearly. Just like with company culture, it's hard to scale up. And putting the machinery in place to facilitate such transactions would be difficult. It's much easier to say that they'll give a spot only when the donation far exceeds the cost of a seat. That way you don't need any complicated machinery. The exact limit may not even be written down anywhere. It might just be a sort of "I'll know it when I see it," sort of deal, since the number of seats given this way per year should be fairly small, even at a university as famed as Harvard. Of course, we don't actually know that any of this is happening at all. It's just a cynical presumption, as far as I can tell. All I'm saying is that it would be reasonable if it were done this way, at least from the perspective of all stakeholders who have a say in the matter.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > Wouldn't it make more sense to just publicly fund the creation of these seats and have people pay their fair share? Even if education is publicly funded, allowing these "bribes" would allow even more people into elite institutions. So by all means, fund stuff. Unless you are willing to spend infinity dollars, it is all better to allow even more funding to come in, and pay for people who wouldn't have been able to attend those institutions otherwise.

munk-a 8y ago

Why should Bezos, poor billionaire that he is, need to pay such a ridiculous price for his child's education. Wouldn't it make more sense to just publicly fund the creation of these seats and have people pay their fair share? I think the scenario you set up for Bezos is actually unjust against him - maybe people should pay admission costs to support the education of society's children in a manner that fairly spreads that cost across those who benefit from that education.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
It's not up to me, or any of us. It's up to Harvard, and specifically its board of trustees. Presumably Harvard doesn't want just anyone to be able to donate the accounting cost of a seat, because the cost doesn't scale linearly. Just like with company culture, it's hard to scale up. And putting the machinery in place to facilitate such transactions would be difficult. It's much easier to say that they'll give a spot only when the donation far exceeds the cost of a seat. That way you don't need any complicated machinery. The exact limit may not even be written down anywhere. It might just be a sort of "I'll know it when I see it," sort of deal, since the number of seats given this way per year should be fairly small, even at a university as famed as Harvard. Of course, we don't actually know that any of this is happening at all. It's just a cynical presumption, as far as I can tell. All I'm saying is that it would be reasonable if it were done this way, at least from the perspective of all stakeholders who have a say in the matter.
stale2002 8y ago
> Wouldn't it make more sense to just publicly fund the creation of these seats and have people pay their fair share? Even if education is publicly funded, allowing these "bribes" would allow even more people into elite institutions. So by all means, fund stuff. Unless you are willing to spend infinity dollars, it is all better to allow even more funding to come in, and pay for people who wouldn't have been able to attend those institutions otherwise.