[TreesAndBirds]

I figure we could use a bit of a distraction from the game, but this is disappointing. Just like I expect a level of good citizenship/appropriate behavior from our players and the athletic department ( which thankfully they almost always live up to), I expect it from other parts of the university as well. There are a number of issues here, but the one that is ( most) unacceptable is that it appears the B school was deceiptful in their description of how they awarded scholarships.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/01/st...s/?ref=yfp

[TreesAndBirds]

I figure we could use a bit of a distraction from the game, but this is disappointing. Just like I expect a level of good citizenship/appropriate behavior from our players and the athletic department ( which thankfully they almost always live up to), I expect it from other parts of the university as well. There are a number of issues here, but the one that is ( most) unacceptable is that it appears the B school was deceiptful in their description of how they awarded scholarships.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/01/st...s/?ref=yfp

[Snorlax94]

Bonus: Brock Turner is appealing.

[Snorlax94]

Bonus: Brock Turner is appealing.

[82lsju]

Bonus: Brock Turner is appealing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/02/br...1512216521

[82lsju]

Bonus: Brock Turner is appealing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/02/br...1512216521

[jacketree]

The GSB student did the right thing by pointing out the breach, but only after spending 1500 hours mining the data himself. Is that OK because names were anonymous? It did serve a greater purpose.

Someone at GSB should lose their job. To just flat out lie like that.

Regarding the Turner bonus, I’m no legal expert, but asking for a retrial seems like a risky strategy. How are they even going to select a jury?

[jacketree]

The GSB student did the right thing by pointing out the breach, but only after spending 1500 hours mining the data himself. Is that OK because names were anonymous? It did serve a greater purpose.

Someone at GSB should lose their job. To just flat out lie like that.

Regarding the Turner bonus, I’m no legal expert, but asking for a retrial seems like a risky strategy. How are they even going to select a jury?

[Stymie]

This is not new.

In 1968 I was accepted for an MBA by StanfordBS and HarvardBS, and was offered a fellowship by both c. 20% of my (in those good old days) $3000 total yearly expenses.  Before I chose to go to Harvard, somebody well in the know at SBS said that if I opted for Stanford I was very likely to be given a a significantly larger additional fellowship.  At first this sounded good to me, but the more I thought of it the more I considered it a bribe, and demurred.

Stymie

[Stymie]

This is not new.

In 1968 I was accepted for an MBA by StanfordBS and HarvardBS, and was offered a fellowship by both c. 20% of my (in those good old days) $3000 total yearly expenses.  Before I chose to go to Harvard, somebody well in the know at SBS said that if I opted for Stanford I was very likely to be given a a significantly larger additional fellowship.  At first this sounded good to me, but the more I thought of it the more I considered it a bribe, and demurred.

Stymie

[JohnR34231]

I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

[JohnR34231]

I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

[TreesAndBirds]

I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

I think the Bschool is supposed to promote ethics in business too, or is that less important than the other goals? And I'd be suprised if they havent/dont discriminate in favor of historically under-represented  groups ( in this case women) when it comes to admissions, so if they were going to do it with scholarships also, why deny it? And some of the non need based scholarships were awarded to attract finance students, which has nothing to do with increasing the role of women in tech, but rather just boosting some B school rankings. I see no excuse or rationale for this, other than someone thought it would be more convenient to be deceiptful than to be straight with incoming students and the world at large. Happy to be proved wrong, because I wish it wasnt so. I agree with JacketTree, there should be consequences if people knowingly deceived students. I think  there would be in the athletic department, and dont know why the B school should be held to a lower standard.

[TreesAndBirds]

I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

I think the Bschool is supposed to promote ethics in business too, or is that less important than the other goals? And I'd be suprised if they havent/dont discriminate in favor of historically under-represented  groups ( in this case women) when it comes to admissions, so if they were going to do it with scholarships also, why deny it? And some of the non need based scholarships were awarded to attract finance students, which has nothing to do with increasing the role of women in tech, but rather just boosting some B school rankings. I see no excuse or rationale for this, other than someone thought it would be more convenient to be deceiptful than to be straight with incoming students and the world at large. Happy to be proved wrong, because I wish it wasnt so. I agree with JacketTree, there should be consequences if people knowingly deceived students. I think  there would be in the athletic department, and dont know why the B school should be held to a lower standard.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18259.msg216679#msg216679 date=1512304764]
I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

I think the Bschool is supposed to promote ethics in business too, or is that less important than the other goals? And I'd be suprised if they havent/dont discriminate in favor of historically under-represented  groups ( in this case women) when it comes to admissions, so if they were going to do it with scholarships also, why deny it? And some of the non need based scholarships were awarded to attract finance students, which has nothing to do with increasing the role of women in tech, but rather just boosting some B school rankings. I see no excuse or rationale for this, other than someone thought it would be more convenient to be deceiptful than to be straight with incoming students and the world at large. Happy to be proved wrong, because I wish it wasnt so. I agree with JacketTree, there should be consequences if people knowingly deceived students. I think  there would be in the athletic department, and dont know why the B school should be held to a lower standard.
[/quote]
My goodness. You don't feel strongly about this, do you?

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18259.msg216679#msg216679 date=1512304764]
I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

I think the Bschool is supposed to promote ethics in business too, or is that less important than the other goals? And I'd be suprised if they havent/dont discriminate in favor of historically under-represented  groups ( in this case women) when it comes to admissions, so if they were going to do it with scholarships also, why deny it? And some of the non need based scholarships were awarded to attract finance students, which has nothing to do with increasing the role of women in tech, but rather just boosting some B school rankings. I see no excuse or rationale for this, other than someone thought it would be more convenient to be deceiptful than to be straight with incoming students and the world at large. Happy to be proved wrong, because I wish it wasnt so. I agree with JacketTree, there should be consequences if people knowingly deceived students. I think  there would be in the athletic department, and dont know why the B school should be held to a lower standard.
[/quote]
My goodness. You don't feel strongly about this, do you?

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=18259.msg216694#msg216694 date=1512318612]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18259.msg216679#msg216679 date=1512304764]
I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

I think the Bschool is supposed to promote ethics in business too, or is that less important than the other goals? And I'd be suprised if they havent/dont discriminate in favor of historically under-represented  groups ( in this case women) when it comes to admissions, so if they were going to do it with scholarships also, why deny it? And some of the non need based scholarships were awarded to attract finance students, which has nothing to do with increasing the role of women in tech, but rather just boosting some B school rankings. I see no excuse or rationale for this, other than someone thought it would be more convenient to be deceiptful than to be straight with incoming students and the world at large. Happy to be proved wrong, because I wish it wasnt so. I agree with JacketTree, there should be consequences if people knowingly deceived students. I think  there would be in the athletic department, and dont know why the B school should be held to a lower standard.
[/quote]
My goodness. You don't feel strongly about this, do you?
[/quote]

We all have our priorities. I'll bow out.

[TreesAndBirds]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=18259.msg216694#msg216694 date=1512318612]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18259.msg216679#msg216679 date=1512304764]
I think the B school is in a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They are expected to not discriminate in fellowship/admissions policies but at the same time they are expected to help alleviate the shortage of women in executive positions in the technology industry. Not hard to see how they could get tripped up trying to serve both masters.

I think the Bschool is supposed to promote ethics in business too, or is that less important than the other goals? And I'd be suprised if they havent/dont discriminate in favor of historically under-represented  groups ( in this case women) when it comes to admissions, so if they were going to do it with scholarships also, why deny it? And some of the non need based scholarships were awarded to attract finance students, which has nothing to do with increasing the role of women in tech, but rather just boosting some B school rankings. I see no excuse or rationale for this, other than someone thought it would be more convenient to be deceiptful than to be straight with incoming students and the world at large. Happy to be proved wrong, because I wish it wasnt so. I agree with JacketTree, there should be consequences if people knowingly deceived students. I think  there would be in the athletic department, and dont know why the B school should be held to a lower standard.
[/quote]
My goodness. You don't feel strongly about this, do you?
[/quote]

We all have our priorities. I'll bow out.

[Snorlax94]

I have no problems with the policies, or what is effectively merit aid.

First, I think Stanford can set whatever policies they want for admissions, scholarships, or aid. Trying to attract under-represented groups seems consistent with the university’s mission. Obviously, hedge-fund types aren’t an under-represented group, but there are legitimate reasons to target them — for one, they can bring and share an expertise with the class.

Second, I think merit-based “need” aid is quite commonplace. Although Stanford’s aid dept calculated my family needed only some loans to smooth out my tuition over maybe 6-8 years, a liberal arts college came to the conclusion thay my need was a grant basically covering all of tuition. It wasn’t labelled a scholarship, this all came from their financial aid dept.

Incidentally, I didn’t consider it a “bribe.” I just shrugged and figured they really wanted me, but I still chose Stanford.

What does bother me is the misrepresentation. Even if this is a widespread practice among universities, Stanford should accurately state their policies. As a practicality, it may be difficult — maybe there are financial implications for classifying funds as need-based aid or merit-based scholarships — but if Stanford or other universities accurately stated their policies and provided some transparency, I would think the practices described are otherwise fine.

[Snorlax94]

I have no problems with the policies, or what is effectively merit aid.

First, I think Stanford can set whatever policies they want for admissions, scholarships, or aid. Trying to attract under-represented groups seems consistent with the university’s mission. Obviously, hedge-fund types aren’t an under-represented group, but there are legitimate reasons to target them — for one, they can bring and share an expertise with the class.

Second, I think merit-based “need” aid is quite commonplace. Although Stanford’s aid dept calculated my family needed only some loans to smooth out my tuition over maybe 6-8 years, a liberal arts college came to the conclusion thay my need was a grant basically covering all of tuition. It wasn’t labelled a scholarship, this all came from their financial aid dept.

Incidentally, I didn’t consider it a “bribe.” I just shrugged and figured they really wanted me, but I still chose Stanford.

What does bother me is the misrepresentation. Even if this is a widespread practice among universities, Stanford should accurately state their policies. As a practicality, it may be difficult — maybe there are financial implications for classifying funds as need-based aid or merit-based scholarships — but if Stanford or other universities accurately stated their policies and provided some transparency, I would think the practices described are otherwise fine.

[dabigv13]

+1 to Snorlax's post.

Also wonder when Ed Blum finds a plaintiff...

[dabigv13]

+1 to Snorlax's post.

Also wonder when Ed Blum finds a plaintiff...

[Stymie]

Incidentally, I didn’t consider it a “bribe.” I just shrugged and figured they really wanted me, but I still chose Stanford.

In my case it was a bribe, Snorlax.  Regardless of my 3 summers on Wall Street 1965-1967 and including several published analyses of both equity and debt, my GMAT score was "rare".  Of course, I avoided Wall Street on graduation, and made a decent income mostly in the area of Strategic/Futures Planning.  So figure.....

Stymie

[Stymie]

Incidentally, I didn’t consider it a “bribe.” I just shrugged and figured they really wanted me, but I still chose Stanford.

In my case it was a bribe, Snorlax.  Regardless of my 3 summers on Wall Street 1965-1967 and including several published analyses of both equity and debt, my GMAT score was "rare".  Of course, I avoided Wall Street on graduation, and made a decent income mostly in the area of Strategic/Futures Planning.  So figure.....

Stymie