[rvba]

Zero legacies.

If the university is suppised to produce good students ir shouldnt be that 1 student in 21 is a complete dud. Because that's how it works, they are duds, who cant be kicked out and they will get their diploma even if they cant read.

In theory (not reality) those who finish top universities should be top people.

To tell it other way: would you be happy if 1 car in 21 didn drive? Or 1 apple in 21 was poisonous?

The top universities have long watered down their achivements anyway. Most is just pure nepotism.

[CydeWeys]

If someone pays $10M for their kid to get into the school, that's not a legacy admission; that's dynamic pricing. Legacy admissions are where the person getting in pays no more than the normal rate of tuition.

[slt2021]

everybody pays tuition. legacies also donate heavily.

all these named scholarships and named professor titles - are coming from donations

[closetkantian]

I've seen a study showing that basically only legacies who donated had their children accepted.

[sokoloff]

> [it] shouldnt be that 1 student in 21 is a complete dud. Because that's how it works, they are duds, who cant be kicked out and they will get their diploma even if they cant read.

I suspect if we looked at the overall set of students who were admitted to elite universities while their parents have given a $10M donation, that we'd find that that set of students was academically well above-average as compared to the overall population, probably above-average as compared to all students attending all four-year universities, even though they might be below the average of the overall admitted students to that elite university.

That doesn't make them anything close to "complete duds".

[OkayPhysicist]

You're completely missing the point of private universities. The value proposition isn't in a better education: they offer a marginally, if it all, better education than equivalent tier public schools.

What they offer is connections. Those rich kids whose parents bribed their way in? Extremely valuable connection to make. That's why private universities do the whole "eye-watering ticket price, but most students have some level of merit-based scholarship" setup. Mingling the talented and the well-connected is an extremely valuable proposition for everybody involved. If you're looking for a school made of exclusively meritocratic gifted scholars, that's what elite public schools like Cal are for. But if you want a school that creates the most opportunities for success, private schools are where that's at.

[djur]

Yes, this is why the elite private schools must be forced to admit by lottery.

[ywvcbk]

Wouldn’t that destroy their whole value proposition (both for the poor but talented and the rich but not as gifted)?

At that point you might as well abolish private universities altogether, because what’s their point?

[djur]

If the only point of private universities is to create and maintain a permanent ruling class, then absolutely they should be abolished. But I don't think that's the case. There are many non-elite private universities in the US.

[lazide]

Yup.

Hint: most of the people pushing for these things would be perfectly fine with that. But won’t admit it.

[djur]

I'll gladly admit it. Harvard and Yale are antidemocratic institutions and their power needs to be shattered.

[musicale]

Since when do public universities not practice donor admissions?

[Spooky23]

Why would I go through all of the bullshit to get my kid into Harvard, if they don’t get to rub elbows with some Rockefeller heir? Do you think anyone wants to have Johnny learn the viola and sign up for 38 activities?

People with the cash to bribe their way into Harvard, who know smart people, are “top people”.

[rvba]

So you go to university to get usable skills, or to meet people?

Would you prefer a doctor who studied hard and was the best of the best, or someone who bribed their way and checks notes played basketball with the president's kid?

If world was fair top universities are supposed to "produce" top students. Not be a club for rich peoples' kids.

That's how it works in many places: you get most points on objective tests - you get in.

Rich people still have a leg up, since they can pay for tutors / prep schools for their kids.

But if the kid is a moron it wont get to a top place.

I prefer to go to a doctor who finished university on merit and skill, not nepotism.

[slt2021]

>>Zero legacies.

state schools and community colleges do exactly that, how is that working for them?

>> If the university is suppised to produce good students ir shouldnt be that 1 student in 21 is a complete dud. Because that's how it works, they are duds, who cant be kicked out and they will get their diploma even if they cant read.

"complete dud" is doing a lot of work here, it is not necessarily true that legacies are dumb. Even if they are dumber than average, it doesn't mean they cannot go and achieve great things later in life.

For example Malia Obama - does she deserve a harvard admission just because her father was president?

or donald trump - he was admitted and graduated from wharton - does he meet criteria of "top people" ?

[rvba]

> state schools and community colleges do exactly that, how is that working for them?

It depends? For some good, for some not so good? For a multitude of reasons? One of them being "world is unfair"? Other being money?

Public universities work in Europe. At least to some degree.

Also, this is a philosophical question: should the top universities "manufacture" best students, or are they places where rich peoples" kids can meet each other?

If you hire a programmer do you want: one who can code great, or one who played basketball with the president's kids?