University too, can have a diversity policy as well as a merit policy. To compete and attract the best students, University must either provide merit based scholarship, or organize with other universities to get rid of merit based scholarships everywhere (cartel!)
If it’s not need-based, don’t insist it’s need-based.
To play devil's advocate here: the press and the public do not want to hear that tech companies pay 7 digits of monthly salary to attract some talent. Nor do they want to hear that Universities have to offer merit based scholarships to attract top students, otherwise these students will go elsewhere.
Companies advertise their diversity efforts but not the salaries of their executives. Stanford said what the public wanted to hear.
It'll be nice when we start to culturally grow up a bit and begin trusting the world. Collaboration/hybridization is much quicker than competition when it comes to genetic evolution & I suspect the same holds for cultural evolution.
"[Allcock’s report] says the school also tells applicants not to reveal to their classmates the size of their discount."
Unwritten or unspoken, it does need to go.
No, this will expose evidences of institutional and systemic racism and question people about the country name. Should it be United State or Segregated State?
We need a design theory based on mindfulness.
This is the best apologism for a liar, because apparently that's what the person lied to 'wanted to hear', according to the liar.
Integrity does not depend on what people want to hear. Stanford can articulate their view point and do their own thing. Lying betrays a lack of belief in their view point and a lack of integrity.
It would appear that scholarships follow a similar vein.
There's a bait and switch that colleges do. Also hospitals, but mostly colleges.
On the one hand they go out and tell people what a value driven organization it is, how their passion is making the world a better place -- when they are asking for money from people almost of whom have far less in the bank than they already do and when they are defending things like very adventagous tax rates.
On the other hand when they get caught doing something that looks unprincipled or rapacious they all of a sudden become economists lecturing you about how of course every organization acts as an interest maximizier and what are you naive?
Well maybe we were naive. But now that everyone knows what the deal is maybe they can lay off the disingenuous appeals for donations and tax expenditures. Fool me once and all that.
Who fights for XYZ must be able to fight and not to fight,
to say the truth and not to say the truth,
to render and to deny service,
to keep a promise and to break a promise,
to go into danger and to avoid danger,
to be known and to be unknown.
Who fights for XYZ has of all the virtues only one:
that he fights for XYZ.
In theory. In practice (history is full of it), the castes develop overnight. A group of individuals has to make decisions and manage the oversight and record keeping, etc. This leads to corruption and a de-facto aristocracy.
Is that not privilege? Why could a government official get a car while a normal person would have to wait years?
Children of government officials got preference at the best universities and jobs. Is that not aristocracy?
Communism is all about privilege — everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others.
/s
In some ideal world alums of that school would immediately turn around and tell the school "You will not get a penny until you terminate everyone who participated in approving and carrying out this program for lying and do so publicly" but instead what we are going to get is more pieces about "how the school needs to get better".
Those should be one policy, the diversity policy is about making sure top talent doesn't go elsewhere . . . your comment implies that people from "diverse" backgrounds are not top talent, whether that's what you meant or not.
Malia Obama is Diverse. John Dorsey from the wrong side of Chicago is just an Urban Youth.
From what I know that doesn't seem to be the case at all, it's about projecting a positive image of your company (The candidates skills are secondary) (Though in theory the standards should be identical)
The hiring practices should be based upon who would be the best candidate (Experience, technical skills, personality, Education)
When you simply focus on what objective skills you need as an employer, you should find "Diverse"/minority candidates in proportion to what percentage of top candidates they occupy.
This surely creates the most level playing field?