3 ms·
That's an excellent point. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating both legacy admissions and athletic scholarships at public universities. It reminds me of the
by orangecat 6y ago
That's an excellent point. I'd be perfectly fine with eliminating both legacy admissions and athletic scholarships at public universities.
It reminds me of the Lori Loughlin case, where she was arrested not because bribing a university to admit your child is unfair to other applicants and sullies the ideal of an academic meritocracy, but because she didn't follow the university's established process for bribery. (Matt Levine expounds on this with his usual hilarity at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-have-to-pay-the-right-person https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...)
- btilly 6y agoI would as well. But if you accept the one, then it is inconsistent to object to the other.
- libria 6y agoBut why? What if one {football player|kid-with-rich-parents} can subsidize 10 other need-based students who otherwise would not have been offered a premier education? In terms of reputation, imposters tend to fade into obscurity in time while those 10 will go on to build the schools brand.