4 ms·
I was responding to this: > college name be no longer required as a criterion for job applications By saying maybe we could, instead, try to improve the reput
by CPLX 3y ago
I was responding to this:
> college name be no longer required as a criterion for job applications
By saying maybe we could, instead, try to improve the reputations of our best colleges so the signal would be valid.
- endisneigh 3y agothe point is that even if the signal was valid, the college admissions ploy described in the OP would still be true. fundamentally the signal should be in the actual quality of a specific candidate, not some approximate proxy for the school name.
- CPLX 3y agoWhy would it be true? Colleges could, in fact, not reward the bullshit resume padding of wealthy families. They could also fire literally half the admin staff, which is approaching an astonishing 1:1 ratio of staff to students at a lot of these prestigious colleges. They don't reward this bullshit resume padding because they are confused they do it because they want to. The incentives for college administrators are basically all financial at this point, it's about tuition and donors. Like I said, academic culture has been overtaken by the culture of financialization. Consider this thought experiment - what would you do if you wanted to publicly say you did "need blind" admissions where you really promise not to look at the actual financial status of applicants at all, but you actually wanted to avoid admitting too many people who weren't going to pay full price? If those were the incentives you were facing, then you'd try to come up with signals to use as a proxy for just asking applicants if they are rich. Can we see what's going on here now?
- endisneigh 3y agosorry but you're going on a really off-topic rant.
- CPLX 3y agoThe topic of this thread is a bullshit rich person “college admissions ploy” so pretty sure my comment is dead center on point.