3 ms·

Should university acceptance be meritocratic or not? HN seems to be suffering from dissonance.

kurisufag 2y ago
the purpose of Harvard-type monastic institutions and MIT-type land grant engineering schools are /drastically/ different. the big H isn't even really a school, it's a social mixing program for the future 1%. a way for the sons and daughters of the elite to make friends with the smartest of their generation, to ensure the latter get funding and the former are never unseated.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  I didn't see this amount of bellyaching when race-based affirmative action admissions were eviscerated by SCOTUS. Then, HN was almost unanimous in the opinion that it was a good ruling, because academic meritocracy is a good thing.
  - preciousoo 2y ago
    :-)
- vkou 2y ago
  > the purpose of Harvard-type monastic institutions and MIT-type land grant engineering schools are /drastically/ different. And the purpose of employment is 'hiring whomever the boss thinks will make the most money for him', without even pretending to provide a public good, yet the same suspects are hand-wringing about how workplaces should be meritocratic. Likewise, when AA-admissions were killed, those people were also all for meritocracy. Mayhaps the demand for meritocracy is just a fig leaf. It's never been about fairness, it's about preserving access to power.
epolanski 2y ago
Does it matter if you're paying for it? Look, I'm European and I just cannot see the issue here. I'm all for government providing excellent public education, but if a private university does admission on whatever metric (unless it's discriminating for illegal, such as race, reasons) so be it? If somebody's shelling millions funding a university, don't see a problem with enrolling his son.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > Does it matter if you're paying for it? FWIW, the state is also (indirectly ) paying for this change. Private universities can exempt themselves from this law by not accepting state dollars, but I don't think donors can fill the resulting hole. > If somebody's shelling millions funding a university, don't see a problem with enrolling his son. The state shells more. A lot more, and is leveraging that so that mere-multi-million-dollar-donors-offspring don't get an advantage over non-donors (eventually. The lawmaker is cleverly taking a tick-tock ratcheting approach where each law builds on top of the last)
  - epolanski 2y ago
    Maybe universities should compromise with the state and be able to assign a certain quota (10% idk) for such individuals.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      Why? Are these universities facing challenges with funding their humongous endowments? Or is so that every generation of peasants pays the social debt they owe to their betters?

the purpose of Harvard-type monastic institutions and MIT-type land grant engineering schools are /drastically/ different. the big H isn't even really a school, it's a social mixing program for the future 1%. a way for the sons and daughters of the elite to make friends with the smartest of their generation, to ensure the latter get funding and the former are never unseated.

sangnoir 2y ago
I didn't see this amount of bellyaching when race-based affirmative action admissions were eviscerated by SCOTUS. Then, HN was almost unanimous in the opinion that it was a good ruling, because academic meritocracy is a good thing.
- preciousoo 2y ago
  :-)
vkou 2y ago
> the purpose of Harvard-type monastic institutions and MIT-type land grant engineering schools are /drastically/ different. And the purpose of employment is 'hiring whomever the boss thinks will make the most money for him', without even pretending to provide a public good, yet the same suspects are hand-wringing about how workplaces should be meritocratic. Likewise, when AA-admissions were killed, those people were also all for meritocracy. Mayhaps the demand for meritocracy is just a fig leaf. It's never been about fairness, it's about preserving access to power.

epolanski 2y ago

Does it matter if you're paying for it? Look, I'm European and I just cannot see the issue here. I'm all for government providing excellent public education, but if a private university does admission on whatever metric (unless it's discriminating for illegal, such as race, reasons) so be it? If somebody's shelling millions funding a university, don't see a problem with enrolling his son.

sangnoir 2y ago
> Does it matter if you're paying for it? FWIW, the state is also (indirectly ) paying for this change. Private universities can exempt themselves from this law by not accepting state dollars, but I don't think donors can fill the resulting hole. > If somebody's shelling millions funding a university, don't see a problem with enrolling his son. The state shells more. A lot more, and is leveraging that so that mere-multi-million-dollar-donors-offspring don't get an advantage over non-donors (eventually. The lawmaker is cleverly taking a tick-tock ratcheting approach where each law builds on top of the last)
- epolanski 2y ago
  Maybe universities should compromise with the state and be able to assign a certain quota (10% idk) for such individuals.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Why? Are these universities facing challenges with funding their humongous endowments? Or is so that every generation of peasants pays the social debt they owe to their betters?