[cardcrimson]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years. On the one hand, the student newspaper won't ever go away, because it felt like half my frosh dorm was former high school newspaper editors. But on the other hand, if you can't try to get a few drum players a year, a few bassoon players, a few bass players, etc., then student organizations like the orchestra may at some points not have the students to continue, and even if you randomly get a ton of orchestra players five years later, they may find themselves having to recreate an orchestra or theatre group that had to disband years earlier. 

I think the need to balance backgrounds each years shows how difficult it would be solve the issue of unfair advantages. In the current system, it will always be very lucrative for someone to track which instruments elite universities need, or which skills and activities will be in demand, and to keep track of how to fill those slots -- like a database of great bassoon teachers and easy-to-win bassoon contests, and it will be worth a lot of money to parcel this information out (lining up 1 bassoon player for the Class of '23, one of the class of '24, etc.) There is a lot of other permissible, insider knowledge like knowing the easiest department to apply to at each college (my wife joked, the reason so many Cornell legacy students are admitted is because alums know which school is much easier to be admitted to). 

My guess would be the legal aggregation of insider tricks -- which can be collected and sold to wealthy clients -- have the largest impact. I think the recent fraud generates so much outrage because it was so brazen and corrupt, and it builds upon a general sense that college admissions is becoming unfair and too easy to purchase. Like others, I like the Yale announcement that they'll be investigating the broader issues created by private college counselors. It's just that I think that the advantage of feeding students into needed skills (when they *really can* play the bassoon and it's not a fake profile) -- which I think creates a lot of the unfairness and imbalance -- will be a very difficult problem to fix.

The Headline. . . .University of Scandal, Corruption. Fitting given their track record, especially recently.

[cardcrimson]

Publius, do you mean the "University of Spoiled Children" or was there something else (I only skimmed the article). The Spoiled Children thing has been around forever, I think even back in the 80s.

Stupac, I think the randomization won't work because there is tremendous benefit to balancing backgrounds/interests across years. On the one hand, the student newspaper won't ever go away, because it felt like half my frosh dorm was former high school newspaper editors. But on the other hand, if you can't try to get a few drum players a year, a few bassoon players, a few bass players, etc., then student organizations like the orchestra may at some points not have the students to continue, and even if you randomly get a ton of orchestra players five years later, they may find themselves having to recreate an orchestra or theatre group that had to disband years earlier. 

I think the need to balance backgrounds each years shows how difficult it would be solve the issue of unfair advantages. In the current system, it will always be very lucrative for someone to track which instruments elite universities need, or which skills and activities will be in demand, and to keep track of how to fill those slots -- like a database of great bassoon teachers and easy-to-win bassoon contests, and it will be worth a lot of money to parcel this information out (lining up 1 bassoon player for the Class of '23, one of the class of '24, etc.) There is a lot of other permissible, insider knowledge like knowing the easiest department to apply to at each college (my wife joked, the reason so many Cornell legacy students are admitted is because alums know which school is much easier to be admitted to). 

My guess would be the legal aggregation of insider tricks -- which can be collected and sold to wealthy clients -- have the largest impact. I think the recent fraud generates so much outrage because it was so brazen and corrupt, and it builds upon a general sense that college admissions is becoming unfair and too easy to purchase. Like others, I like the Yale announcement that they'll be investigating the broader issues created by private college counselors. It's just that I think that the advantage of feeding students into needed skills (when they *really can* play the bassoon and it's not a fake profile) -- which I think creates a lot of the unfairness and imbalance -- will be a very difficult problem to fix.

The Headline. . . .University of Scandal, Corruption. Fitting given their track record, especially recently.