3 ms·

This relies on a correlation between “legacy” and “good connections”. But if it’s about good connections, why not just have a policy like: “if you’re sufficient

This relies on a correlation between “legacy” and “good connections”. But if it’s about good connections, why not just have a policy like: “if you’re sufficiently good you get in and if you don’t have a ton of money we can provide scholarships to make things more affordable or free; and if you’re ok but rich, you can pay 2x the usual rate for admission up to some quota of these admissions” You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. This seems like a more honest system and it doesn’t strike me as obviously unfair or unreasonable to have. Someone paying double fees isn’t taking someone else’s place so much as providing for someone else’s place.

sackofmugs 7y ago
That's the current system. The rich people pay the MRSP (about 70K/year), and the poor pays half as much on average due to various scholarships / grants / aid. Your way is just that in terms of outcome, except it's more antagonizing to the rich.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  They pay more than that. Legacy enrolment is one of the key ways that colleges grow their endowments, which are (amongst other things) used for scholarships.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. Connections are traditionally determined through the very old method of asking for letters of recommendation. US military academies still work this way; you can't be admitted without a recommendation from one of the three (3) legislators representing you in the federal government, or the vice president. The method is cheap and accurate; you test someone's connections by having them exercise those connections. For some reason universities still ask for letters of recommendation, but they've shifted to asking for letters from random teachers. This completely defeats the purpose; a recommendation from someone who is unknown to you [where "you" are the admissions officer] and who holds no power of any kind is obviously worthless.
jeegsy 7y ago
isnt this what happens already?

sackofmugs 7y ago

That's the current system. The rich people pay the MRSP (about 70K/year), and the poor pays half as much on average due to various scholarships / grants / aid. Your way is just that in terms of outcome, except it's more antagonizing to the rich.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
They pay more than that. Legacy enrolment is one of the key ways that colleges grow their endowments, which are (amongst other things) used for scholarships.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> You could even replace “rich” with “rich and well-connected” though it may be hard to determine the second part. Connections are traditionally determined through the very old method of asking for letters of recommendation. US military academies still work this way; you can't be admitted without a recommendation from one of the three (3) legislators representing you in the federal government, or the vice president. The method is cheap and accurate; you test someone's connections by having them exercise those connections. For some reason universities still ask for letters of recommendation, but they've shifted to asking for letters from random teachers. This completely defeats the purpose; a recommendation from someone who is unknown to you [where "you" are the admissions officer] and who holds no power of any kind is obviously worthless.

jeegsy 7y ago

isnt this what happens already?