12 ms·

A recent study of Harvard’s admissions practices

68 points by doppp 7y ago

drak0n1c 7y ago
Elite Ivy League universities are where post-modernist theories of all-encompassing privilege hierarchies were initially formed and propagated. Unfortunately, dogmatic belief systems that may be relevant in the bubble in which they form are then excessively projected onto the outside world.
- johnmulaney 7y ago
  Play post-modern games, win post-modern prizes.
- navaati 7y ago
  > post-modernist theories of all-encompassing privilege hierarchies Genuinely curious, what are you talking about ?
  - adamnemecek 7y ago
    Social sciences in anglosphere after say ww2 before say 1985.
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    The article "Postmodernism vs. Science" published in Scientific American provides contemporary context: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-f... Stanford Philosophy provides a more detailed description of its history: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
  - tathougies 7y ago
    He's talking about those who apply terms like 'white privilege', 'male privilege' etc as an explanation to literally every social and political issue.
  - bendbro 7y ago
    I think a combination of various ideas. Note what follows may not all directly connect but are rather a set of loosely correlated ideas. Stuff is certainly missing, some things may be conflated, the parent commenter may have an idea totally different than mine, and what I have here may just be a gross strawman. 1. That differences between individuals or groups of individuals is better explained by "nurture" rather than "nature." 2. That society is constructed in such a way that it benefits certain traits over others. Some benefits may be superficial- ex: whites are the most attractive. Others may be structural- ex: programmers make more than teachers because programming produces more value because capital is invested more in things that programming affects rather than things that teaching affects. This contributes to men making more money than women. 3. That it is possible to reconstruct society to avoid creating "nurture" originating differences between individuals and groups of individuals. Ex: Men are more likely to hit on women than women are to hit on men. Perhaps by teaching men to be less aggressive, this disparity will be avoided. 4. That society's structure is not a necessary development but rather an accidental one. Ex: America eats a lot of meat, but this only happened because the government subsidized corn, which made feed for cattle very cheap. 5. That society may be reconstructed in such a way that structural benefits are not present. Ex: Perhaps we should defund corn subsides and encourage people to eat bugs and plants rather than large animals? 6. That the reconstructed society will be "better." Better probably being less income inequality, more freedom, less violence, suffering, etc. 7. That when someone does something "wrong" in society, they may be "excused" since their behavior was nurtured, and they didn't know better. Additionally, since society is arbitrarily constructed, perhaps the "wrong" they committed is not an actual wrong. Ex: a student arrives late to class and receives a 0 for attendence. Perhaps this attendence should be excused because they come from a society where timeliness is not needed? Perhaps we should reconstruct society to make timeliness in class unnecessary? 8. That there is more than one right answer or truth. Ex: "Some physicists subscribe to the Many Worlds Theory. Others subscribe to the C[sic: I've forgotten the alternative] Iterpretation. Both can be right and there is no real need to reduce them down to a single correct answer." While I certainly see how these individual things could be true, I don't see how any of these individual things are proven to be true. Further, while people seem to operate politically using these ideas under some grand unified model of progressivism, I don't see any evidence that the grand model will ever be realized.
  - jseliger 7y ago
    https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-deconstruction/ https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-decons... He's talking about almost anyone engaging in ideas typically labeled "postmodernist" "poststructuralist" "critical race theory" "theory" "literary theory" and a couple of others, as well as persons engaging in fields called things like "ethnic studies" or "gender studies."
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      In your article you write, >But dressed up in sufficiently confusing language—see the Butler passage from earlier in this essay—no one can tell what if anything is really being argued. As someone who has a cursory interest in critical theory, the passage was perfectly readable to me, especially if you're familiar with what the structuralists such as Althusser were arguing in the first place. The idea that it's only some ideological force that keeps deconstruction in play is false, since Althusser himself was sympathetic to the political goals of many deconstructioists - he was literally a Marxist and is heavily cited in critical theory even today. For that matter, one of Althusser's closest partners, Etienne Balibar, very frequently takes on issues of capital, race and gender from a structuralist perspective in new books he writes every year. Could the passage have been expressed in clearer terms? Maybe. But it's a mistake to charge it as not being able to tell what Butler is arguing. As an aside, this same criticism is leveled against Hegel, but the most progressive thing you'll find in Hegel is his takedown of phrenology. Confusing language is not at all limited by ideology. On the other hand, there are very clear writers such as Marcuse and Althusser who form the bedrock of critical theory today. As Adorno wrote in response to a criticism of his literary style: >"Now, from what you write about my language, to be honest, I find it very difficult to imagine that you mean it seriously. Your argumentation shows a true obsession with the thought of the reader. With my stuff you obviously didn't even come up with the idea that I'm not interested in him, neither in catching him, nor in snubbing him, but only in the most adequate and rigorous presentation of the matter possible. That is probably the only linguistic thing that can be done seriously against the cultural industry." You say confusion, Adorno says rigor. I have a hard time seeing why I couldn't have substituted your Butler passage for a passage from a paper in recent abstract mathematics or type theory.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    I call them platonic thinkers. People who reject that concept of integration[0] and in effect reject reality. Rousseau is perhaps the greatest example, in his own words: "It is reason which breeds pride and reflection which fortifies it; reason which turns man inward into himself; reason which separates him from everything which troubles or affects him. It is philosophy which isolates a man, and prompts him to say in secret at the sight of another suffering: 'Perish if you will; I am safe.'" [0]http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Integration.html http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Integrati...
- frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
  Hm? Isn't this article just proof that privilege hierarchies exist and that those with power are perpetuating them? After all it's not that the professors writing articles like "Romancing the Subject: The Interplay of Race and Gender..." are the people choosing to admit lots of legacies, it's a totally separate part of the university where those decisions get made.
- eli_gottlieb 7y ago
  >Elite Ivy League universities are where post-modernist theories of all-encompassing privilege hierarchies were initially formed and propagated. I didn't know there was an Ivy League member in France!
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. There's no curiosity in them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rjkennedy98 7y ago
We should just straight up ban sports, legacies, ect from admissions. They play a part vastly bigger than what people imagine in determining admissions.
- sopooneo 7y ago
  I have mixed feelings about this. A friend of mine grew up very poor in a tiny rural town with no known family that ever went to college. But he worked at a nearly superhuman level in high school and got into an Ivy league school. He is also charming and funny and by his third year was friends with influential enough people that he was attending THE White House Christmas party. Now he works where and for whom he wants because he has connections in the upper level of society that like him and know his competence. Without legacy admissions for him to make friends with, all that might not have happened. Merit admissions give the legacies legitimacy. Legacy admissions give the superhumans opportunity. This is simplified and certainly not the only way to let people achieve escape velocity. But it's what I saw happen to one of the most impressive people I know.
  - lammalamma25 7y ago
    I think there is an aspect of this that is ugly but probably true. The wealth and power staying at Harvard isn't there because it deserves to be. It helps people that deserve to be there and they help it.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >Merit admissions give the legacies legitimacy. Legacy admissions give the superhumans opportunity Taking you at face value your superhuman friend is going to White House parties, while you have the legacy admissions, such as G.W. Bush's of the world, running the White House. I'd rather see this system and cycle broken than a few well deserved people get invited into the inner circle.
    - jankyxenon 7y ago
      Please defined "well deserved". Sounds nice. Who decides?
neonate 7y ago
https://outline.com/6cnFTR https://outline.com/6cnFTR
Konnstann 7y ago
I have mixed feelings about legacy admissions, partly due to the fact that having a pedigree from an elite institution matters a lot less coming out of undergrad than it does for grad school. Graduate admissions are far less likely to have as significant legacy components, but legacies allow the school huge leeway and connections to secure funding for researchers, if not fund it directly. The article talks about the huge endowment Harvard has, and I wonder how much of the incredible research going on around me would be possible if the university were to "take a hit" financially by reducing or banning legacy admissions.
- jackcosgrove 7y ago
  I was curious so I looked up how much of Harvard's endowment is disbursed every year. In 2016, $1.6 billion was disbursed for university operations. http://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/20160401_harvard_congressional_report.pdf http://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/20160401_... "Using conventional financial reporting standards, 84 percent, or $31 billion, of the $37.6 billion in the endowment is restricted by the terms of original gifts." "Of the endowment that is restricted, the leading restrictions include (1) support for professorships and faculty salaries (32 percent), (2) financial aid (21 percent), (3) support for teaching and research programs (8 percent), (4) program initiatives (e.g., cross-faculty programs, global and international programs, and women’s studies) (5 percent), (5) support for libraries and museums (4 percent), and (6) maintenance of the physical plant (1 percent)." I know there may be uneven annual funding levels due to when a gift was given, but as an estimate 84% * 8% = 6.7% of disbursements are restricted to teaching and research. That's about $0.11 billion dollars in 2016. In comparison, Harvard received $1.08 billion in research funding from the federal government in 2016. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingbysource&ds=herd https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingbysour... So federal sources of money for research dwarf the disbursements from the endowment. If Harvard's endowment were to begin dwindling, I am not sure what would be cut first of the 16% that is not restricted by donor intent, but levels of research funding would appear to be mostly intact.
blakesterz 7y ago
This is not a very useful link, it's a short op ed that's pretty devoid of anything work reading. The actual study is here: http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf
raldi 7y ago
One day "legacy" admissions will be abolished. Not long after, people will be shocked that such a thing ever existed.
- StudentStuff 7y ago
  Bloomberg is really putting Harvard on a pedestal in the beginning of this article, that along with the unretracted implants[1] story makes me think their newsroom is deeply flawed. I don't think Ivy Leauge schools are deserving of their current reputations or valuations (in terms of quality), the systemic rot at MIT (having an ice cream social to celebrate Aaron Swartz, happily taking money from convicted criminals), Harvard and nearly every other Ivy League stems from an idolization of money over all else, education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing. None of these institutions should qualify as a non-profit, given their abject failure and continuing refusal to act equitably as every other (non-church) non-profit must. 1 - https://www.servethehome.com/investigating-implausible-bloomberg-supermicro-stories/ https://www.servethehome.com/investigating-implausible-bloom...
  - nessus42 7y ago
    > education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing. Oh, puh-lease! This is just utter nonsense. Not that MIT and Ivy League schools don't deserve serious criticism (like just about everything else in the world) but your characterization is either extremely biased or completely uninformed.
    - StudentStuff 7y ago
      What has MIT or Harvard launched recently that has come into as widespread use as the GNU Coreutils?
      - nessus42 7y ago
        > What has MIT or Harvard launched recently that has come into as widespread use as the GNU Coreutils? Even if the answer to that question is nothing, that does not justify the conclusion that "education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing". Btw, are you oblivious to the fact that RMS invented the GPL and wrote the GNU C compiler and Emacs and formed the FSF (among other very useful things) while he was employed as a research scientist at MIT. And that, as far as I'm aware, for much of this time he had no other responsibilities than doing these things? Also, are you aware that his undergraduate education is from Harvard, which certainly must have had some sort of effect on the interests that he chose later to pursue? (He's on record as stating that he enjoyed much of his education there.) Stallman also maintained the MIT version of Lisp Machine Lisp and the MIT Lisp Machine OS for some of this time. It is working on this and seeing MIT's research "stolen" by Symbolics and other companies that in no small part led to his beliefs about free software.
09bjb 7y ago
If Harvard's "best interest" isn't fairness but rather perpetuating Harvard as an institution for the maximum amount of time into the future, then its admissions behavior makes sense. Colleges and Universities are institutions (like private companies) and (like private companies) it is very difficult to get them to engage in behavior that they perceive may shorten their own lifetimes. Put differently, the main goal of an institution is survival. Profit (or a huge endowment, or close connections to the wealthy or those in power) is the primary factor in ensuring survival, and institutions know it. Harvard has been focused on power over ethics for...well, I'm not sure, but certainly over a hundred years. As much as I would like to believe that admitting better-qualified candidates over "better-connected" candidates (heavy quotes here) will be better for their survival in the long run, I wouldn't put money on it. And, it turns out, neither would Harvard.
- 09bjb 7y ago
  Extending this thought: if you thought that the primary concern of so-called elite institutions was ever "fairness", you're mistaken. They deal in Influence. And yes, it's highly ironic that the current fashion for identity politics and all the other "post-modern" ideologies were started and perpetuated by these institutions, which don't actually engage in said ideologies outside of hiring humanities professors that say whatever they please. Even within that behavior, the hyper-left trend of said professors is much stronger outside of the Ivy League than in it. The tip-top institutions are quite conservative when the rubber meets the road.
- darawk 7y ago
  Of course, one might also note that these institutions are only "elite" because of their connection to the, well, elite. The entire idea of "fairness" here doesn't really make sense. If Harvard committed itself to "fairness" it would no longer be an elite institution, and nobody would care how fair its admissions were.
  - HenryKissinger 7y ago
    Places like MIT and Caltech are elite institutions, despite the fact that they don't give two shits about legacies or well connected applicants.
qazqwert 7y ago
while i very much agree there are many other factors not taken into account regarding the admission process... For example while it's true Asians on average have great mathematical thinking and.... They often lack other forms of intelligence... Like creativity verbal intelligence and so one...(it's embedded into the culture to listen in class silent not asking question/... Just practice and repeat.... It's great for learning such things as math to some degree at least... But Asians don't often develop other intelligences very well) and while gardener's theory is in no way perfect we do understand that raw intelligence is complex even ashkenzi Jews who might have to world highest raw intelligence verbal mathematical and........ They still on average have lower Spatial intelligence... If you'd ask me it's clear that Harvard just like any other institute doesn't just want a computer to receive hq education... As the classic phrase goes... a human is smart but thinks slowly and often mistake a computer is stupid but thinks fast and is always right calculators might give you the right answer 100% of the time... But they don't have such skills as creativity and.... Again i agree with the artificial but to think that there's only 1 factor in play is delusional and there are lot's of elites in Asia as well and... Again the way people think and the culture and education they came from is also a factor.... (oh and BTW don't u give me that argument that most Jews are on the left and highest IQ and... bullshit.... Most Jews in America are on the left but there are many many on the right as well... Try and visit Israel but yes it is the combination...... Both intelligence and elitism....) now if u excuse me i have a long study to dig into carefully and...
golemiprague 7y ago
I don't understand how any other specific admission criteria would be better and what exactly it suppose to achieve? Ivy league is just a brand, some people get branded by it and some are not, some people because they were born to the right family, some because they got very high marks and some because they got the right skin colour. There is no "justice" as it is just a lottery winning thing, if you got branded your life would be better after. For any one who get accepted there are 100 who could replace him. You could study the exact same program and acquire exactly the same knowledge in a different university but you won't get branded, so how is it fair? There is no fair, it is just pure luck that your combination of various parameters didn't get you into an ivy, if they changed it it would be someone else bad luck. At the end of the day, who is going to be branded to be part of the elite is up to the elite, if you force them to change the rules they will just remove the branding, this branding only worth if the people who are already branded accept the newly branded.
deogeo 7y ago
> The most shocking number in the paper is this: Of the white students admitted to Harvard, more than 43% are in the so-called ALDC category For perspective, the demographics of all Harvard students, not just ALDC [1,2]: Asian American: 25.3% Jewish: 25% non-Jewish white: 22% African American: 14.3% Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% Native American: 1.8% Native Hawaiian: 0.6% [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics [2] https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701 https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...
- kpozin 7y ago
  The "25% Jewish" figure is based on decades-old data from Hillel (an umbrella organization of Jewish campus organizations). In a 2016 survey, 14% of Harvard students identified as Jewish. [1] More recent surveys indicated <10%. [2] Also, not all Jews -- even in the U.S. -- are Caucasian. [3] [1]: https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduates/ https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat... [2]: https://features.thecrimson.com/2016/freshman-survey/lifestyle/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2016/freshman-survey/lifesty... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions
  - manfredo 7y ago
    1% of Jewish Americans identify as Asian, 1% Black, and 1% "other". 5% identify as Hispanic but this figure does not specify race - Hispanic is a cultural group that encompasses a variety of races and 2/3rd to 3/4th of US Hispanics identify as White. While it is correct to point out that not every Jewish person in America is white, the overwhelming majority are and this nuance does not significantly impact university demographics. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Thanks - I was not aware how unreliable Hillel's figures were (but their estimate is for 2015, so I don't know if they can blame it on outdated data?). In any case, your first link appears much more authoritative - even Hillel updated their newer estimates to match it.
lanevorockz 7y ago
The only reason the university is worth its tuition is because of the renown that it creates. The fact that rich people enter through legacy is actually why the diploma is worth more. Much easier for a Harvard candidate to have connections that could lead to a successful angel investment. Once Legacy admissions go away, the value of Harvard my dropped by a large margin. Crazy world but all these things need to be taken into account.
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  > Once Legacy admissions go away, the value of Harvard my dropped by a large margin. Sounds great to me! I worked hard to get into my degree program and get my undergrad too and it has negligible worth - honestly, if the same could be said about the HYPSM+ folks we would all be better off.
  - mav3rick 7y ago
    Why would we be better off ? Harvard consistently produces well rounded and above average graduates. Most people here aren't comfortable with that thought.
    - akhilcacharya 7y ago
      Their influence needs to be kept in check. The alternative, which is an oligarchy, is un-American. There are millions of tax paying, patriotic, and effective citizens that did not get into HYPSM schools and are overlooked in the media in favor of a few thousand people who have the virtue of a HYPSM+ degree. [0] [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/
      - mav3rick 7y ago
        There will be billions of people doing good work. Many will always be overlooked. So your problem is people from average schools not getting fame ? On average it's the top tier schools that produce top level prize winning / field defining people. Compare the number of those people from NCSU vs an Harvard or an MIT.
kevintb 7y ago
> The most shocking number in the paper is this: Of the white students admitted to Harvard, more than 43% are in the so-called ALDC category — that is, they are recruited athletes, legacy admissions, applicants on the “dean’s interest” list and children of Harvard faculty and staff. Furthermore, in the model constructed by the authors, three quarters of those applicants would have been rejected if not for their ALDC status. Yikes.

68 points by doppp 7y ago

Elite Ivy League universities are where post-modernist theories of all-encompassing privilege hierarchies were initially formed and propagated. Unfortunately, dogmatic belief systems that may be relevant in the bubble in which they form are then excessively projected onto the outside world.

johnmulaney 7y ago
Play post-modern games, win post-modern prizes.
navaati 7y ago
> post-modernist theories of all-encompassing privilege hierarchies Genuinely curious, what are you talking about ?
- adamnemecek 7y ago
  Social sciences in anglosphere after say ww2 before say 1985.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  The article "Postmodernism vs. Science" published in Scientific American provides contemporary context: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-f... Stanford Philosophy provides a more detailed description of its history: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
- tathougies 7y ago
  He's talking about those who apply terms like 'white privilege', 'male privilege' etc as an explanation to literally every social and political issue.
- bendbro 7y ago
  I think a combination of various ideas. Note what follows may not all directly connect but are rather a set of loosely correlated ideas. Stuff is certainly missing, some things may be conflated, the parent commenter may have an idea totally different than mine, and what I have here may just be a gross strawman. 1. That differences between individuals or groups of individuals is better explained by "nurture" rather than "nature." 2. That society is constructed in such a way that it benefits certain traits over others. Some benefits may be superficial- ex: whites are the most attractive. Others may be structural- ex: programmers make more than teachers because programming produces more value because capital is invested more in things that programming affects rather than things that teaching affects. This contributes to men making more money than women. 3. That it is possible to reconstruct society to avoid creating "nurture" originating differences between individuals and groups of individuals. Ex: Men are more likely to hit on women than women are to hit on men. Perhaps by teaching men to be less aggressive, this disparity will be avoided. 4. That society's structure is not a necessary development but rather an accidental one. Ex: America eats a lot of meat, but this only happened because the government subsidized corn, which made feed for cattle very cheap. 5. That society may be reconstructed in such a way that structural benefits are not present. Ex: Perhaps we should defund corn subsides and encourage people to eat bugs and plants rather than large animals? 6. That the reconstructed society will be "better." Better probably being less income inequality, more freedom, less violence, suffering, etc. 7. That when someone does something "wrong" in society, they may be "excused" since their behavior was nurtured, and they didn't know better. Additionally, since society is arbitrarily constructed, perhaps the "wrong" they committed is not an actual wrong. Ex: a student arrives late to class and receives a 0 for attendence. Perhaps this attendence should be excused because they come from a society where timeliness is not needed? Perhaps we should reconstruct society to make timeliness in class unnecessary? 8. That there is more than one right answer or truth. Ex: "Some physicists subscribe to the Many Worlds Theory. Others subscribe to the C[sic: I've forgotten the alternative] Iterpretation. Both can be right and there is no real need to reduce them down to a single correct answer." While I certainly see how these individual things could be true, I don't see how any of these individual things are proven to be true. Further, while people seem to operate politically using these ideas under some grand unified model of progressivism, I don't see any evidence that the grand model will ever be realized.
- jseliger 7y ago
  https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-deconstruction/ https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-decons... He's talking about almost anyone engaging in ideas typically labeled "postmodernist" "poststructuralist" "critical race theory" "theory" "literary theory" and a couple of others, as well as persons engaging in fields called things like "ethnic studies" or "gender studies."
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    In your article you write, >But dressed up in sufficiently confusing language—see the Butler passage from earlier in this essay—no one can tell what if anything is really being argued. As someone who has a cursory interest in critical theory, the passage was perfectly readable to me, especially if you're familiar with what the structuralists such as Althusser were arguing in the first place. The idea that it's only some ideological force that keeps deconstruction in play is false, since Althusser himself was sympathetic to the political goals of many deconstructioists - he was literally a Marxist and is heavily cited in critical theory even today. For that matter, one of Althusser's closest partners, Etienne Balibar, very frequently takes on issues of capital, race and gender from a structuralist perspective in new books he writes every year. Could the passage have been expressed in clearer terms? Maybe. But it's a mistake to charge it as not being able to tell what Butler is arguing. As an aside, this same criticism is leveled against Hegel, but the most progressive thing you'll find in Hegel is his takedown of phrenology. Confusing language is not at all limited by ideology. On the other hand, there are very clear writers such as Marcuse and Althusser who form the bedrock of critical theory today. As Adorno wrote in response to a criticism of his literary style: >"Now, from what you write about my language, to be honest, I find it very difficult to imagine that you mean it seriously. Your argumentation shows a true obsession with the thought of the reader. With my stuff you obviously didn't even come up with the idea that I'm not interested in him, neither in catching him, nor in snubbing him, but only in the most adequate and rigorous presentation of the matter possible. That is probably the only linguistic thing that can be done seriously against the cultural industry." You say confusion, Adorno says rigor. I have a hard time seeing why I couldn't have substituted your Butler passage for a passage from a paper in recent abstract mathematics or type theory.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  I call them platonic thinkers. People who reject that concept of integration[0] and in effect reject reality. Rousseau is perhaps the greatest example, in his own words: "It is reason which breeds pride and reflection which fortifies it; reason which turns man inward into himself; reason which separates him from everything which troubles or affects him. It is philosophy which isolates a man, and prompts him to say in secret at the sight of another suffering: 'Perish if you will; I am safe.'" [0]http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Integration.html http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Integrati...
frgtpsswrdlame 7y ago
Hm? Isn't this article just proof that privilege hierarchies exist and that those with power are perpetuating them? After all it's not that the professors writing articles like "Romancing the Subject: The Interplay of Race and Gender..." are the people choosing to admit lots of legacies, it's a totally separate part of the university where those decisions get made.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
>Elite Ivy League universities are where post-modernist theories of all-encompassing privilege hierarchies were initially formed and propagated. I didn't know there was an Ivy League member in France!
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. There's no curiosity in them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rjkennedy98 7y ago

We should just straight up ban sports, legacies, ect from admissions. They play a part vastly bigger than what people imagine in determining admissions.

sopooneo 7y ago
I have mixed feelings about this. A friend of mine grew up very poor in a tiny rural town with no known family that ever went to college. But he worked at a nearly superhuman level in high school and got into an Ivy league school. He is also charming and funny and by his third year was friends with influential enough people that he was attending THE White House Christmas party. Now he works where and for whom he wants because he has connections in the upper level of society that like him and know his competence. Without legacy admissions for him to make friends with, all that might not have happened. Merit admissions give the legacies legitimacy. Legacy admissions give the superhumans opportunity. This is simplified and certainly not the only way to let people achieve escape velocity. But it's what I saw happen to one of the most impressive people I know.
- lammalamma25 7y ago
  I think there is an aspect of this that is ugly but probably true. The wealth and power staying at Harvard isn't there because it deserves to be. It helps people that deserve to be there and they help it.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >Merit admissions give the legacies legitimacy. Legacy admissions give the superhumans opportunity Taking you at face value your superhuman friend is going to White House parties, while you have the legacy admissions, such as G.W. Bush's of the world, running the White House. I'd rather see this system and cycle broken than a few well deserved people get invited into the inner circle.
  - jankyxenon 7y ago
    Please defined "well deserved". Sounds nice. Who decides?

neonate 7y ago

https://outline.com/6cnFTR https://outline.com/6cnFTR

Konnstann 7y ago

I have mixed feelings about legacy admissions, partly due to the fact that having a pedigree from an elite institution matters a lot less coming out of undergrad than it does for grad school. Graduate admissions are far less likely to have as significant legacy components, but legacies allow the school huge leeway and connections to secure funding for researchers, if not fund it directly. The article talks about the huge endowment Harvard has, and I wonder how much of the incredible research going on around me would be possible if the university were to "take a hit" financially by reducing or banning legacy admissions.

jackcosgrove 7y ago
I was curious so I looked up how much of Harvard's endowment is disbursed every year. In 2016, $1.6 billion was disbursed for university operations. http://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/20160401_harvard_congressional_report.pdf http://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/20160401_... "Using conventional financial reporting standards, 84 percent, or $31 billion, of the $37.6 billion in the endowment is restricted by the terms of original gifts." "Of the endowment that is restricted, the leading restrictions include (1) support for professorships and faculty salaries (32 percent), (2) financial aid (21 percent), (3) support for teaching and research programs (8 percent), (4) program initiatives (e.g., cross-faculty programs, global and international programs, and women’s studies) (5 percent), (5) support for libraries and museums (4 percent), and (6) maintenance of the physical plant (1 percent)." I know there may be uneven annual funding levels due to when a gift was given, but as an estimate 84% * 8% = 6.7% of disbursements are restricted to teaching and research. That's about $0.11 billion dollars in 2016. In comparison, Harvard received $1.08 billion in research funding from the federal government in 2016. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingbysource&ds=herd https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingbysour... So federal sources of money for research dwarf the disbursements from the endowment. If Harvard's endowment were to begin dwindling, I am not sure what would be cut first of the 16% that is not restricted by donor intent, but levels of research funding would appear to be mostly intact.

blakesterz 7y ago

This is not a very useful link, it's a short op ed that's pretty devoid of anything work reading. The actual study is here: http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf

raldi 7y ago

One day "legacy" admissions will be abolished. Not long after, people will be shocked that such a thing ever existed.

StudentStuff 7y ago
Bloomberg is really putting Harvard on a pedestal in the beginning of this article, that along with the unretracted implants[1] story makes me think their newsroom is deeply flawed. I don't think Ivy Leauge schools are deserving of their current reputations or valuations (in terms of quality), the systemic rot at MIT (having an ice cream social to celebrate Aaron Swartz, happily taking money from convicted criminals), Harvard and nearly every other Ivy League stems from an idolization of money over all else, education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing. None of these institutions should qualify as a non-profit, given their abject failure and continuing refusal to act equitably as every other (non-church) non-profit must. 1 - https://www.servethehome.com/investigating-implausible-bloomberg-supermicro-stories/ https://www.servethehome.com/investigating-implausible-bloom...
- nessus42 7y ago
  > education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing. Oh, puh-lease! This is just utter nonsense. Not that MIT and Ivy League schools don't deserve serious criticism (like just about everything else in the world) but your characterization is either extremely biased or completely uninformed.
  - StudentStuff 7y ago
    What has MIT or Harvard launched recently that has come into as widespread use as the GNU Coreutils?
    - nessus42 7y ago
      > What has MIT or Harvard launched recently that has come into as widespread use as the GNU Coreutils? Even if the answer to that question is nothing, that does not justify the conclusion that "education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing". Btw, are you oblivious to the fact that RMS invented the GPL and wrote the GNU C compiler and Emacs and formed the FSF (among other very useful things) while he was employed as a research scientist at MIT. And that, as far as I'm aware, for much of this time he had no other responsibilities than doing these things? Also, are you aware that his undergraduate education is from Harvard, which certainly must have had some sort of effect on the interests that he chose later to pursue? (He's on record as stating that he enjoyed much of his education there.) Stallman also maintained the MIT version of Lisp Machine Lisp and the MIT Lisp Machine OS for some of this time. It is working on this and seeing MIT's research "stolen" by Symbolics and other companies that in no small part led to his beliefs about free software.

09bjb 7y ago

If Harvard's "best interest" isn't fairness but rather perpetuating Harvard as an institution for the maximum amount of time into the future, then its admissions behavior makes sense. Colleges and Universities are institutions (like private companies) and (like private companies) it is very difficult to get them to engage in behavior that they perceive may shorten their own lifetimes. Put differently, the main goal of an institution is survival. Profit (or a huge endowment, or close connections to the wealthy or those in power) is the primary factor in ensuring survival, and institutions know it. Harvard has been focused on power over ethics for...well, I'm not sure, but certainly over a hundred years. As much as I would like to believe that admitting better-qualified candidates over "better-connected" candidates (heavy quotes here) will be better for their survival in the long run, I wouldn't put money on it. And, it turns out, neither would Harvard.

09bjb 7y ago
Extending this thought: if you thought that the primary concern of so-called elite institutions was ever "fairness", you're mistaken. They deal in Influence. And yes, it's highly ironic that the current fashion for identity politics and all the other "post-modern" ideologies were started and perpetuated by these institutions, which don't actually engage in said ideologies outside of hiring humanities professors that say whatever they please. Even within that behavior, the hyper-left trend of said professors is much stronger outside of the Ivy League than in it. The tip-top institutions are quite conservative when the rubber meets the road.
darawk 7y ago
Of course, one might also note that these institutions are only "elite" because of their connection to the, well, elite. The entire idea of "fairness" here doesn't really make sense. If Harvard committed itself to "fairness" it would no longer be an elite institution, and nobody would care how fair its admissions were.
- HenryKissinger 7y ago
  Places like MIT and Caltech are elite institutions, despite the fact that they don't give two shits about legacies or well connected applicants.

qazqwert 7y ago

while i very much agree there are many other factors not taken into account regarding the admission process... For example while it's true Asians on average have great mathematical thinking and.... They often lack other forms of intelligence... Like creativity verbal intelligence and so one...(it's embedded into the culture to listen in class silent not asking question/... Just practice and repeat.... It's great for learning such things as math to some degree at least... But Asians don't often develop other intelligences very well) and while gardener's theory is in no way perfect we do understand that raw intelligence is complex even ashkenzi Jews who might have to world highest raw intelligence verbal mathematical and........ They still on average have lower Spatial intelligence... If you'd ask me it's clear that Harvard just like any other institute doesn't just want a computer to receive hq education... As the classic phrase goes... a human is smart but thinks slowly and often mistake a computer is stupid but thinks fast and is always right calculators might give you the right answer 100% of the time... But they don't have such skills as creativity and.... Again i agree with the artificial but to think that there's only 1 factor in play is delusional and there are lot's of elites in Asia as well and... Again the way people think and the culture and education they came from is also a factor.... (oh and BTW don't u give me that argument that most Jews are on the left and highest IQ and... bullshit.... Most Jews in America are on the left but there are many many on the right as well... Try and visit Israel but yes it is the combination...... Both intelligence and elitism....) now if u excuse me i have a long study to dig into carefully and...

golemiprague 7y ago

I don't understand how any other specific admission criteria would be better and what exactly it suppose to achieve? Ivy league is just a brand, some people get branded by it and some are not, some people because they were born to the right family, some because they got very high marks and some because they got the right skin colour. There is no "justice" as it is just a lottery winning thing, if you got branded your life would be better after. For any one who get accepted there are 100 who could replace him. You could study the exact same program and acquire exactly the same knowledge in a different university but you won't get branded, so how is it fair? There is no fair, it is just pure luck that your combination of various parameters didn't get you into an ivy, if they changed it it would be someone else bad luck. At the end of the day, who is going to be branded to be part of the elite is up to the elite, if you force them to change the rules they will just remove the branding, this branding only worth if the people who are already branded accept the newly branded.

deogeo 7y ago

> The most shocking number in the paper is this: Of the white students admitted to Harvard, more than 43% are in the so-called ALDC category For perspective, the demographics of all Harvard students, not just ALDC [1,2]: Asian American: 25.3% Jewish: 25% non-Jewish white: 22% African American: 14.3% Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% Native American: 1.8% Native Hawaiian: 0.6% [1] https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics [2] https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-college-and-other-facts-about-Jews-at-American-colleges-437701 https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/The-most-heavily-Jewish-US-co...

kpozin 7y ago
The "25% Jewish" figure is based on decades-old data from Hillel (an umbrella organization of Jewish campus organizations). In a 2016 survey, 14% of Harvard students identified as Jewish. [1] More recent surveys indicated <10%. [2] Also, not all Jews -- even in the U.S. -- are Caucasian. [3] [1]: https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduates/ https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat... [2]: https://features.thecrimson.com/2016/freshman-survey/lifestyle/ https://features.thecrimson.com/2016/freshman-survey/lifesty... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions
- manfredo 7y ago
  1% of Jewish Americans identify as Asian, 1% Black, and 1% "other". 5% identify as Hispanic but this figure does not specify race - Hispanic is a cultural group that encompasses a variety of races and 2/3rd to 3/4th of US Hispanics identify as White. While it is correct to point out that not every Jewish person in America is white, the overwhelming majority are and this nuance does not significantly impact university demographics. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
- deogeo 7y ago
  Thanks - I was not aware how unreliable Hillel's figures were (but their estimate is for 2015, so I don't know if they can blame it on outdated data?). In any case, your first link appears much more authoritative - even Hillel updated their newer estimates to match it.

lanevorockz 7y ago

The only reason the university is worth its tuition is because of the renown that it creates. The fact that rich people enter through legacy is actually why the diploma is worth more. Much easier for a Harvard candidate to have connections that could lead to a successful angel investment. Once Legacy admissions go away, the value of Harvard my dropped by a large margin. Crazy world but all these things need to be taken into account.

akhilcacharya 7y ago
> Once Legacy admissions go away, the value of Harvard my dropped by a large margin. Sounds great to me! I worked hard to get into my degree program and get my undergrad too and it has negligible worth - honestly, if the same could be said about the HYPSM+ folks we would all be better off.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Why would we be better off ? Harvard consistently produces well rounded and above average graduates. Most people here aren't comfortable with that thought.
  - akhilcacharya 7y ago
    Their influence needs to be kept in check. The alternative, which is an oligarchy, is un-American. There are millions of tax paying, patriotic, and effective citizens that did not get into HYPSM schools and are overlooked in the media in favor of a few thousand people who have the virtue of a HYPSM+ degree. [0] [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/
    - mav3rick 7y ago
      There will be billions of people doing good work. Many will always be overlooked. So your problem is people from average schools not getting fame ? On average it's the top tier schools that produce top level prize winning / field defining people. Compare the number of those people from NCSU vs an Harvard or an MIT.

kevintb 7y ago

> The most shocking number in the paper is this: Of the white students admitted to Harvard, more than 43% are in the so-called ALDC category — that is, they are recruited athletes, legacy admissions, applicants on the “dean’s interest” list and children of Harvard faculty and staff. Furthermore, in the model constructed by the authors, three quarters of those applicants would have been rejected if not for their ALDC status. Yikes.