4 ms·

Have a rule. Our republic, and the California state government, is based on rule of law. One group makes the laws, another enforces it, and a third interprets

Have a rule. Our republic, and the California state government, is based on rule of law. One group makes the laws, another enforces it, and a third interprets the conflicts. This works. What we have here is a 'no rules' set of actions. How about rules that say "we will take any student for $200K/year". This is enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student.

kenhwang 6y ago
1 for 1 isn't worth it, and the UC system already plays that game with international students where one international pays for 3 in-states. Make the buy-in price pay for 10 and I'm in support.
- gibolt 6y ago
  1 for 10 seems reasonable, assuming there is also a strict academic requirement for that privileged student. Even more points if it supports their housing and food plan.
  - Loughla 6y ago
    The incentive in that system is to ensure the wealthy student absolutely meets their academic requirements, regardless of ability. How can you fail out Timmy Upperclass, if 10 students lose their funding next year with him gone?
    - kenhwang 6y ago
      If you fail out Timmy, he has to pay for tuition again thus paying for even more students. Or just charge the 10x upfront + normal tuition/year after that.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      Replace him with Billy Upperclass Transfer student.
  - geodel 6y ago
    Further points if rich kids do household chores, cleaning, cooking etc for less privileged folks. Just strict academic requirement is not sufficient. Rich kids also have to remain in 95 percentile in academics. A further investigation committee need to be setup to investigate every year if rich kids are not using their influence to be among top students in their classes.
- minhazm 6y ago
  Maybe they could take like 5-10% of the slots and just auction them off.
- baddox 6y ago
  You obviously have to balance the legitimate cost against the illegitimate costs people will incur to get kids admitted. I don't know if 3x or 10x is the right value, but it's definitely not "more is better." If you make it cost a billion dollars to legitimately buy your kid into the school, there will still be millionaires utilizing these sorts of bribes.
ipnon 6y ago
The idea of privilege first entered the public sphere in the prelude to the French Revolution. "Privilege" in Old French literally means "private law".[1] It was the idea that a different set of rules for each of the Estates (Clergy, Nobles, and Commoners) was both fair and natural. Are we are starting to see similarly different sets of rules for each class in the United States? Is such privilege in accordance with our ideals of liberty and justice for all? [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/privilege https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/privilege
- suprfsat 6y ago
  Can it be? Are the rich starting to follow a different set of rules?
- chaostheory 6y ago
  Corruption never disappears completely, but it's pervasiveness seems to be cyclical. The 4th Turning is a good read on the subject https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rendezvous/dp/0767900464 https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
- youeseh 6y ago
  Social classes and economic classes, while they have a lot of overlap, are fundamentally different.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Starting? When has this not been the case?
  - ipnon 6y ago
    Before the 18th century most people could not read. Literacy rates began rising dramatically starting in the 17th century with the invention of the printing press and the proliferation of reading materials that it spawned. By the third quarter of the 18th century, an extraordinary milestone was passed in France. For the first time in history more people could read than could not. The commoners of Paris were obsessed with the plays, novels and essays of Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot. The satire and wit of these thinkers inspired a new form of popular discourse we now call critical thinking. Commoners from rich merchants to petty artisans started examining and discovering the contradictions and injustices endemic to their lot in life. The idea of privilege came from this tempest of new ideas. While the hierarchy of power and its unequal treatment are as old as time, this newly educated population was for the first time able to see this hierarchy of power for what it is: an inherited system of control based on fraudulent claims to divinity that is inherently unfair and unjust.
TimTheTinker 6y ago
Completely agreed. The idea that we have to "tear it all down" and institute Marxism is backward and self-contradictory. As you said, we need to identify where and how rule of law is lacking and fix it, making sure that representative government and separation of powers remains intact (or is put in place again).
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Do you actually believe that letting people pay for guaranteed enrollment is at all acceptable?
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Not at all!! Not sure where you got that. I think this business of improper admission and bribes violates rule of law terribly. That's the point -- rule of law means everyone is subject to the same rules, without partiality.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Well no, that's not really what rule of law means. It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions. If this wasn't a public institution, it would be perfectly legal, and I'm not even sure it's illegal here. Rule of law is not sufficient, power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes.
      - TimTheTinker 6y ago
        > It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions Not if a law exists to the contrary. And that was the point I was agreeing with -- the solution should be to write a law if one doesn't already exist; or to enforce it if it does. > power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes Agreed, though distribution isn't the word I'd use, as it implies the existence of another human authority to determine how it should be distributed (thus granting that person or group of people improper power). But if the placement of power is determined by duly enacted law, that's acceptable.
joshuamorton 6y ago
This isn't tenable at this price. Double or triple it, and maybe. The limiting factor for elite universities usually isn't dollars, but the quantity of qualified tenure-track faculty and physical space. Not at the university, but overall. The number of postdocs and graduating PhD students each year with the credentials that Cal wants to accept isn't huge. Similarly, the number of rooms that the university has is limited, and both of those numbers take time to change. A certain ticket for 4x the price of Harvard is still a really, really good deal for lots of wealthy people.
grumple 6y ago
This is already the way education works. You’ve heard of “needs-blind” admissions? Anywhere they don’t say that, it means the ability of students to pay full price is part of the admission process.
- gowld 6y ago
  Even "need-blind" admission uses proxies for (non-)need, like "legacy" and "celebrity".
hatmatrix 6y ago
Like first class passengers footing a large share of the bill so economy passengers can pay less.
- robocat 6y ago
  I think that is a misconception. The economy travellers make it possible to travel first class. First class travel is for the moderately wealthy. The very wealthy have their own transport. Economist article on decline of 1st class travellers: http://archive.vn/OQPt2 http://archive.vn/OQPt2 (2019).
rahimnathwani 6y ago
"This is enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student." Imagine there are 10 students for 5 spots, and there is an objective ranking from most-qualified (#1) to least-qualified (#10). Now let's assume student #10 can pay that $200k. That funds their spot plus another spot. So instead of admitting: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} You can now admit: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10} Doesn't this seem unfair to candidates #7 to #9, who are more qualified than #10, but will end up with a less valuable credential?
- sobani 6y ago
  #7 to #9 would never get admitted anyway. The question you should ask is whether being able to admit #6 is worth it. If #10 is some trust fund baby who couldn't study himself out of a wet paper bag, then probably not. But if #10 is merely 'good' it might be worth it to be able to admit just-0.1-GPA-short-of-great #6.
  - rahimnathwani 6y ago
    Consider the degree not as education, but as a signalling device. If you admit #10, then they will beat out #7-#9 in the job market, increasing lifetime earnings at the expense of the others. If you don't admit #10, then #6-#10 will compete on an equal footing. The latter may be the outcome you want.

kenhwang 6y ago

1 for 1 isn't worth it, and the UC system already plays that game with international students where one international pays for 3 in-states. Make the buy-in price pay for 10 and I'm in support.

gibolt 6y ago
1 for 10 seems reasonable, assuming there is also a strict academic requirement for that privileged student. Even more points if it supports their housing and food plan.
- Loughla 6y ago
  The incentive in that system is to ensure the wealthy student absolutely meets their academic requirements, regardless of ability. How can you fail out Timmy Upperclass, if 10 students lose their funding next year with him gone?
  - kenhwang 6y ago
    If you fail out Timmy, he has to pay for tuition again thus paying for even more students. Or just charge the 10x upfront + normal tuition/year after that.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Replace him with Billy Upperclass Transfer student.
- geodel 6y ago
  Further points if rich kids do household chores, cleaning, cooking etc for less privileged folks. Just strict academic requirement is not sufficient. Rich kids also have to remain in 95 percentile in academics. A further investigation committee need to be setup to investigate every year if rich kids are not using their influence to be among top students in their classes.
minhazm 6y ago
Maybe they could take like 5-10% of the slots and just auction them off.
baddox 6y ago
You obviously have to balance the legitimate cost against the illegitimate costs people will incur to get kids admitted. I don't know if 3x or 10x is the right value, but it's definitely not "more is better." If you make it cost a billion dollars to legitimately buy your kid into the school, there will still be millionaires utilizing these sorts of bribes.

ipnon 6y ago

The idea of privilege first entered the public sphere in the prelude to the French Revolution. "Privilege" in Old French literally means "private law".[1] It was the idea that a different set of rules for each of the Estates (Clergy, Nobles, and Commoners) was both fair and natural. Are we are starting to see similarly different sets of rules for each class in the United States? Is such privilege in accordance with our ideals of liberty and justice for all? [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/privilege https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/privilege

suprfsat 6y ago
Can it be? Are the rich starting to follow a different set of rules?
chaostheory 6y ago
Corruption never disappears completely, but it's pervasiveness seems to be cyclical. The 4th Turning is a good read on the subject https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rendezvous/dp/0767900464 https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
youeseh 6y ago
Social classes and economic classes, while they have a lot of overlap, are fundamentally different.
nicoburns 6y ago
Starting? When has this not been the case?
- ipnon 6y ago
  Before the 18th century most people could not read. Literacy rates began rising dramatically starting in the 17th century with the invention of the printing press and the proliferation of reading materials that it spawned. By the third quarter of the 18th century, an extraordinary milestone was passed in France. For the first time in history more people could read than could not. The commoners of Paris were obsessed with the plays, novels and essays of Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot. The satire and wit of these thinkers inspired a new form of popular discourse we now call critical thinking. Commoners from rich merchants to petty artisans started examining and discovering the contradictions and injustices endemic to their lot in life. The idea of privilege came from this tempest of new ideas. While the hierarchy of power and its unequal treatment are as old as time, this newly educated population was for the first time able to see this hierarchy of power for what it is: an inherited system of control based on fraudulent claims to divinity that is inherently unfair and unjust.

TimTheTinker 6y ago

Completely agreed. The idea that we have to "tear it all down" and institute Marxism is backward and self-contradictory. As you said, we need to identify where and how rule of law is lacking and fix it, making sure that representative government and separation of powers remains intact (or is put in place again).

sudosysgen 6y ago
Do you actually believe that letting people pay for guaranteed enrollment is at all acceptable?
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Not at all!! Not sure where you got that. I think this business of improper admission and bribes violates rule of law terribly. That's the point -- rule of law means everyone is subject to the same rules, without partiality.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Well no, that's not really what rule of law means. It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions. If this wasn't a public institution, it would be perfectly legal, and I'm not even sure it's illegal here. Rule of law is not sufficient, power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes.
    - TimTheTinker 6y ago
      > It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions Not if a law exists to the contrary. And that was the point I was agreeing with -- the solution should be to write a law if one doesn't already exist; or to enforce it if it does. > power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes Agreed, though distribution isn't the word I'd use, as it implies the existence of another human authority to determine how it should be distributed (thus granting that person or group of people improper power). But if the placement of power is determined by duly enacted law, that's acceptable.

joshuamorton 6y ago

This isn't tenable at this price. Double or triple it, and maybe. The limiting factor for elite universities usually isn't dollars, but the quantity of qualified tenure-track faculty and physical space. Not at the university, but overall. The number of postdocs and graduating PhD students each year with the credentials that Cal wants to accept isn't huge. Similarly, the number of rooms that the university has is limited, and both of those numbers take time to change. A certain ticket for 4x the price of Harvard is still a really, really good deal for lots of wealthy people.

grumple 6y ago

This is already the way education works. You’ve heard of “needs-blind” admissions? Anywhere they don’t say that, it means the ability of students to pay full price is part of the admission process.

gowld 6y ago
Even "need-blind" admission uses proxies for (non-)need, like "legacy" and "celebrity".

hatmatrix 6y ago

Like first class passengers footing a large share of the bill so economy passengers can pay less.

robocat 6y ago
I think that is a misconception. The economy travellers make it possible to travel first class. First class travel is for the moderately wealthy. The very wealthy have their own transport. Economist article on decline of 1st class travellers: http://archive.vn/OQPt2 http://archive.vn/OQPt2 (2019).

rahimnathwani 6y ago

"This is enough money to supply extra supervision and also give a full scholarship to another student." Imagine there are 10 students for 5 spots, and there is an objective ranking from most-qualified (#1) to least-qualified (#10). Now let's assume student #10 can pay that $200k. That funds their spot plus another spot. So instead of admitting: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} You can now admit: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10} Doesn't this seem unfair to candidates #7 to #9, who are more qualified than #10, but will end up with a less valuable credential?

sobani 6y ago
#7 to #9 would never get admitted anyway. The question you should ask is whether being able to admit #6 is worth it. If #10 is some trust fund baby who couldn't study himself out of a wet paper bag, then probably not. But if #10 is merely 'good' it might be worth it to be able to admit just-0.1-GPA-short-of-great #6.
- rahimnathwani 6y ago
  Consider the degree not as education, but as a signalling device. If you admit #10, then they will beat out #7-#9 in the job market, increasing lifetime earnings at the expense of the others. If you don't admit #10, then #6-#10 will compete on an equal footing. The latter may be the outcome you want.