27 ms·

Considering "they paid a lot so we let them in" is perfectly valid and legal selection criteria at private schools and universities, I fail to see how legislati

by paxys 2y ago

Considering "they paid a lot so we let them in" is perfectly valid and legal selection criteria at private schools and universities, I fail to see how legislation like this is going to matter.

Ekaros 2y ago
Just make it outright auction. And release the name of student and how much were bid for admission. Seems the fairest route.
- hx8 2y ago
  The Universities select for total donations yes, but they also select individuals based on the prestige they are likely to bring the University.
  - koolba 2y ago
    Which is also why they previously had their internal diversity mandates. That way their alumni as future leaders can legitimately claim they had a black or brown friend in college.
    - hx8 2y ago
      Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought the purpose of Affirmative Action in private universities was to insure those black and brown people were given the opportunity to become the future leaders.
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  Eh, I'd go the opposite route. You meet a threshold, you go into a lottery. They can all sit there on selection day where the hopper spits out the names of admitted students one by one.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Most admission should be by that route. Set proper threshold and then do lottery. But outright auction for some fraction of admission would be good subsidy for rest. Set minimum at proper level say at least 2-5x normal unsubsidised tuition cost.
somat 2y ago
Are not all universities "they paid a lot so we let them in"? I mean, there are subsidies and scholarships, but by and large it is pay to play. now... when it is "they paid a lot so we gave them a degree" that is when you have a problem.
- hiddencost 2y ago
  Sadly half a million dollars isn't a lot of money any more.
- criddell 2y ago
  > Are not all universities "they paid a lot so we let them in"? No. Being able to pay tuition and all the other expenses is necessary but not sufficient to gain admittance. My preference for admission is a lottery system. Have the school set the bar for admission (which can still contain some qualitative criteria) and then after that, it's a lottery for all that exceed that threshold.
  - dhosek 2y ago
    Harvey Mudd College has need-blind admissions so being able to pay tuition and other expenses is in fact, not necessary to gain admittance. They make up the difference through financial aid. Many other highly-selective schools also do need-blind admissions. Even those that don’t may still admit students to whom they will give generous financial aid to make up the difference between what their family can pay and what the school nominally charges.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - blendergeek 2y ago
    How about this system: Set the bar for admission as you described. Have two options for admissions for those who meet the bar. You can choose one and only one of the two systems per admissions cycle. Option 1: Lottery. Every student is entered into a drawing. Option 2: Auction. The highest bidders get admitted. The proportion of slots available for auction or lottery is the same as the proportion of students choosing auction vs lottery. This allows the rich to buy their way into the school while keeping the majority of the slots available for everyone without extreme wealth. Now I know what you are thinking, "why should the rich get to buy their way in?" To which I reply, why not? We only sell a small percentage of the slots, only to otherwise qualified applicants, and only to the highest bidders (meaning they necessarily overpay per the winners curse).
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Considering "they paid a lot so we let them in" is perfectly valid and legal selection criteria at private schools and universities, I fail to see how legislation like this is going to matter (b)(1) "'Donor preference in admissions' means considering an applicant’s relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate their family’s donor status and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission. ... (c) Commencing September 1, 2025, an independent institution of higher education shall not provide a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process." § 66018.4(b) and (c) of the California Education Code, as amended today
Zigurd 2y ago
There are universities for which that would be a valid argument. They are expensive places to store mediocre children of the wealthy and are deigned for purpose. More prestigious private universities use a lot of government funding to fund widely cited research which is what makes them prestigious.
- seneca 2y ago
  Government funded research is not, at all, what makes them prestigious. Harvard was prestigious long before the American government even existed.
- 627467 2y ago
  In that case why not just tie government funding to admission rule changes, instead of blanket regulate private institutions? Are businesses not allowed to pick their customers in the US?
  - axus 2y ago
    Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    - gameman144 2y ago
      Businesses can still pick their customers, they can't just accept/reject customers based on protected categories (e.g. race, sex).
      - int_19h 2y ago
        That kind of like saying that Russia has free speech, you just can't say things that are prohibited by law. One can reasonably argue that such protected categories are necessary for a just and fair society, but let's be clear about what it is we're advocating.
- Maxion 2y ago
  > More prestigious private universities use a lot of government funding to fund widely cited research which is what makes them prestigious. Just a correction, the unversities are NOT the ones that apply for, and receive funding from e.g. the NIH. It is individual researchers that apply, and receive, funding. And this money goes towards their salary and research. No funding, no salary, no reseacher. Universities don't themselves receive government funding.
RIMR 2y ago
Because that's not what's happening here. They're saying "you had a family member graduate here, so we aren't going to expect the same academic prerequisites for your entry". That means that a high-achieving student with uneducated parents will get rejected, while a low-performing student with a parent who is an alumni still gets admitted. This, for an institution that is accredited by the state, that offers credentials that are widely treated as societal merit, represents a profound form of economic discrimination. It also completely destroys any illusion that the college's application process is meritocratic, which is a fundamental assumption of the system at large. This system in inherently racist, because there are plenty of kids getting admitted because their parents or grandparents are alumni. That means that white kids are getting an easy entry to an elite school because their white parents or grandparents, who were born before the end of segregation, attended and graduated from that school before Black Americans were even allowed to enroll. With our extremist SCOTUS now stripping Black Americans of the benefit of Affirmative Action, the only measure that actively leveled the playing field, tearing down this discriminatory system is more important than ever. Especially since these elite schools largely require familial elitism and socioeconomic superiority to qualify for admission, leading to the demographics of students at these schools to sway far whiter than the general college-attending population (because Black people are actively being discriminated against because of the nature of their familial history).
stainablesteel 2y ago
It might also be that their family contributed to the success and reputation of the university for a few generations. As small as that contribution might be, there could be merit in it.

by paxys 2y ago

Considering "they paid a lot so we let them in" is perfectly valid and legal selection criteria at private schools and universities, I fail to see how legislation like this is going to matter.

Ekaros 2y ago

Just make it outright auction. And release the name of student and how much were bid for admission. Seems the fairest route.

hx8 2y ago
The Universities select for total donations yes, but they also select individuals based on the prestige they are likely to bring the University.
- koolba 2y ago
  Which is also why they previously had their internal diversity mandates. That way their alumni as future leaders can legitimately claim they had a black or brown friend in college.
  - hx8 2y ago
    Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought the purpose of Affirmative Action in private universities was to insure those black and brown people were given the opportunity to become the future leaders.
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Eh, I'd go the opposite route. You meet a threshold, you go into a lottery. They can all sit there on selection day where the hopper spits out the names of admitted students one by one.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Most admission should be by that route. Set proper threshold and then do lottery. But outright auction for some fraction of admission would be good subsidy for rest. Set minimum at proper level say at least 2-5x normal unsubsidised tuition cost.

somat 2y ago

Are not all universities "they paid a lot so we let them in"? I mean, there are subsidies and scholarships, but by and large it is pay to play. now... when it is "they paid a lot so we gave them a degree" that is when you have a problem.

hiddencost 2y ago
Sadly half a million dollars isn't a lot of money any more.
criddell 2y ago
> Are not all universities "they paid a lot so we let them in"? No. Being able to pay tuition and all the other expenses is necessary but not sufficient to gain admittance. My preference for admission is a lottery system. Have the school set the bar for admission (which can still contain some qualitative criteria) and then after that, it's a lottery for all that exceed that threshold.
- dhosek 2y ago
  Harvey Mudd College has need-blind admissions so being able to pay tuition and other expenses is in fact, not necessary to gain admittance. They make up the difference through financial aid. Many other highly-selective schools also do need-blind admissions. Even those that don’t may still admit students to whom they will give generous financial aid to make up the difference between what their family can pay and what the school nominally charges.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- blendergeek 2y ago
  How about this system: Set the bar for admission as you described. Have two options for admissions for those who meet the bar. You can choose one and only one of the two systems per admissions cycle. Option 1: Lottery. Every student is entered into a drawing. Option 2: Auction. The highest bidders get admitted. The proportion of slots available for auction or lottery is the same as the proportion of students choosing auction vs lottery. This allows the rich to buy their way into the school while keeping the majority of the slots available for everyone without extreme wealth. Now I know what you are thinking, "why should the rich get to buy their way in?" To which I reply, why not? We only sell a small percentage of the slots, only to otherwise qualified applicants, and only to the highest bidders (meaning they necessarily overpay per the winners curse).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Considering "they paid a lot so we let them in" is perfectly valid and legal selection criteria at private schools and universities, I fail to see how legislation like this is going to matter (b)(1) "'Donor preference in admissions' means considering an applicant’s relation to a donor of, or a donation to, the independent institution of higher education as a factor in the admissions process, including asking an applicant to indicate their family’s donor status and including that information among the documents that the independent institution of higher education uses to consider an applicant for admission. ... (c) Commencing September 1, 2025, an independent institution of higher education shall not provide a legacy preference or donor preference in admissions to an applicant as part of the regular or early action admissions process." § 66018.4(b) and (c) of the California Education Code, as amended today

Zigurd 2y ago

There are universities for which that would be a valid argument. They are expensive places to store mediocre children of the wealthy and are deigned for purpose. More prestigious private universities use a lot of government funding to fund widely cited research which is what makes them prestigious.

seneca 2y ago
Government funded research is not, at all, what makes them prestigious. Harvard was prestigious long before the American government even existed.
627467 2y ago
In that case why not just tie government funding to admission rule changes, instead of blanket regulate private institutions? Are businesses not allowed to pick their customers in the US?
- axus 2y ago
  Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  - gameman144 2y ago
    Businesses can still pick their customers, they can't just accept/reject customers based on protected categories (e.g. race, sex).
    - int_19h 2y ago
      That kind of like saying that Russia has free speech, you just can't say things that are prohibited by law. One can reasonably argue that such protected categories are necessary for a just and fair society, but let's be clear about what it is we're advocating.
Maxion 2y ago
> More prestigious private universities use a lot of government funding to fund widely cited research which is what makes them prestigious. Just a correction, the unversities are NOT the ones that apply for, and receive funding from e.g. the NIH. It is individual researchers that apply, and receive, funding. And this money goes towards their salary and research. No funding, no salary, no reseacher. Universities don't themselves receive government funding.

RIMR 2y ago

Because that's not what's happening here. They're saying "you had a family member graduate here, so we aren't going to expect the same academic prerequisites for your entry". That means that a high-achieving student with uneducated parents will get rejected, while a low-performing student with a parent who is an alumni still gets admitted. This, for an institution that is accredited by the state, that offers credentials that are widely treated as societal merit, represents a profound form of economic discrimination. It also completely destroys any illusion that the college's application process is meritocratic, which is a fundamental assumption of the system at large. This system in inherently racist, because there are plenty of kids getting admitted because their parents or grandparents are alumni. That means that white kids are getting an easy entry to an elite school because their white parents or grandparents, who were born before the end of segregation, attended and graduated from that school before Black Americans were even allowed to enroll. With our extremist SCOTUS now stripping Black Americans of the benefit of Affirmative Action, the only measure that actively leveled the playing field, tearing down this discriminatory system is more important than ever. Especially since these elite schools largely require familial elitism and socioeconomic superiority to qualify for admission, leading to the demographics of students at these schools to sway far whiter than the general college-attending population (because Black people are actively being discriminated against because of the nature of their familial history).

stainablesteel 2y ago

It might also be that their family contributed to the success and reputation of the university for a few generations. As small as that contribution might be, there could be merit in it.