4 ms·

> Merit students clearly get no benefit You're basing this conclusion based on an earnings study? That's pretty questionable reasoning! I received an incredib

> Merit students clearly get no benefit You're basing this conclusion based on an earnings study? That's pretty questionable reasoning! I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective.

tathougies 7y ago
> I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective. That's a fair criticism if my comment was made in a vacuum. However, my comment was in response to an anecdote that claimed that legacy admissions are good because they offer a way up the social ladder for those who get into the same school through hard work and merit. While there are certainly ways up the social ladder via non-profits, etc, the fact of the matter is that those at the top of the social ladder -- those making decisions, etc -- are much richer than the rest of the populace, and money typically buys influence. Even Bernie Sanders, critic of capitalism that he is, has a net worth substantially higher than the typical American. Thus, I'm going to dismiss your critique as perhaps morally right, but realistically irrelevant.
- nessus42 7y ago
  I'm still unclear about your point. MIT has claimed for as long as I can remember that they don't accept legacy admissions. Assuming that MIT is telling the truth on this matter, your reasoning seems to imply then that MIT has no purpose at all! As to whether legacy students would have helped me rise higher on any ladders, I can't say, since I climbed whatever ladders I did via some combination of merit, having a good education, having a prestigious education, and "white male American privilege". I have no idea how things would have turned out if some rich kid had been my roommate. I have gotten jobs due to connections, though, and more and better connections might have allowed me to get better jobs. Though I pretty much got the jobs that I wanted anyway, so it's not clear if better connections would have made much of a difference. Personally, my guess would be that legacy admissions exist mostly for a university to increase its stream of loyal donations from the well-to-do.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Again, non germane response. My original response was aimed at schools that admit legacies and merit students. Its sole purpose was to counter the claim that legacies help merit students via networking. If MIT doesn't do legacy then none of my criticism applies to it. Nowhere did I diminish the value of college connections. I did diminish the value of connections between intelligent students and the well to do as being unnecessary to the success of those students. Your experience at MIT supports my claim because MIT graduates do very well despite having no legacy admissions. Thus we can dismiss the idea that legacy admissions are necessary to help merit students. Please don't try to derail the discussion
    - nessus42 7y ago
      Your argument was based on research claiming that I would have made just as much money in my career if I hadn't gone to MIT. So what was the point of my MIT education? According to your argument, apparently nothing! The conclusion that your reasoning leads us to here is clearly germane because it is absurd. Consequently, I can't accept your argument as presented.
      - nessus42 7y ago
        Whoever downvoted my above response should look up "reductio ad absurdum". See, my MIT education was useful for something. I knows fancy logic things. To elaborate a bit more on why I think that equating income with educational value is a non-starter, using a direct argument rather than a reductio ad absurdum argument: my MIT education instilled me with values, passions, and interests that could very well be in opposition to maximising my income. I.e., if I'd gone to a lesser school, I might very well make more money because my values, passions, and interests would be different. I.e., not necessarily for the better, but perhaps oriented more towards increased income. E.g., without certain passions and interests that MIT instilled me with, there would have been a lot more jobs–some of them high-paying–that would have been appealing to me. But with the passions and interests I ended up with, these jobs were not appealing to me. E.g., I could have gotten a very high paying job right out of college programming in Cobol. But that certainly was not for me after groking the beauty of Scheme. Consequently, a study showing that I would have statistically made as much money if I had received my education at a less prestigious school, is utterly irrelevent to how I value my MIT education.

tathougies 7y ago

> I received an incredible education from MIT (and I was admitted based on merit), but I took that education and went to work for non-profit research institutes, because making as much money as possible was not my primary objective. That's a fair criticism if my comment was made in a vacuum. However, my comment was in response to an anecdote that claimed that legacy admissions are good because they offer a way up the social ladder for those who get into the same school through hard work and merit. While there are certainly ways up the social ladder via non-profits, etc, the fact of the matter is that those at the top of the social ladder -- those making decisions, etc -- are much richer than the rest of the populace, and money typically buys influence. Even Bernie Sanders, critic of capitalism that he is, has a net worth substantially higher than the typical American. Thus, I'm going to dismiss your critique as perhaps morally right, but realistically irrelevant.

nessus42 7y ago
I'm still unclear about your point. MIT has claimed for as long as I can remember that they don't accept legacy admissions. Assuming that MIT is telling the truth on this matter, your reasoning seems to imply then that MIT has no purpose at all! As to whether legacy students would have helped me rise higher on any ladders, I can't say, since I climbed whatever ladders I did via some combination of merit, having a good education, having a prestigious education, and "white male American privilege". I have no idea how things would have turned out if some rich kid had been my roommate. I have gotten jobs due to connections, though, and more and better connections might have allowed me to get better jobs. Though I pretty much got the jobs that I wanted anyway, so it's not clear if better connections would have made much of a difference. Personally, my guess would be that legacy admissions exist mostly for a university to increase its stream of loyal donations from the well-to-do.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Again, non germane response. My original response was aimed at schools that admit legacies and merit students. Its sole purpose was to counter the claim that legacies help merit students via networking. If MIT doesn't do legacy then none of my criticism applies to it. Nowhere did I diminish the value of college connections. I did diminish the value of connections between intelligent students and the well to do as being unnecessary to the success of those students. Your experience at MIT supports my claim because MIT graduates do very well despite having no legacy admissions. Thus we can dismiss the idea that legacy admissions are necessary to help merit students. Please don't try to derail the discussion
  - nessus42 7y ago
    Your argument was based on research claiming that I would have made just as much money in my career if I hadn't gone to MIT. So what was the point of my MIT education? According to your argument, apparently nothing! The conclusion that your reasoning leads us to here is clearly germane because it is absurd. Consequently, I can't accept your argument as presented.
    - nessus42 7y ago
      Whoever downvoted my above response should look up "reductio ad absurdum". See, my MIT education was useful for something. I knows fancy logic things. To elaborate a bit more on why I think that equating income with educational value is a non-starter, using a direct argument rather than a reductio ad absurdum argument: my MIT education instilled me with values, passions, and interests that could very well be in opposition to maximising my income. I.e., if I'd gone to a lesser school, I might very well make more money because my values, passions, and interests would be different. I.e., not necessarily for the better, but perhaps oriented more towards increased income. E.g., without certain passions and interests that MIT instilled me with, there would have been a lot more jobs–some of them high-paying–that would have been appealing to me. But with the passions and interests I ended up with, these jobs were not appealing to me. E.g., I could have gotten a very high paying job right out of college programming in Cobol. But that certainly was not for me after groking the beauty of Scheme. Consequently, a study showing that I would have statistically made as much money if I had received my education at a less prestigious school, is utterly irrelevent to how I value my MIT education.