Hacker News Reader

Comment by munk-a | Hacker News Reader

I don't think building purchasing should even be allowed, remove all of the slippery slope and put students on equal footing.

View on HN

You still get the wondrous private institution problem of hereditary entry (which is a great example of something that isn't explicitly racist still resulting in a fundamentally and uncorrectable racist result)

Yup and while they continue to practice legacy admissions they claim they’ve tried everything to achieve diversity and just have to do affirmative action.

Unless you change your admission process to be based on competitive entrance exams everyone has to take, with an anonymous review process. This is mostly the norm in France.

Does that system come with any notable drawbacks of its own?

What kind of issues usually arise with choosing based on merit?

Based on being able to do well on a test. Very different kind of merit than I think is actually useful in a lot of real life.

Off the top of my head I’m not sure, but my question isn’t asking about merit-based selection in the abstract. I’m asking if there are drawbacks to the specific system mentioned; that is, competitive entrance exams with anonymous review.

Choosing based on merit is viewed as both racist and sexist in the US. For example, check out the controversy over the “meritocracy” rug at github.

I agree, and I wish this came up more in discussions around this scandal.

One one hand, donating to improve the chances of one's kid getting admitted is kind of scummy. On the other hand, the immense amount of money that gets donated is why elite schools are able to give very generous financial aid. Stanford doesn't even charge tuition if parents make less than $125,000 per year. On principle I'm adverse to wealthy people buying opportunities, but if buying opportunities creates more of them for other people then I think that may be a net good.

If the school would benefit from that building why should it be dependent on a rich kid needing to get in to secure that funding?

If that rich family didn't end up having a kid that needed to get into that school then the building would never be built - but the family is certainly able to afford funding the construction of that building. I think that's unfair in it's own way on all parties involved.

Rich people only have so many kids. For the price of admitting ~2 students every 25 years or so you get a free building or an endowment that pays the way for 10s or 100s of students every single year.

Thanks to the current tax environment the school doesn't have some alternate choice; the state is not going to step in and provide that funding.

As an administrator do you take the money or do you skip out on expanding a department or admitting 20 kids who need a full ride scholarship to attend?

People rarely give stuff away for free. Philanthropy often serves as a political tool, and a means to increase one's social status. University donations are no different. Families are more willing to donate if they believe that it improves the chances of their kids getting admitted to university.

In most cases philanthropy is for the tax benefit, everything else is just dressing.

Is there some tax benefit beyond the deduction, or do these people not understand how marginal tax brackets work?

It’s a good way to identify who is either not of taxpaying age or has never made a donation before. In either case, probably not someone who has things figured out yet enough to hold strong opinions on what other people do with their money.

I don’t think you know how deductions work. You can never make money by giving a donation.

Why not, it benefits the whole student body and is above board, everyone knows. These people were bribing people who were not in school governance, people in athletics for example, to get their kid in, denying another deserving kid. Neither the school or other students benefitted, only the people partaking in the bribery scheme.

Paying for a building, at least, has some public benefit. Direct bribes to individuals only benefits the student and conspirator.

(not saying I agree, just that there is more utility)

You are bribing the institution when you buy a building. It could be useful or wasted, just like giving money to a person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com