Re: Bribes for college admissions
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:09 am
Being from the Ivy League doesn't mean you are smart anymore. It just means you have money and/or connections.
https://www.theguncounter.com/forum/
https://www.theguncounter.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28863
Hillsdale College accepts no federal or state scholarships or grants. They are non-denominational.Only if they are truly private. I think there are only a handful of evangelical colleges that still "opt out" of us.gov funding programs so they are free to "discriminate" against LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ.issions spots. Not with my tax dollars.
If y'all don't get their newsletter, you should.Hillsdale College is a private college in Hillsdale, Michigan. Founded in 1844, with a liberal arts curriculum that is based on the Western heritage as a product of both the Greco-Roman culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition.[4] Hillsdale requires every student, regardless of major, to complete a core curriculum that includes courses on the Great Books, U.S. Constitution, biology, chemistry, and physics.
I am sorry, but did it ever mean more than that?scipioafricanus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:09 am Being from the Ivy League doesn't mean you are smart anymore. It just means you have money and/or connections.
1. True, but everyone should know the score, otherwise our "market" economy is the "Sopranos" market economy, where you think you are getting the best price for garbage collection, but someone gave someone else an offer they couldn't refuse. If everyone knows that a Stanford degree is open to the highest bidder, but a Tsinghua degree is only through the most stringent meritocracy, are you going to hire the Tsinghua grad or the Stanford grad? What happens to the value of a Stanford degree vs. a Tsinghua degree in that free market? Free market requires full disclosure and full information, not under the table bribes, where we can all pretend it is only the best and brightest (except for affirmative action).Vonz90 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:02 pm 1. Why do you assume that markets work everywhere else they operate but not here? Schools will still have to balance vs what it does to their reputation with their potential student body make up. Well they will have direct market feedback if they screw that up.
2. The idea that college admissions to these types of schools should be granted by blind meritocracy is relatively recent (post WW1). I think we did alright then, better than now actually.
3. If you think the princelings of all the party officials in China are competing for university spots on merit, I have a bridge to sell you.
1. Your analogy does not make sense. There are lots if markets that work with a combination of fixed prices and auction on one level or another and are above board. From real estate to sports ticket secondary markets, it is an efficient way to get to an equitable price, particularly for goods where demand > supply.D5CAV wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:44 pm1. True, but everyone should know the score, otherwise our "market" economy is the "Sopranos" market economy, where you think you are getting the best price for garbage collection, but someone gave someone else an offer they couldn't refuse. If everyone knows that a Stanford degree is open to the highest bidder, but a Tsinghua degree is only through the most stringent meritocracy, are you going to hire the Tsinghua grad or the Stanford grad? What happens to the value of a Stanford degree vs. a Tsinghua degree in that free market? Free market requires full disclosure and full information, not under the table bribes, where we can all pretend it is only the best and brightest (except for affirmative action).Vonz90 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:02 pm 1. Why do you assume that markets work everywhere else they operate but not here? Schools will still have to balance vs what it does to their reputation with their potential student body make up. Well they will have direct market feedback if they screw that up.
2. The idea that college admissions to these types of schools should be granted by blind meritocracy is relatively recent (post WW1). I think we did alright then, better than now actually.
3. If you think the princelings of all the party officials in China are competing for university spots on merit, I have a bridge to sell you.
2. Yes and no. Prior to WW2, Ivy league was more of a club for rich kids. Schools like MIT, Georgia Tech, or Purdue, were always meritocracies because they didn't put out a lot of English majors or confer a generic "degree" to someone who sometimes showed up for classes, like FDR at Harvard. If you didn't have the IQ points, you flunked out of Freshman Calculus and wasted everyone's time, as well as taking the place of someone more deserving.
3. Not true. Why do you think all the "princelings" go to Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, or University of Minnesota? Because those schools have "foreign student" slots for "diversity", at 2x the full price tuition for a "citizen" (See your No. 1 point). Remember some party official who got in trouble a few years ago because his son wrecked his Ferrari while a student at Boston University? That was because his test scores could only get him into Yichang Normal school.
The key phrase you use is "above board".Vonz90 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:57 am 1. Your analogy does not make sense. There are lots if markets that work with a combination of fixed prices and auction on one level or another and are above board. From real estate to sports ticket secondary markets, it is an efficient way to get to an equitable price, particularly for goods where demand > supply.
I see you are missing a significant point of what I am saying and replacing it with something I am not saying. I am not say that bribery and fraud are okay, or that these people should not be prosecuted.D5CAV wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:23 amThe key phrase you use is "above board".Vonz90 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:57 am 1. Your analogy does not make sense. There are lots if markets that work with a combination of fixed prices and auction on one level or another and are above board. From real estate to sports ticket secondary markets, it is an efficient way to get to an equitable price, particularly for goods where demand > supply.
This was not "above board". Bribes were paid to enable students to fake sufficient test scores and achievements to meet admission criteria.
In my definition of free market that is called "Fraud".
If your definition of free market includes bribery and fraud, I've got a bridge to sell you ... cheap, but cash only.
This is the best summary of the college admissions scandal I've seen. Long, but worth it: https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-am ... ritocracy/
Cliff notes version: If we actually had a meritocracy, the winners at top US universities would be (in order):
white Christian men
Asian men
You read that right, white Christian men have, on average, higher test scores than Asian men. Statistics that show Asian men having higher scores than white men arise from putting white Christian men in the same pool as white Jewish men. There is no us.gov minority set-aside for Jews, so not sure why that is.
The losers would be (in order of biggest losers to smallest losers):
blacks
hispanics
white women
white Jewish men
However, everyone knows about "affirmative action". That stigma unfairly taints qualified minorities and women. Qualified minorities and women will be winners in the long run in a true meritocracy (keep dreaming).
Thomas Sowell said, "The idea that men should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin got me labeled a radical in my youth, a progressive in my middle years, and a racist in my old age."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/ ... #pq=PKnYWG
50 years later, that remains a dream.