

At the elite colleges - dim white kids - robg
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/?page=full

======
zach
These elite colleges are non-profit institutions, not government-funded. I'm
not surprised they occasionally want to "waste their academic offerings" on
billionaire's children with middling resumes. The situation is much better
than in years past, but you'll never escape it.

Quite simply, Harvard didn't come by that $35 billion endowment on the basis
of SAT scores alone. Everyone else in that stratus has to compete with that
figure as well. This is simply an economic problem, compounded by wealth
concentration. Who's going to make a college turn down a potential huge
bequest in return for a handful of slightly-less-meritorious admissions? They
can admit everyone alphabetically if they want to.

If anyone you know is surprised by this, tell them that you just found out
that politicians listen to the people who write the biggest checks instead of
the people who have the best ideas! They'll be appalled!

~~~
robg
Actually a good chunk of their operating budgets comes from government grants.
And a requirement of tenure is ability to the get said grants. That's the
cudgel the government holds - follow our regulations or get government funds
cut (see stem cell research). Meanwhile, don't you think it's a tad weird that
you could be considered non-profit and carry a $35 billion "endowment"? Or
earn a few million in salary (as some football coaches do) and work for a
"non-profit"?

And I don't think anyone would naively argue against all nepotism. But would
you have guessed that twice as many non-qualified students get in based on
their family than on their race? The popular debate has made the latter seem
much more prevalent, as if minorities were solely responsible for squeezing
out qualified whites.

~~~
robg
"The larger question on the senators' minds was whether private colleges and
universities are abusing the public trust. After all, they pay no taxes on
tuition revenue or on the income from their endowments, of which Harvard
boasts the largest -- $35 billion, which has lately been earning around $5
billion a year. In order to keep their tax-exempt status, other nonprofit
institutions (charitable foundations, for example) are required to give away a
hefty percentage of their money. Hospitals are required to care for indigent
patients. But what, exactly, are colleges doing to justify their public
subsidies?"

[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30wwln-
lede-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30wwln-
lede-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

------
mynameishere
Whatever. Here are some numbers:

<http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002566.html?entry=2566>

Let's drop the conspiracy theories about the evil "white" man.

Anyway. Rest assurred that all inefficiency has to be paid for. When a
valuable resource is given to one group that doesn't deserve it
(blacks/hispanics/whatever through affirmative action) it has to be paid for
by another undeserving group, rich idiots, who reasonably expect an ROI.

And so Harvard segments the market, giving away some degrees for politics
reasons, and giving away others for economic reasons.

~~~
cglee
AA was actually instituted to counter discrimination against Jews. Later, it
was expanded to include other minorities who had been systematically
disadvantaged (by those in power).

The justification for it is that minorities are still reeling from the effects
of previous discriminatory policies, and AA used as a balancing force.
Personally, I think if that's the issue, then we should use income based
measures, not racially based ones.

Also, as someone else already pointed out, many racial groups are artificial.
For example, there is a huge difference between a Filipino American and an
international Chinese student, yet both are "Asian". There is also a huge
difference between most Chinese Americans and Vietnamese Americans, who are
mostly refugees from the Viet War. How can you classify all these diverse
people with diverse backgrounds into one category? How does it help anything?

So yea, I agree some valuable resources are given to out undeservedly so, but
only because we're using the wrong categories to measure who has been
disadvantaged. I still agree with the spirit of AA, but not in its current
form.

~~~
rms
>AA was actually instituted to counter discrimination against Jews.

Well, the Jews were systematically discriminated against in college admissions
with quotas, but I don't think affirmative action was a result of this.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota>

~~~
aswanson
Yeah, I think I remember reading the "problem" the Ivies were facing in the
30's were that the Jewish immigrants were outperforming the good ole boys that
they were supposed to be admitting, so they started digging into 'lineage' as
an additional qualifier for admission. Can you imagine not admitting someone
like Feynman so that Bush could get in?!?

------
Alex3917
So they judged whether a student was qualified based on their school's
"advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or
ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in
extracurricular activities." Specifically, they looked at students who failed
every single test.

And then the next paragraph says "A sizable number are recruited athletes..."

How can a recruited athlete fail at having an extracurricular activity? That
doesn't even make sense. It's clear the author is just mixing and matching
random studies with his preconceived conclusion.

------
gscott
I don't see how getting into college because of social connections is a
problem.

People seem to think the smartest people academically should succeed but it is
those people who utilize social connections best that succeed. Hence the
pointy hair boss.

~~~
Goladus
It's bad because "ability to use social connections" is not going to cure any
diseases or solve any hard technical problems and make the world a better
place for everyone.

It's basically corruption, and corruption often leads to bad things. Really
the only reason it's remotely acceptable is that the money donated by the
parents of these kids is partly why the college is so good to begin with, and
many people do benefit from that.

The other thing is that one of the main criticisms of affirmative action
revolves around the example of the poor white boy who didn't get into the
school he wanted because a lesser qualified minority got preference. "Reverse
discrimination!" People cry.

------
stoptypingnow
The article tries to make a simple point - harping on the unfairness of
affirmative action is more racist given there are bigger fish to fry.

This topic is another reason I love working in tech, institutional education
matters little.

------
mattmaroon
I don't think you can equate admission to an elite college with social
mobility. The two are probably not directly related.

~~~
moonman
Care to elaborate?

