3 ms·

> If you're running a University as a business to make money, it's incorrect because attracting highly talented students capable of such feats is expensive. Far

> If you're running a University as a business to make money, it's incorrect because attracting highly talented students capable of such feats is expensive. Far better to find less talented students that will attend and pay tuition. That depends. Isn't it possible that you'd get more money by investing in attracting the highly talented students and reaping the later benefits, like large alumni donations? > If you're running a University as an educational institution it's also incorrect. Your students are not going to become deep, consciousness thinkers in a homogeneous group. I hear this very often and it sounds like wishful thinking, not fact. Usually it's heard in the context of justifying race-based admissions. > Also, as an educational institution is it your goal to improve society as a whole through education. Are you stating this as fact? I'm honestly not sure since you wrote, "is it". If so, what if some do not share this goal? > If there are minority students capable of finishing your degree program, giving it to them is going to have a far greater impact than giving it to a slightly more talented member of the majority. How can you possibly know something like this with such certainty? It literally takes just one person to make this statement false.

tsally 17y ago
That depends. Isn't it possible that you'd get more money by investing in attracting the highly talented students and reaping the later benefits, like large alumni donations? If you want money and the numbers say that, than obviously you should do that. I don't think either of us know enough to say for sure, I was simply speculating. Are you stating this as fact? I'm honestly not sure since you wrote, "is it". If so, what if some do not share this goal? Than in my mind they are not a University whose mission is education. Anything else is a business University, whether their commodity is money or publications. How can you possibly know something like this with such certainty? It literally takes just one person to make this statement false. I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > I don't think either of us know enough to say for sure, I was simply speculating. Agreed, but I'd think you'd have to be sure to say it was incorrect. > I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it. There is no data that proves your statement. There are millions of unknowns hidden in your inequality, any one of which could reverse the sign completely.
- codexon 17y ago
  > I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it. Then stop passing it off as fact and saying that I am an "idiot" or wrong. Underprivileged minorities don't need to go to the best school in order to lift themselves out of poverty. There are plenty of other schools capable of giving them the education they want without displacing smarter individuals.

tsally 17y ago

That depends. Isn't it possible that you'd get more money by investing in attracting the highly talented students and reaping the later benefits, like large alumni donations? If you want money and the numbers say that, than obviously you should do that. I don't think either of us know enough to say for sure, I was simply speculating. Are you stating this as fact? I'm honestly not sure since you wrote, "is it". If so, what if some do not share this goal? Than in my mind they are not a University whose mission is education. Anything else is a business University, whether their commodity is money or publications. How can you possibly know something like this with such certainty? It literally takes just one person to make this statement false. I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
> I don't think either of us know enough to say for sure, I was simply speculating. Agreed, but I'd think you'd have to be sure to say it was incorrect. > I'm claiming that for society (underprivileged * degree) + (privileged * talent difference) > (underprivileged) + (privileged * degree * talent difference). Less people collecting welfare, less crime, less single moms, etc. I'd like to look at data that contradicts this. I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it. There is no data that proves your statement. There are millions of unknowns hidden in your inequality, any one of which could reverse the sign completely.
codexon 17y ago
> I can't offer up data myself though at the moment, so I certainly don't expect it. Then stop passing it off as fact and saying that I am an "idiot" or wrong. Underprivileged minorities don't need to go to the best school in order to lift themselves out of poverty. There are plenty of other schools capable of giving them the education they want without displacing smarter individuals.