In your opinion, how should the elite colleges decide conduct admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are making a legal argument. What specifically makes them ineligible for 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code?

I’m not a non-profit lawyer but I would argue that they are deceptive in purpose. Their primary goal is to maximize returns for their billions in endowment, not to educate (e.g. a private interest that benefits the Harvard Corp.). Essentially, their primary purpose isn’t to educate any more, it’s to maximize the endowment.

The lack of transparency does not permit independent evaluation of whether these schools are in fact primarily dedicated to education and whether that is working or not.

What section of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits maximizing endowment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

Courts apply laws.
New laws are being made by lawmakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a member of a NOVA family that just started earning $250, with a high stats kid that was turned down by "elite" schools and is now attending an OOS public, who cares?! If privates simply want undergraduates of the haves and have-nots, with Cal, Michigan and UVA pretending, who am I to argue? Life isn't fair. Thousands of alternatives. Confident kid number 1 will make them all look foolish in the end.

Again privates can do whatever they want, just not on dime of my hard earned middle class money.

Hence, the Merit Act - Merit-Based Educational Reforms and Institutional Transparency
https://nypost.com/2024/01/11/news/bipartisan-congress-aims-to-defund-colleges-over-legacy-admissions/

Make sense? Fair enough? Got it?

Privates still benefit from public support in the form of financial aid, including loan guarantees, research grants, and other benefits like tax exempt status.

You don't have any idea what research grants are.

You don't take any issue with any other tax-exempt non-profit.

You want to change an entire system simply on the hope it increases YOUR particular kid's chances of Harvard from 5% to 5 1/4%.

You want to do this on the backs of the poor.

“Change an entire system.” Yes, god forbid we get rid of legacy preference and letting donors buy their kids’ spots, how on earth we will possibly survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By height

This made me burst out laughing. That’s the way they promote in my office.

[Anonymous]

Here is my hot take. Move to University of Rome model - everyone gets admitted, only the strongest get a degree. Make admissions an admin position simply to get bare minimum in terms of info (and of course bank account info)

Price will fall - coffers will fill and prestige will skyrocket. Offer limited housing. Profs will have full classes in lower tiers and a Darwinian drop for junior and senior.

[Anonymous]

The idea that this SC would allow a federal ban on legacy admissions to stand is pretty laughable. Freedom of association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea that this SC would allow a federal ban on legacy admissions to stand is pretty laughable. Freedom of association.

It's not actually banning.
They still have all the freedom.
However, just no government grant, accreditation, funding, etc.
They are not entitled to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that this SC would allow a federal ban on legacy admissions to stand is pretty laughable. Freedom of association.

It's not actually banning.
They still have all the freedom.
However, just no government grant, accreditation, funding, etc.
They are not entitled to that.

Obamacare didn't compel Medicaid expansion. It tied it to funding. The administration argued that the states weren't entitled to that. The SC found otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.

Totally logical, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.

Totally logical, right?

Oh, and let's not forget YOUR G-D Church! You guys are FD now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By height

BEST ANSWER!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.

Totally logical, right?

You said that for the discrimination against Asian case as well right? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.

Totally logical, right?

Does NRA get any government funding??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?

No, and we already know the courts think this is true.

Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.

Totally logical, right?

You said that for the discrimination against Asian case as well right? LOL

Yes, I did. Because it was proved it was racism and that is illegal.

I'm not the hypocrite. You are.

Now, call your church and tell them I demand chicken dinners for atheists and that they set aside pews for the left handed. Or risk their tax free status.