6 ms·

The fact that GWB went to Yale made it possible for him to become President. Elite schools make it easier for people who have money (but aren’t too academicall

by newen 6y ago

The fact that GWB went to Yale made it possible for him to become President. Elite schools make it easier for people who have money (but aren’t too academically inclined) to get into positions of political power by building credentials and connecting with a community of smart people.

murgindrag 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what I wrote? The whole point of elite schools is to give rich people appearance of intelligence by association. If you take 2000 valedictorians and 500 rich douchebags, have the 500 rich douchebags pay to educate the whole lot, and everyone comes out with a common brand stamp, who benefits? Answer: Everyone involved! Taking away federal funding (as if that were politically possible) would slow it down a little bit, but the rich douchebags are really, really rich. They'll just pay a little bit more. I don't know how you're going to stop that without a totalitarian state.
- rjkennedy98 6y ago
  > Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASSIVE amounts of government funding. Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.
    - newen 6y ago
      The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one will care except tabloids. If they lose the elites, the universities will still be prestigious universities. So to spell it out, what I’m saying is that rich people attending elite universities are not important for elite universities. It mainly benefits rich people.
      - nybble41 6y ago
        > The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people… I believe the point was that these schools don't need to accept subsidized student loans or other forms of federal funding. That doesn't mean only admitting rich people; they have enough resources to offer student aid to bring in the academic overachievers on their own, thus maintaining their reputation without federal help.
      - assap_cocky 6y ago
        But the smart people get networked into powerful circles. Lots of smart people get nowhere without having connections to people who control the money.
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        Most of the financial aid given out by these schools isn’t federal aid. They even give full rides to international students who aren’t eligible for federal at all, and middle-class kids whose families have too much income to be eligible. This aid is funded by the endowment which is donations from rich people. I think when people say Princeton receives a lot of federal money, they are talking about research grants, and possibly the effective subsidy that comes from the tax deductible status of donations from rich people. Each of these adds up to a lot more money than the Pell grants. If you take away the rich people, the school won’t be able to afford to operate this way.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > What about the rest of us? The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated. If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.
    - murgindrag 6y ago
      It's not significantly more people. The US has 5000 universities and colleges, and perhaps a dozen really elite schools, depending on where you draw the line. Those schools have more money. No one else does. And only some of that money comes from donations. Much of it are your taxpayer dollars at work. The direct way is to donate money. The indirect way is to swing government funds.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > It's not significantly more people. Ok, well it is more people than the amount of spots that they take up. > Those schools have more money. No one else does. Ok, so if an elite person takes up one spot, but the extra money allows 2 more spots to open up, then that is a net increase in total number of slots. So that is still a benefit to the extra people who can go to that college.
        tfehring 6y ago
        Spots at elite universities are constrained for the sake of artificial scarcity, not because of financial considerations.
    - RIMR 6y ago
      But maybe if education was actually about pursuit of knowledge rather than simply networking to maximize your capitalist potential, we would end up with a more educated populace. Subsidizing college education ultimately opens up a spot in higher education for everyone. It's short-sighted to view the wealthy people manipulating our institutions with their money as our providers. They literally paid for the opportunity for people to view them that way.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers. Where do you find these numbers? Have a link?
  - sukilot 6y ago
    The feds are paying for research, not George's tuition. George didn't need a scholarship.
    - murgindrag 6y ago
      About 2/5 of the Fed's money goes to research, and about 3/5 goes to "overhead." "Overhead" then funds $200 million buildings, million dollar salaries, yacht clubs, financial ponzi schemes, press/legal/branding departments, and what not.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  This is true. Taking away public funding is what a lot of people at some of these schools want. It's an opportunity to completely eliminate the riff-raff. Even in my own state, the flagship university was threatened with a cut off of public funding under the previous governor. It was a bit of an open secret that internally to the university, a large number of people wanted the funding to be cut. This would mean they'd no longer need to carry the financial burden of all the automatic admits from within the state.
- newen 6y ago
  You make it sound like it’s preordained that people like Bush make the laws and smart people should be grateful that they get to attend elite universities to network with the heirs presumptive of future presidencies. In reality, it’s the rich that benefit by getting connections to a network of future political operatives, academics, media people that allow them to use their wealth in order to advance their political interests.
  - tristor 6y ago
    You're seeming to miss that it's a two-way street. All of those folks also want to be connected to the rich so that they can potentially get funding for whatever their idea/project is and get access to networks of the wealthy. These elite institutions provide an interconnection point between two different networks, the networks of the wealthy and the networks of the highly intelligent. It is pretty much pre-ordained that those are intelligent and those who are rich will find ways to network with one another so that both of their causes are advanced. For the highly intelligent that might be getting funding for a startup idea. For the rich that might be having access to network effects to cement their political power base. It's not that the current system is inevitable, it's that any deviations from the current system which may be possible are relatively minute when it comes to this particular facet. All of human history has told us so.
pdonis 6y ago
Wouldn't the obvious fix for this be to reduce the amount of power that is available to people in this way? In other words, reducing the amount of power that we give to institutions (like government) whose membership is largely determined by these factors, instead of by people having to produce actual results in the real world?
rhino369 6y ago
I bet it wouldn't really have hurt GWB to have gone to UT-Austin instead. Especially if all the other rich kids stopped getting accepted (so he wouldn't stand out). He got jobs and power because his daddy was President. Not because he went to Yale. I think these schools think its the opposite. They'd rather have someone who already has power within their network.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Yale gave him fake credibility because it's uncouth to vote for or start a business with a trust fund baby for no other reason than that.

by newen 6y ago

murgindrag 6y ago

Isn't that exactly what I wrote? The whole point of elite schools is to give rich people appearance of intelligence by association. If you take 2000 valedictorians and 500 rich douchebags, have the 500 rich douchebags pay to educate the whole lot, and everyone comes out with a common brand stamp, who benefits? Answer: Everyone involved! Taking away federal funding (as if that were politically possible) would slow it down a little bit, but the rich douchebags are really, really rich. They'll just pay a little bit more. I don't know how you're going to stop that without a totalitarian state.

rjkennedy98 6y ago
> Answer: Everyone involved! What about the rest of us? Did we benefit that George Bush (who claimed never to read a book at Yale) got the certification of an elite degree? What you are saying is the equivalent of saying everyone in the mafia benefited by being part of the mafia. And btw before anyone talks about how Yale (or any other elite school) is private and can make their own decisions - no - they receive MASSIVE amounts of government funding. Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  The point he's making is that if the funding is removed, Princeton or Yale would no longer need to put up the façade. So the only thing that would matter is whether or not the Bush-type families of the US benefit from the system that is in place. The commenter is positing that the answer is "Yes". I agree with that assessment.
  - newen 6y ago
    The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people, the university will lose its reputation and become irrelevant overnight. The thing that gives elite universities their reputation both their academic reputation and the elites that attend them. If they lose the academic reputation, the unis become irrelevant and might as well be a party house for rich people; no one will care except tabloids. If they lose the elites, the universities will still be prestigious universities. So to spell it out, what I’m saying is that rich people attending elite universities are not important for elite universities. It mainly benefits rich people.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > The other side of the argument is that if the facade is not there, if they only admit rich people… I believe the point was that these schools don't need to accept subsidized student loans or other forms of federal funding. That doesn't mean only admitting rich people; they have enough resources to offer student aid to bring in the academic overachievers on their own, thus maintaining their reputation without federal help.
    - assap_cocky 6y ago
      But the smart people get networked into powerful circles. Lots of smart people get nowhere without having connections to people who control the money.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      Most of the financial aid given out by these schools isn’t federal aid. They even give full rides to international students who aren’t eligible for federal at all, and middle-class kids whose families have too much income to be eligible. This aid is funded by the endowment which is donations from rich people. I think when people say Princeton receives a lot of federal money, they are talking about research grants, and possibly the effective subsidy that comes from the tax deductible status of donations from rich people. Each of these adds up to a lot more money than the Pell grants. If you take away the rich people, the school won’t be able to afford to operate this way.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > What about the rest of us? The rest would have significantly less spots in college, if this funding method was gotten rid of. So less people would be educated. If rich people going to an elite college results in significantly more spots at that college being funded, then that is a benefit.
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    It's not significantly more people. The US has 5000 universities and colleges, and perhaps a dozen really elite schools, depending on where you draw the line. Those schools have more money. No one else does. And only some of that money comes from donations. Much of it are your taxpayer dollars at work. The direct way is to donate money. The indirect way is to swing government funds.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > It's not significantly more people. Ok, well it is more people than the amount of spots that they take up. > Those schools have more money. No one else does. Ok, so if an elite person takes up one spot, but the extra money allows 2 more spots to open up, then that is a net increase in total number of slots. So that is still a benefit to the extra people who can go to that college.
      - tfehring 6y ago
        Spots at elite universities are constrained for the sake of artificial scarcity, not because of financial considerations.
  - RIMR 6y ago
    But maybe if education was actually about pursuit of knowledge rather than simply networking to maximize your capitalist potential, we would end up with a more educated populace. Subsidizing college education ultimately opens up a spot in higher education for everyone. It's short-sighted to view the wealthy people manipulating our institutions with their money as our providers. They literally paid for the opportunity for people to view them that way.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >Princeton receives more per capita government funds than Rutgers. Where do you find these numbers? Have a link?
- sukilot 6y ago
  The feds are paying for research, not George's tuition. George didn't need a scholarship.
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    About 2/5 of the Fed's money goes to research, and about 3/5 goes to "overhead." "Overhead" then funds $200 million buildings, million dollar salaries, yacht clubs, financial ponzi schemes, press/legal/branding departments, and what not.
bilbo0s 6y ago
This is true. Taking away public funding is what a lot of people at some of these schools want. It's an opportunity to completely eliminate the riff-raff. Even in my own state, the flagship university was threatened with a cut off of public funding under the previous governor. It was a bit of an open secret that internally to the university, a large number of people wanted the funding to be cut. This would mean they'd no longer need to carry the financial burden of all the automatic admits from within the state.
newen 6y ago
You make it sound like it’s preordained that people like Bush make the laws and smart people should be grateful that they get to attend elite universities to network with the heirs presumptive of future presidencies. In reality, it’s the rich that benefit by getting connections to a network of future political operatives, academics, media people that allow them to use their wealth in order to advance their political interests.
- tristor 6y ago
  You're seeming to miss that it's a two-way street. All of those folks also want to be connected to the rich so that they can potentially get funding for whatever their idea/project is and get access to networks of the wealthy. These elite institutions provide an interconnection point between two different networks, the networks of the wealthy and the networks of the highly intelligent. It is pretty much pre-ordained that those are intelligent and those who are rich will find ways to network with one another so that both of their causes are advanced. For the highly intelligent that might be getting funding for a startup idea. For the rich that might be having access to network effects to cement their political power base. It's not that the current system is inevitable, it's that any deviations from the current system which may be possible are relatively minute when it comes to this particular facet. All of human history has told us so.

pdonis 6y ago

Wouldn't the obvious fix for this be to reduce the amount of power that is available to people in this way? In other words, reducing the amount of power that we give to institutions (like government) whose membership is largely determined by these factors, instead of by people having to produce actual results in the real world?

rhino369 6y ago

I bet it wouldn't really have hurt GWB to have gone to UT-Austin instead. Especially if all the other rich kids stopped getting accepted (so he wouldn't stand out). He got jobs and power because his daddy was President. Not because he went to Yale. I think these schools think its the opposite. They'd rather have someone who already has power within their network.

sukilot 6y ago
Yale gave him fake credibility because it's uncouth to vote for or start a business with a trust fund baby for no other reason than that.