Let me refute that defense. I went to the kinds of schools we're talking about and I had a lab at them for over a decade.

If you went to an elite school and your kid can't get in by competing fairly with other kids, they're subpar and shouldn't get in. Kids of legacies have a massive advantage even if their legacy status is totally ignored.

For example, I'm certain that I can get my kids into MIT (they're a bit young right now). I know exactly what they need to do, how they need to present themselves, what classes to take, courses, extracurriculars, how to stand out, who to ask for letters, who to ask for opportunities like time in a research lab, etc. I've even helped other kids make plans and then get in. Same for my wife for the Ivy League school she attended. Those connections, peers, knowledge, resources, etc. are hard to match. If the kids decide they want to do that.

There's no reason to give these kids (my own included!) any other advantage. They're born with such a massive head start that it's hard to lose, if they put in the work. If they don't, then they shouldn't go to these places.

The only thing legacy admissions do is take away opportunities from students that deserve to be there. Stanford/Harvard/etc. shouldn't get a dime of state or federal funding as long as they continue to do this.

▲

jjmarr 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm certain by the time your kids are applying for MIT the standards will be much higher and your advice will be less relevant.

I know a professor charging high schoolers to be his research assistant, because there's too many people asking for research labs roles. I know people that got into top business schools because they already had thousands in MRR in high school.

▲

light_hue_1 5 days ago | parent [-]

You're thinking like an outsider instead of an insider.

My friend's kids are going there ahead of mine. I know plenty of people there, including folks involved in admissions. I'm contacted to write letters for candidates. etc. You stay plugged into the system.

I have no idea what mechanism a faculty member would use to charge a highschool student. But I think that's rather unethical and useless. Finances of labs are such that this money is worthless.

In any case, plenty of labs, mine included have several highschool students at any one time. But guess how you get in? With connections.

▲

jjmarr 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I have no idea what mechanism a faculty member would use to charge a highschool student. But I think that's rather unethical and useless. Finances of labs are such that this money is worthless.

The faculty member is keeping the money for themselves. Some might call it a bribe.

It's unethical (and possibly worse) but it is happening. The students themselves aren't doing actual research, they're given busywork because it's understood to be resume padding.

> But guess how you get in? With connections.

Over time, "connections" degrade into kickbacks and corruption. My point is that these lab positions are going to be meaningless in a decade due to bribery.

It will be similar to how every student at top high schools is an executive in a club because those schools have fake clubs that don't meet or do anything.

▲

SJC_Hacker 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Finances of labs are such that this money is worthless.

Depends on how much money we’re talking about

Things start getting “interesting” maybe around $50k. And yes there are people who will pay that much

University professors are also grossly underpaid relative to the difficulty of the job

▲

light_hue_1 5 days ago | parent [-]

In my experience the kinds of kids who are worth having in the lab are not from the kinds of families that can afford 50k.

In any case, I would never charge a summer student. And I have no idea how my university would do that if I tried. There's no mechanism. And even if there was, that money would go to the university not my lab. So it's useless.

I very much doubt this is going on. It's definitely not happening at top 10 places.

	▲	SJC_Hacker 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> In any case, I would never charge a summer student. And I have no idea how my university would do that if I tried. There's no mechanism. And even if there was, that money would go to the university not my lab. So it's useless. The university wouldn't know what was going on, and there wouldn't be anything technically illegal. Speaking fees are one obvious way to do this. Most of the time, college professors don't want anything to do with high school students, or even undergrads most of the time. They only do it because they are told to or there is some personal benefit to them.
	▲	BrenBarn 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> In my experience the kinds of kids who are worth having in the lab are not from the kinds of families that can afford 50k. This is a fundamental issue in my view. The types of people who will do good work are precisely the type who have not been trained by privilege to believe that they can get by without doing good work. But it is those with the privilege who are most able to get themselves into positions where good work would be beneficial. Hence the incentives are exactly backwards and we need to make a deliberate effort to exclude exactly the types of people who most "naturally" will crowd into certain jobs and positions, and include those who are least likely to naturally do so.

▲

JumpCrisscross 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you went to an elite school and your kid can't get in by competing fairly with other kids, they're subpar and shouldn't get in

OP's point is those kids will still probably wield exceptional wealth and power. Wherever they congregate will thus become the de facto centre of the elites.

▲

s1artibartfast 6 days ago | parent [-]

The whole argument seems incongruous with the actual news.

The state isn't pulling subsidies for the school to beautify its campus or some such.

It is canceling financial aid grants to low income students that are accepted to Stanford.

This is presented as a punishment of Stanford, which has no shortage of applicants.

▲

BrenBarn 5 days ago | parent [-]

They're doing that because it's the only leverage they have, because of our screwed-up system. In a more just world, the kind of "pay me $1 billion" stuff that Trump is doing to UCLA would instead be done tenfold to the most elite institutions to force them to entirely remake their operations on a more equitable footing.

	▲	s1artibartfast 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Is it leverage if it doesn't harm Stanford, and didn't impact their choice? I might as well have said they're going to crush 10 puppies a day until Stanford relents

▲

areoform 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I am curious to learn more about your perspective! Would it be possible to contact you somehow? (your profile doesn't have an email!)