4 ms·

As others in the thread have noted, there are two separeate issues here: 1. Young people should be able to get a quality education regardless of their families

by s17n 3y ago

As others in the thread have noted, there are two separeate issues here: 1. Young people should be able to get a quality education regardless of their families' financial situation. 2. Everyone should have an equal shot at attaining positions of power in society (not so much for their own good, since almost nobody is going to attain these positions anyway it's a small benefit relative to the total population, as for everyone else's good - we don't want to be governed by a hereditary caste). For (1), you want high quality free public colleges (elite institutions are simply too small regardless of what you do with their admissions process). For (2), you need to make sure admissions at elite institutions is equitable (most important priority: ban legacy admissions).

ugh123 3y ago
What are the non-merit based criteria you propose?
DrThunder 3y ago
Giving out legacy admission is Equity. You're giving "legacy" people the same education as people who earned it through merit, which is the definition of being equitable. Unless, you believe equity only applies to race? Equality is the term you're looking for.
- s17n 3y ago
  Equitable, adj: fair and impartial. If you actually believe that legacy admissions are a fair and impartial way to decide who gets to go to Harvard, I'm not really sure what to say.
  - DrThunder 3y ago
    Equity is an outcome. You're suggesting we FORCE an outcome and apparently you don't want to base it on legacy. So, what are we basing the forced outcome on? Race? Victim-hood? Gender? Class? Are lower class people of color more deserving of equity? How do you make something equitable? You need to think through the process of how that works. It's every bit as "fair" to gift admissions to family members as it is to someone because they're a different skin tone. Which is to say, both are stupid. How about we give people the resources and they can prove they deserve it through merit?
    - s17n 3y ago
      TBH I'm probably fine with any system that doesn't give preference to legacy and faculty admits
      - DrThunder 3y ago
        You would be, since you can't even define what the word equity means. Emotional idiocy in the name of "fairness" leads to the worst atrocities imaginable.
jonhohle 3y ago
As someone who is likely funding what is ultimately a money/power grab, if I'm paying for education, I want it to be for degrees that have direct, immediate impact: educators, doctors, hard sciences. While there is a possibility of funding the education of the next great novelist, sociologist, artist, or historian, there will never be a return on that investment for the vast number of students in those fields. I don't know why we'd force that risk on the public. Colleges (public or private) are too good at absorbing any money that is made available to them, to be trusted as being fiduciaries of public education, IMHO. As student loans and public money are made available, they have raised tuition to fill the gap without providing any additional benefit for their increased incomes. For the second one, the only thing that mucking with a private institutions admissions process will do is turn it into a public institution that is no longer elite. They're private, let them do what they want.
- s17n 3y ago
  > As someone who is likely funding what is ultimately a money/power grab, if I'm paying for education, I want it to be for degrees that have direct, immediate impact: educators, doctors, hard sciences. While there is a possibility of funding the education of the next great novelist, sociologist, artist, or historian, there will never be a return on that investment for the vast number of students in those fields. I don't know why we'd force that risk on the public. Do you also feel this way about public high schools? Personally, I just think that a world in which everyone has access to education is a better world for everyone. > Colleges (public or private) are too good at absorbing any money that is made available to them, to be trusted as being fiduciaries of public education, IMHO. As student loans and public money are made available, they have raised tuition to fill the gap without providing any additional benefit for their increased incomes. Agreed, but this is a problem than can and must be solved. Public universities are nowhere near as bad in this regard as private ones and are thus the best place to invest. > For the second one, the only thing that mucking with a private institutions admissions process will do is turn it into a public institution that is no longer elite. They're private, let them do what they want. Private universities are deeply embedded in our society as gatekeepers to positions of power and thus the public has a legitimate interest in how their admissions process works (not to mention that they receive large amounts of public funding). If getting rid of legacy admissions means that they are "no longer elite" (to be clear it should make them more "elite" in terms of actual research and academic performance, but possibly less elite in terms of controlling access to money and power) that's an outcome I'm happy to see.
krapp 3y ago
The thing is, Americans by and large don't really believe either of those points. At least not in enough numbers to push policy.

by s17n 3y ago

ugh123 3y ago

What are the non-merit based criteria you propose?

DrThunder 3y ago

Giving out legacy admission is Equity. You're giving "legacy" people the same education as people who earned it through merit, which is the definition of being equitable. Unless, you believe equity only applies to race? Equality is the term you're looking for.

s17n 3y ago
Equitable, adj: fair and impartial. If you actually believe that legacy admissions are a fair and impartial way to decide who gets to go to Harvard, I'm not really sure what to say.
- DrThunder 3y ago
  Equity is an outcome. You're suggesting we FORCE an outcome and apparently you don't want to base it on legacy. So, what are we basing the forced outcome on? Race? Victim-hood? Gender? Class? Are lower class people of color more deserving of equity? How do you make something equitable? You need to think through the process of how that works. It's every bit as "fair" to gift admissions to family members as it is to someone because they're a different skin tone. Which is to say, both are stupid. How about we give people the resources and they can prove they deserve it through merit?
  - s17n 3y ago
    TBH I'm probably fine with any system that doesn't give preference to legacy and faculty admits
    - DrThunder 3y ago
      You would be, since you can't even define what the word equity means. Emotional idiocy in the name of "fairness" leads to the worst atrocities imaginable.

jonhohle 3y ago

As someone who is likely funding what is ultimately a money/power grab, if I'm paying for education, I want it to be for degrees that have direct, immediate impact: educators, doctors, hard sciences. While there is a possibility of funding the education of the next great novelist, sociologist, artist, or historian, there will never be a return on that investment for the vast number of students in those fields. I don't know why we'd force that risk on the public. Colleges (public or private) are too good at absorbing any money that is made available to them, to be trusted as being fiduciaries of public education, IMHO. As student loans and public money are made available, they have raised tuition to fill the gap without providing any additional benefit for their increased incomes. For the second one, the only thing that mucking with a private institutions admissions process will do is turn it into a public institution that is no longer elite. They're private, let them do what they want.

s17n 3y ago
> As someone who is likely funding what is ultimately a money/power grab, if I'm paying for education, I want it to be for degrees that have direct, immediate impact: educators, doctors, hard sciences. While there is a possibility of funding the education of the next great novelist, sociologist, artist, or historian, there will never be a return on that investment for the vast number of students in those fields. I don't know why we'd force that risk on the public. Do you also feel this way about public high schools? Personally, I just think that a world in which everyone has access to education is a better world for everyone. > Colleges (public or private) are too good at absorbing any money that is made available to them, to be trusted as being fiduciaries of public education, IMHO. As student loans and public money are made available, they have raised tuition to fill the gap without providing any additional benefit for their increased incomes. Agreed, but this is a problem than can and must be solved. Public universities are nowhere near as bad in this regard as private ones and are thus the best place to invest. > For the second one, the only thing that mucking with a private institutions admissions process will do is turn it into a public institution that is no longer elite. They're private, let them do what they want. Private universities are deeply embedded in our society as gatekeepers to positions of power and thus the public has a legitimate interest in how their admissions process works (not to mention that they receive large amounts of public funding). If getting rid of legacy admissions means that they are "no longer elite" (to be clear it should make them more "elite" in terms of actual research and academic performance, but possibly less elite in terms of controlling access to money and power) that's an outcome I'm happy to see.

krapp 3y ago

The thing is, Americans by and large don't really believe either of those points. At least not in enough numbers to push policy.