5 ms·

It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public

by Klinky 6y ago

It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public institutions to not be reliant on magic philanthropists or rich people with dumb kids. Just tax rich people more and build the needed buildings from public funds.

Tycho 6y ago
Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?
    - Klinky 6y ago
      This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.
      - dodobirdlord 6y ago
        I don't think this is a thing at public institutions for exactly that reason.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      over time the entirety of the state apparatus (and business as well) who recruit out of these institutions because excellence and merit are replaced by legacy more and more and the quality of government and leadership continues to decline. I mean you can literally witness it with your own eyes right now when you look at the US on the world stage. Compare the quality of governance and selection of candidates to a country like Singapore, or hell even China whose ruthless political apparatus weeds out people who don't perform quite effectively.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Do you foresee a future where rich and powerful people don't routinely get what they want? That would involve redefining what it means to be rich and powerful. The US's strategy of funnelling the power through visible, legal channels with some levels of consistency is by far the best. If they want their kids in prestigious universities then that is what will happen. There isn't an alternative where the powerful shrug sheepishly and let their position erode.
    - Applejinx 6y ago
      At one point, a thing called the Magna Carta was arrived at for just such a purpose. One might say that redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, is normal.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      Again, the argument is that rich people should be allowed to be corrupt and there is no way to stop them, which is garbage. Firstly, stop stating it's "best" or like OP noting it as "success". Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education, even the playing field out. Yes you can redefine what rich means, and what poor means, over time through policies. That last part sounds like almost a threat regarding what rich people might do if you block their corrupt behavior. That's already a sign there's a problem with the power dynamic here.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... Someone getting in by buying the institution a new building isn't denying anyone access to higher education. In fact, since the institution has a new building it is likely it is increasing access to either education or research opportunities. > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... 30% of the US does get a degree, so higher education isn't exactly an elite marker. [2-4 years of time] X [70% of the US that doesn't have a degree] is an enormous number of hours. If someone is not going to use it then they have better things to do than academics. The risk of most of that 70% just looking back at a couple of wasted years is pretty high. I suppose in fairness it might work out, but even now there are a lot of people getting degrees who havn't managed to parley it up into better outcomes. But it is likely to be a terrible plan, expensive and with marginal positive outcomes.
vadym909 6y ago
I agree it is benign. There are only a few Bill Gates level rich people donating buildings. Sure it is corrupt strictly speaking but would you rather a poor student compete with one Gates kid or 100 millionaire kids that have discovered other cheaper corrupt openings?
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  It’s definitely more common than Gates. Perhaps around 5% of Ivy League students - https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-help-college-applications https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-h...

by Klinky 6y ago

Tycho 6y ago

Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.

Klinky 6y ago
Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?
  - Klinky 6y ago
    This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      I don't think this is a thing at public institutions for exactly that reason.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    over time the entirety of the state apparatus (and business as well) who recruit out of these institutions because excellence and merit are replaced by legacy more and more and the quality of government and leadership continues to decline. I mean you can literally witness it with your own eyes right now when you look at the US on the world stage. Compare the quality of governance and selection of candidates to a country like Singapore, or hell even China whose ruthless political apparatus weeds out people who don't perform quite effectively.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Do you foresee a future where rich and powerful people don't routinely get what they want? That would involve redefining what it means to be rich and powerful. The US's strategy of funnelling the power through visible, legal channels with some levels of consistency is by far the best. If they want their kids in prestigious universities then that is what will happen. There isn't an alternative where the powerful shrug sheepishly and let their position erode.
  - Applejinx 6y ago
    At one point, a thing called the Magna Carta was arrived at for just such a purpose. One might say that redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, is normal.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    Again, the argument is that rich people should be allowed to be corrupt and there is no way to stop them, which is garbage. Firstly, stop stating it's "best" or like OP noting it as "success". Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education, even the playing field out. Yes you can redefine what rich means, and what poor means, over time through policies. That last part sounds like almost a threat regarding what rich people might do if you block their corrupt behavior. That's already a sign there's a problem with the power dynamic here.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... Someone getting in by buying the institution a new building isn't denying anyone access to higher education. In fact, since the institution has a new building it is likely it is increasing access to either education or research opportunities. > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... 30% of the US does get a degree, so higher education isn't exactly an elite marker. [2-4 years of time] X [70% of the US that doesn't have a degree] is an enormous number of hours. If someone is not going to use it then they have better things to do than academics. The risk of most of that 70% just looking back at a couple of wasted years is pretty high. I suppose in fairness it might work out, but even now there are a lot of people getting degrees who havn't managed to parley it up into better outcomes. But it is likely to be a terrible plan, expensive and with marginal positive outcomes.

vadym909 6y ago

I agree it is benign. There are only a few Bill Gates level rich people donating buildings. Sure it is corrupt strictly speaking but would you rather a poor student compete with one Gates kid or 100 millionaire kids that have discovered other cheaper corrupt openings?

lazyasciiart 6y ago
It’s definitely more common than Gates. Perhaps around 5% of Ivy League students - https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-help-college-applications https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-h...