Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached?
Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence?
By being the child of a wealth donor, does the person being admitted (through this side channel) not have more potential impact on the world and thus more reason to be admitted?
On the other side, does the education have the most impact on the person who was denied entrance (bottom of the applicant pool), assuming they would get through to graduation. (utility of education)
I think the person writing this report clearly has an agenda, as can bee seen in the level of sensationalism in the clip art.
There is and there should be. Affirmative action has already been help up by the US supreme court.
> Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached?
Yes.
> Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence?
A donation should not be used as a way to get one's child into a university. That's not a donation. That's an entrance fee.
> On the other side, does the education have the most impact on the person who was denied entrance (bottom of the applicant pool), assuming they would get through to graduation.
That seems reasonably true, though I have no source to back this up.
The audit itself leaves plenty of room for circumstance. For example:
"BOARS’s guidance provides recommended reasons for considering an applicant for admission by exception. These include the applicants having overcome personal challenges, having had limited or nontraditional educational opportunities, having special talents, or having academic achievements equivalent to the eligibility requirements."
The report takes no issue with such a system, just the one where people pay for their special exception.
People seem to want robotic admission standards.
Is there no room for circumstance?
Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached?
Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence?
By being the child of a wealth donor, does the person being admitted (through this side channel) not have more potential impact on the world and thus more reason to be admitted?
On the other side, does the education have the most impact on the person who was denied entrance (bottom of the applicant pool), assuming they would get through to graduation. (utility of education)
I think the person writing this report clearly has an agenda, as can bee seen in the level of sensationalism in the clip art.