Frankly, I do not totally see why admitting wealthy, connected students even if they are not as qualified is a bad thing. These elite institutions are quite possibly doing their best to serve...
Frankly, I do not totally see why admitting wealthy, connected students even if they are not as qualified is a bad thing. These elite institutions are quite possibly doing their best to serve their incoming students. Such a “reveal” is unsuprising to me. (I do not think the article explicitly labeled the practice as a bad thing——it reads like objective journalism——but does suggest the institutions want to hide or deny this behavior. I wonder why?)
In this day and age, having wealth and power or connections to wealth and power is incredibly valuable. For example, if MIT stopped admitting children of wealthy donors and Harvard didn’t stop, I suspect the brightest kids would, on average, be more successful at Harvard. They’d have connections to buisness and venture capital and all the things necessary to enter into a life of privilege. Which is likely what the smart kids admitted into MIT or Harvard want.
The benefits of elite education are and have always been the connections. It is in the best interest of the university and the admitted students for admissions to work the way it does. Is the situation good or just? No. However, I think the only losers in this situation are the rejected candidates. Does a private institution really have any obligation to do favors to students it rejects?
The lawsuit in question is accusing these 12 universities of price fixing (i.e., colluding to give students similar financial aid packages). Which is anticompetitive and absolutely harms the admitted students. However, that isn’t the focus of the article.
The dirty secret is that universities love international students because they almost always pay the full sticker price and subsidize other students. Rich students domestically are much the same....
The dirty secret is that universities love international students because they almost always pay the full sticker price and subsidize other students. Rich students domestically are much the same. Colleges only want to offer enough benefits to get prospective students to accept and pay up.
No it is for me too, I think maybe @saturnV deleted the numbers at the end thinking they were just tracking but they were possibly not. Or the WSJ did something weird The other link has the story
No it is for me too, I think maybe @saturnV deleted the numbers at the end thinking they were just tracking but they were possibly not. Or the WSJ did something weird The other link has the story
Frankly, I do not totally see why admitting wealthy, connected students even if they are not as qualified is a bad thing. These elite institutions are quite possibly doing their best to serve their incoming students. Such a “reveal” is unsuprising to me. (I do not think the article explicitly labeled the practice as a bad thing——it reads like objective journalism——but does suggest the institutions want to hide or deny this behavior. I wonder why?)
In this day and age, having wealth and power or connections to wealth and power is incredibly valuable. For example, if MIT stopped admitting children of wealthy donors and Harvard didn’t stop, I suspect the brightest kids would, on average, be more successful at Harvard. They’d have connections to buisness and venture capital and all the things necessary to enter into a life of privilege. Which is likely what the smart kids admitted into MIT or Harvard want.
The benefits of elite education are and have always been the connections. It is in the best interest of the university and the admitted students for admissions to work the way it does. Is the situation good or just? No. However, I think the only losers in this situation are the rejected candidates. Does a private institution really have any obligation to do favors to students it rejects?
The lawsuit in question is accusing these 12 universities of price fixing (i.e., colluding to give students similar financial aid packages). Which is anticompetitive and absolutely harms the admitted students. However, that isn’t the focus of the article.
The dirty secret is that universities love international students because they almost always pay the full sticker price and subsidize other students. Rich students domestically are much the same. Colleges only want to offer enough benefits to get prospective students to accept and pay up.
Previous discussions can be found here.
Archive link: https://archive.is/vSL39
Dupe: https://tildes.net/~life/1ks1/lawsuit_reveals_how_united_states_private_colleges_talk_about_rich_applicants
Is it irony to duplicate what mycketforvirrad posted (different language but still ) ;-)
I addressed this here
Dupe: https://tildes.net/~life/1ksr/lawsuit_reveals_how_colleges_really_talk_about_rich_applicants#comment-eebp
Is it just me or is the link returning 404?
No it is for me too, I think maybe @saturnV deleted the numbers at the end thinking they were just tracking but they were possibly not. Or the WSJ did something weird The other link has the story