Hacker News Reader

Comment by beebmam | Hacker News Reader

I totally agree that Harvard has (and should have) a right to do whatever they want with their institution and admit whoever they see fit.

But if we're serious about a liberal/conservative "equality of opportunity" vs a progressive/socialist "equality of outcome" reality, then we should consider that children have very little consent over the kind of education and familial upbringing they get, yet that childhood education and familial upbringing has profound implications as to whether they can get admitted to a school like Harvard or not.

If we're serious about equality of opportunity society, then we should take a lottery admissions policy for young adults seriously. But it's fine if you don't care about equality at all, at least be explicit about it.

View on HN

> I totally agree that Harvard has (and should have) a right to do whatever they want with their institution and admit whoever they see fit.

From the article:

"Some people say Harvard is a private institution and it can do what it wants. These people are wrong."

"private universities are non-profits."

"When John Paulson donated $400 million to Harvard, that was tax-deductible. If we assume his marginal tax rate was 25%, that’s equivalent to him donating $300 million of after-tax money, and then having the government kick in an extra $100 million. Ivy-league universities also earn insane profits on endowments tax-free and are exempt from local property taxes."

Why not tackle inequality earlier in the funnel than college admissions? Better primary schooling and family resources?

A college admission lottery doesn't seem to be a serious solution.

You can never make dysfunctional families with awful parents more equal unless you rip all children from families.

That's true. But dysfunctional families come at all income levels, and making sure kids have enough to eat and somewhere safe to do homework is 100% possible without fixing all of society's problems.

I would like what you envision to exist but to be remotely effective the game has to be played before college.

Otherwise the results will be similar to if any 18 year-old could “win” a place in the NFL. Either they have a rough time and get spit out or the system is forced to change to accommodate them.

>>I totally agree that Harvard has (and should have) a right to do whatever they want with their institution and admit whoever they see fit.

I would agree to this under 3 conditions

1. The university can not accept any federally backed student loans, grants, etc

2. The university must self finance any financial aid given using their massive endowments

3. Those loans must be discharged in bankruptcy

I dont even care about their non-profit status as others do. I care they are getting billions in federally (tax payer) backed loan, with no accountability for the money, and no skin in the game at all

If we truly consider children's consent, then we would need to actually ask them what they want before bothering with any adult-born ideas. Otherwise, they're still trapped in a system they never designed, only being given the options chosen for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com