4 ms·

Legacy admissions and holistic (discriminatory) admissions should be disallowed as long as these universities receive public fundings directly or indirectly.

malfist 1y ago
Seems reasonably. You and to discriminate? That's disappointing, but nobody is going to stop you, but the public tax dollars sure as hell shouldn't support your discrimination
- corimaith 1y ago
  The entire notion of "elite" universities is discriminatory. If going to your average state university with high admissions was okay then there wouldn't nearly be as much drama. If the elite colleges are not comprised of the rich and well connected it beats the entire point of an elite college.
  - wsgeorge 1y ago
    > If the elite colleges are not comprised of the rich and well connected it beats the entire point of an elite college. Depends on how you define "elite", and I assume you mean some sort of hereditary or economic-class-based definition. But elite colleges could (and should) still work if they run on competency-based merit. I believe elite talent in as many fields of endeavour should absolutely be catered to. > The entire notion of "elite" universities is discriminatory. Well, when you put it that way, many things are discriminatory, for better or worse.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > If the elite colleges are not comprised of the rich and well connected it beats the entire point of an elite college The functional purpose of a meritocratic elite is to concentrate the smartest and most ambitious in your nation (in each generation) so they can cross leverage each other. This dates back to feudal societies switching to a civil exam system during Enlightenment. (Also in imperial China.) That’s a productive form of discrimination.
    - corimaith 1y ago
      I think it's the opposite actually. I think the moment you're consciously, systematically trying to optimize for "smartest and most ambitious" on a meritocratic basis is the point in which your respective field falls into decline and is relegated to slow, incremental improvements rather than revolutionary jumps. Primairly because "the smartest and most ambitious" are more about seeing that specific field as vehicle for wealth and prestige rather than actual passion. Many of the legends of the past were not good enough for the elite institutions of their time. I mean really, it's the question of why this over preexisting patronage systems. And looking at the "achivements" of this so-called "meritocratic elite" this last century (especially in enshittification) leaves alot to be desired. It's just one self-serving 1% attempting to ursurp another 1%. And they certainly aren't going to be solving your problems. They don't have the ability to solve the coordination problem, the housing crisis, involution, climate change and Donald Trump.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        > And looking at the "achivements" of this so-called "meritocratic elite" this last century (especially in enshittification) leaves alot to be desired. That wasn't created by the meritocratic elite, that was created by the "preexisting patronage systems" where rich pays to get their kids influential credential so that they can continue to have outsized influence on the country... > They don't have the ability to solve the coordination problem, the housing crisis, involution, climate change and Donald Trump. The current system is what caused those, why do you think that is much better?
        corimaith 1y ago
        >The current system is what caused those, why do you think that is much better? I don't think it's better. But I don't think it's worse either. It's exchanging one elite for another with the similar incentives. But what I would object though is how the education system has been essentially appropiated as a system of elite differentiation (and social mobility) rather than improving the 80% as function of overall social welfare. Why are we caring about a handful of colleges compared the hundreds of others we have? The opportunity cost really is to better spend our resources and time pushing up the average, mediocre student rather than focusing on all these unproductive signalling mechanisms. And I think from there, that's where the real saviours will emerge.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- energy123 1y ago
  Gating based on SAT is literally discrimination. It is also not fair, because those kids got lucky being born to the right parents. But just because it's discrimination and unfair, doesn't mean it's bad. Other types of discrimination are bad because they create effects that make society worse overall (more sectarian or class-based tension, more corruption, less growth). Taxpayers, exercising their own self-interest, should pick and choose the good types of discrimination to support. There is no need for morality here. TLDR, I am in agreement with you, but I wanted to frame the argument in this way.
gotoeleven 1y ago
Id be interested to read about some "holistic" admissions success stories. There must be by this point tons of examples of students admitted "holistically" who are now doing great things because of the opportunity they were given.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 1y ago
  Most, if not all, Canadian admissions are holistic. All the universities are pretty easy to get into as long as you have the grades, especially for undergrad. As a result, for undergrad at least, no one really cares what school you went to. From outside looking in, the American system has a hilariously unequal system. Certain opportunities are hoarded by an insanely small set of schools, almost entirely based on "prestige" and financial dominance. And it's this crazy arms-race/pressure cooker to get in. But once you're in, grade inflation is everywhere and people aren't actually working super hard. No one freaks out about admissions to "mid-tier" schools. It's entirely about a select coterie of schools who people rightly perceive as gatekeeping to an incredible extent. None of the schools actually emphasize being accessible and hard to graduate from. The incentives are all weird and cater to a small elite population. The name on the degree is more important than earning the degree.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    I dunno about other colleges, but Caltech you earned the degree. Many students dropped out because of the workload. There were a couple that were able to coast through, but they had IQs easily over 160. They didn't do legacy admits as far as I knew. But what it's like today, I have no information.
    - only-one1701 1y ago
      Thats the exception then; at Stanford all you need to graduate is a pulse.
      - VirusNewbie 1y ago
dgs_sgd 1y ago
Yep, I think these two things can be true at the same time: 1. Admitting a certain amount of students based on legacy status is not necessarily a bad thing 2. A University should not be eligible for taxpayer funds if they have admissions like (1) or similar holistic criteria. In a society as diverse as America I think 2 is a fair line to draw. And the universities with large and powerful alumni networks where legacy admissions are most relevant have the least "need" for public funds. They have huge endowments.
- nullc 1y ago
  I think you could still compromise on 2. by requiring legacy or other discriminatory admissions practices to be a small percentage of the students they give full ride merit scholarships on, or similar. This is particularly so because the advantage of this kind of school is networking, and it's in the interest of the disadvantaged to give them opportunity to network with the advantaged. But it's also no big deal if we don't make that compromise. Public money is precious, and we should think really hard about taking money from the general public just to give it to wealthy institutions any time we do it.
  - dgs_sgd 1y ago
    I like this idea, like there could be tiers of grant eligibility instead of all or nothing.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  I there is a difference in funds given gratis, and funds used to pay for service rendered. There's also a difference between giving money to a school, and giving money to a student to buy an education they want

malfist 1y ago

Seems reasonably. You and to discriminate? That's disappointing, but nobody is going to stop you, but the public tax dollars sure as hell shouldn't support your discrimination

corimaith 1y ago
The entire notion of "elite" universities is discriminatory. If going to your average state university with high admissions was okay then there wouldn't nearly be as much drama. If the elite colleges are not comprised of the rich and well connected it beats the entire point of an elite college.
- wsgeorge 1y ago
  > If the elite colleges are not comprised of the rich and well connected it beats the entire point of an elite college. Depends on how you define "elite", and I assume you mean some sort of hereditary or economic-class-based definition. But elite colleges could (and should) still work if they run on competency-based merit. I believe elite talent in as many fields of endeavour should absolutely be catered to. > The entire notion of "elite" universities is discriminatory. Well, when you put it that way, many things are discriminatory, for better or worse.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > If the elite colleges are not comprised of the rich and well connected it beats the entire point of an elite college The functional purpose of a meritocratic elite is to concentrate the smartest and most ambitious in your nation (in each generation) so they can cross leverage each other. This dates back to feudal societies switching to a civil exam system during Enlightenment. (Also in imperial China.) That’s a productive form of discrimination.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    I think it's the opposite actually. I think the moment you're consciously, systematically trying to optimize for "smartest and most ambitious" on a meritocratic basis is the point in which your respective field falls into decline and is relegated to slow, incremental improvements rather than revolutionary jumps. Primairly because "the smartest and most ambitious" are more about seeing that specific field as vehicle for wealth and prestige rather than actual passion. Many of the legends of the past were not good enough for the elite institutions of their time. I mean really, it's the question of why this over preexisting patronage systems. And looking at the "achivements" of this so-called "meritocratic elite" this last century (especially in enshittification) leaves alot to be desired. It's just one self-serving 1% attempting to ursurp another 1%. And they certainly aren't going to be solving your problems. They don't have the ability to solve the coordination problem, the housing crisis, involution, climate change and Donald Trump.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > And looking at the "achivements" of this so-called "meritocratic elite" this last century (especially in enshittification) leaves alot to be desired. That wasn't created by the meritocratic elite, that was created by the "preexisting patronage systems" where rich pays to get their kids influential credential so that they can continue to have outsized influence on the country... > They don't have the ability to solve the coordination problem, the housing crisis, involution, climate change and Donald Trump. The current system is what caused those, why do you think that is much better?
      - corimaith 1y ago
        >The current system is what caused those, why do you think that is much better? I don't think it's better. But I don't think it's worse either. It's exchanging one elite for another with the similar incentives. But what I would object though is how the education system has been essentially appropiated as a system of elite differentiation (and social mobility) rather than improving the 80% as function of overall social welfare. Why are we caring about a handful of colleges compared the hundreds of others we have? The opportunity cost really is to better spend our resources and time pushing up the average, mediocre student rather than focusing on all these unproductive signalling mechanisms. And I think from there, that's where the real saviours will emerge.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
energy123 1y ago
Gating based on SAT is literally discrimination. It is also not fair, because those kids got lucky being born to the right parents. But just because it's discrimination and unfair, doesn't mean it's bad. Other types of discrimination are bad because they create effects that make society worse overall (more sectarian or class-based tension, more corruption, less growth). Taxpayers, exercising their own self-interest, should pick and choose the good types of discrimination to support. There is no need for morality here. TLDR, I am in agreement with you, but I wanted to frame the argument in this way.

gotoeleven 1y ago

Id be interested to read about some "holistic" admissions success stories. There must be by this point tons of examples of students admitted "holistically" who are now doing great things because of the opportunity they were given.

beezlebroxxxxxx 1y ago
Most, if not all, Canadian admissions are holistic. All the universities are pretty easy to get into as long as you have the grades, especially for undergrad. As a result, for undergrad at least, no one really cares what school you went to. From outside looking in, the American system has a hilariously unequal system. Certain opportunities are hoarded by an insanely small set of schools, almost entirely based on "prestige" and financial dominance. And it's this crazy arms-race/pressure cooker to get in. But once you're in, grade inflation is everywhere and people aren't actually working super hard. No one freaks out about admissions to "mid-tier" schools. It's entirely about a select coterie of schools who people rightly perceive as gatekeeping to an incredible extent. None of the schools actually emphasize being accessible and hard to graduate from. The incentives are all weird and cater to a small elite population. The name on the degree is more important than earning the degree.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  I dunno about other colleges, but Caltech you earned the degree. Many students dropped out because of the workload. There were a couple that were able to coast through, but they had IQs easily over 160. They didn't do legacy admits as far as I knew. But what it's like today, I have no information.
  - only-one1701 1y ago
    Thats the exception then; at Stanford all you need to graduate is a pulse.
    - VirusNewbie 1y ago

dgs_sgd 1y ago

Yep, I think these two things can be true at the same time: 1. Admitting a certain amount of students based on legacy status is not necessarily a bad thing 2. A University should not be eligible for taxpayer funds if they have admissions like (1) or similar holistic criteria. In a society as diverse as America I think 2 is a fair line to draw. And the universities with large and powerful alumni networks where legacy admissions are most relevant have the least "need" for public funds. They have huge endowments.

nullc 1y ago
I think you could still compromise on 2. by requiring legacy or other discriminatory admissions practices to be a small percentage of the students they give full ride merit scholarships on, or similar. This is particularly so because the advantage of this kind of school is networking, and it's in the interest of the disadvantaged to give them opportunity to network with the advantaged. But it's also no big deal if we don't make that compromise. Public money is precious, and we should think really hard about taking money from the general public just to give it to wealthy institutions any time we do it.
- dgs_sgd 1y ago
  I like this idea, like there could be tiers of grant eligibility instead of all or nothing.
s1artibartfast 1y ago
I there is a difference in funds given gratis, and funds used to pay for service rendered. There's also a difference between giving money to a school, and giving money to a student to buy an education they want