23 ms·
FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme
- Alex3917 8y agoThis is pretty wild. Seeing the FBI tackle something like this is so far outside of the legal and cultural norms of society that it's difficult to even really comment on.
- alistairSH 8y agoI was more surprised at the scope - tackling entrance exam cheats* AND direct bribes to the universities. Neither surprises me much, but glad to see somebody attempting to address both. * Entrance exams in the US are created by one of several private entities (College Board, International Baccalaureate, ACT) and administered by the local secondary schools.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoWell, frankly I'm glad they are. As many people die slipping in the bathtub each year as 9/11. If acronym-agencies want to actually help society maybe they should tackle these types of real-world problems (e.g. tax-evasion of 1%) rather than building cool Snowden spy-toys.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dhimes 8y agoCould be because it crosses state jurisdictions.
- maxxxxx 8y ago"outside of the legal and cultural norms of society" True. Usually the norm is that wealthy people are exempt from prosecution. I am sure whoever pursued this will get a lot of angry calls from powerful people.
- almost_usual 8y agoThe rich are getting richer and that demographic usually attends Ivy League schools. As the middle class disintegrates you're going to see more public incentive to prosecute the rich who bend or break the law to sustain their wealth.
- sheepdestroyer 8y agoflagged for paywall
- Phlarp 8y agoDemocracy dies in darkness!
- philpem 8y agoBecause that's easier than feeding the link to archive.is and posting the archive link? ;)
- NowThenGoodBad 8y agoI didn’t run into a paywall. Are you on mobile or desktop/laptop?
- johnisgood 8y agoFree option: > Read a limited number of articles each month
- cr1895 8y ago> Are paywalls ok? It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds. In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
- reaperducer 8y agoAlso, complaining about paywalls assumes that everyone on HN doesn't subscribe to the publication in question. Some of us actually support journalism by paying for news. The NYT, for example, is running a special right now at $2/week. Considering the number of Times articles that land on the HN front page, it seems like a worthwhile investment.
- behringer 8y ago
- shereadsthenews 8y agoThe one thing we have learned from the last few years is that white-collar / upper-class crimes are rampant and radically under-prosecuted.
- NowThenGoodBad 8y agoThis might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently getting your kid in? My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t (despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another university). It’s not like we ever had that type of money, but if we did I wouldn’t have wanted that. It seems like they’re targeting this more obvious version of bribery but not digging in and targeting the systemic issue of affluent people buying their children’s spot in college. I really don’t think it’s much harder to prove that an underperforming student who got in because their parents donated a couple million (or tens of millions of) dollars took the place of a more qualified candidate. Maybe I’m wrong...
- naveen99 8y agoIt’s different in the scale of the donation. 2 Million dollar donation materially improves things for other students and is tax deductible. $15,000 bribe doesn’t do much for other students except rob them of a spot.
- avar 8y agoSome of these schools have endowments so large that no amount of donating to them will move the needle. They don't need more money: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/malcolm-gladwell-revisionist-history_us_578d2c6fe4b0c53d5cfa79e0 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/malcolm-gladwell-revisi...
- onemoresoop 8y agoThis is so true but greed enables them to take and take and take. I find this so hypocritical, these universities are shaping the future educating the next generation of leaders and already have more than what they need with their exorbitant fees.. it seems like there's no limit to this as long as there is supply, there is demand.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
- naveen99 8y agoLooks like they got cheap and tried to bribe low level people instead of donating directly to the official university fund raising people.
- ReedJessen 8y agoYeah, the didn't bribe well enough...
- 2sk21 8y agoIndeed, every university has a "development" office precisely to collect "bribes" openly.
- plink 8y agoApparently, these parents were insufficiently wealthy to deflect prosecution.
- Varcht 8y ago"The Justice Department on Tuesday charged more than 30 wealthy people — including two television stars — with being part of a long-running scheme to bribe and cheat to get their kids into big-name colleges and universities."
- save_ferris 8y agoI think OP means that weren't wealthy enough to make a large public donation through the appropriate channels and instead resorted to bribery. Their legal bills could easily surpass the amount of money exchanged to get their kids into these schools.
- mcguire 8y agoThe numbers $15,000 and $50,000 were mentioned in the article.
- dexterdog 8y agoThat's the kind of money poor people who think they're rich donate to schools.
- Thorrez 8y agoAre you saying that's a high number or a low number? Because if you're saying it's high, you picked the wrong examples, here's a different example from the article: >The student’s parents paid $1.2 million in bribes, officials said.
- mcguire 8y agoLow. Certainly not enough to be in the "donate a building" range. In fact, I doubt $1.2million is in that range.
- tomphoolery 8y agoget around the paywall -> http://archive.is/s2w6P http://archive.is/s2w6P
- god_bless_texas 8y agothank you!
- MBCook 8y agoA tweet from Yashar Ali: US Attorney re the Huffman/Loughlin (among others) college scam: "We're not talking about donating a building...we're talking about fraud." https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1105493852578697217 https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1105493852578697217 Says quite a lot, doesn’t it.
- winningcontinue 8y agoyup, most striking sentence to me as well. If you donate an entire building, it's fine and legal. Smaller payments in the form of money, is fraud.
- enraged_camel 8y agoWell yes, because donating a building benefits all the students using that building today and well into the future. Small payments (i.e. bribes) to individuals benefit no one except those individuals.
- whatok 8y agohttps://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis... Has a list of people and indictments/etc that have been filed so far.
- scrumper 8y agoThe parents are facing serious federal charges there. Conspiracy to commit mail fraud is what, up to 5yrs prison and a $250k fine? I feel for them - it's the type of crime I can easily imagine myself committing* - but good that this has been put to a stop. *while also believing that, given the opportunity, I would choose to play it fair.
- apkessl1 8y agoStatutory limit is actually 20 years, under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341 In practice, most of the defendants would be likely to get under 5 years assuming this is their first offense, don’t commit further crimes, etc.
- scrumper 8y agoOww. Lots of plea bargains coming up I am sure. Don't think any of the parents would make a particular sympathetic defendant in front of a jury. Matt Levine today framed it rather neatly as a property crime, in that the dodgy charity guy and the coaches stole those selective admissions slots from the universities and sold them on to the parents. (Those parents of course being fully aware that other people would be taking test on their kids' behalf, so they are hardly victims.)
- jak92 8y agoIs it illegal to bribe a private university for admission?
- morpheuskafka 8y agoIt sounds like part of the problem was that only some individuals were involved out of the institution. So it was a case of some coach being paid off to transmit false info to the admissions committee about someone being on a sports team (making it federal wire fraud). The admissions committee was then influenced to accept based on that fake info.
- mark212 8y agoApparently there are no more drug cartels to go after? We’re now worried about a has-been actress who paid $15,000 so her kid could cheat on the SAT? I’m skeptical of the FBI’s investigative priorities. Wall Street is suddenly squeaky-clean? No more insider trading? Ponzi schemes have all gone away? Municipal governments across the land are staffed by honest and dedicated civil servants? All defense contractors are scrupulously precise about their billing and would never ever bribe a DOD procurement official? I’m not saying it’s right to engage in cheating on the SAT or bribing someone to get into a university. But inarguably there are many more crimes that are far more serious.
- wyldfire 8y ago> Apparently there are no more drug cartels to go after? We’re now worried about a has-been actress who paid $15,000 so her kid could cheat on the SAT? This is a false dichotomy.
- nkrisc 8y agoAre you suggesting law enforcement for anything less than the most serious crimes should cease for as long as the more serious crimes continue?
- mark212 8y agoI’m suggesting that in a world of finite resources, one should prioritize the most serious over the picayune
- mcguire 8y ago"Investigators allege the scheme was run largely through Key Worldwide Foundation, which ostensibly was a nonprofit but, according to the FBI, was really a conduit for bribing college employees to get rich kids into elite schools." Well, it's not like there's truth in advertising: "We partner with your son or daughter to identify their strengths, unlock their potential, choose the right college, position themselves for admission, and outline a course of study and extracurricular experiences to lead to a life of success." -- http://www.thekeyworldwide.com/ http://www.thekeyworldwide.com/
- lunulata 8y agowho cares, FBI stop wasting my tax money and catch some real criminals
- gumby 8y agoWhy is this illegal while underfunding the schools and paying $35K to a "college counselor" not equally corrupt? Because the results of the latter are less certain?
- nkrisc 8y agoBecause one is outright fraud while the other is just better training, tutoring, and guidance? If the college counselor was doing the same thing as alleged here than that would also be illegal.
- smt88 8y agoHow do you suppose Yale and USC are underfunded? Who should be giving these private universities more money, exactly? For context: Yale's endowment is ~$40B and USC's is $5.5B.
- gumby 8y agoI meant underfunding high schools so the candidate pool of kids are not well prepared. For example California's public school system is one of the worst schools in the nation; even top schools like Palo Alto are pretty appalling compared to what I got on the east coast. And Palo Alto's schools get all sorts of "private" donations from PA residents, not shared with other schools. But almost all the high school and middle school students also receive private tutoring after school to make up for the crummy public education.
- jarsin 8y agoT-10 until we have interviewers at tech companies being bribed. Probably the best way for an experienced engineer to get in at this point.
- KingFelix 8y agoSo, I want to see some data on these kids. This could be some great research, what are these kids doing now? How do they stack up against their graduating class, with career etc. Could you find some correlations, hard to see if everything was a product of their parents cash, but I would be interested in seeing some of this Data
- WhompingWindows 8y agoYou can find correlations with enough tests and enough variables. You may have to join in outside data but finding correlations alone is not tough. It'd be actually getting data on these people into analyzable form...that'd be a huge task that would ruffle many feathers.
- chatmasta 8y agoIt only started 2011 at the earliest, and seems like the bulk of it was 2015-2017, so you won't have much data yet; most of those kids are still in college. You could look at the GPA I suppose. It's also an interesting ethical question; what do the universities do with the kids? Were any of them unaware of the scheme? I read that the test-taker would take the test "with" the kid... so presumably they do some kind of paper mixup at the end. It's conceivable that the kid might not even realize their parents have paid somebody to take their test at the same time as them.
- aliston 8y agoThere's so much discussion from the perspective of the parents, but what about the message this sends to the kids that it's OK to cheat your way through life? If you could get into USC with a ~1000 SAT score like Huffman's daughter, would you even want to go? I wouldn't. It is shortchanging the achievement, and really missing the point of what admission to such a university represents. The reality is that the college you attend, especially for undergrad, has relatively little bearing on your life as a whole. If you're in the GPA/SAT range to get into Stanford, but end up attending UC Irvine instead, you'll be just fine. You might even graduate with less debt and at the top of your class. On the other hand, if your parents bail you out and buy your way into Stanford when you're not qualified, it sets you up for a life of disappointment. You'll likely struggle to keep up with classmates, and won't know what it feels like to achieve on your own. It teaches reliance on mommy and daddy rather than reliance on yourself, which is not a sustainable approach to life when you get into the real world.
- jedberg 8y ago> The reality is that the college you attend, especially for undergrad, has relatively little bearing on your life as a whole. In most cases yes. But when we're talking about elite colleges, it has significant bearing. Living in the dorm with a future CEO may be helpful in your future job search, and if you go to an elite college, you have a much better chance of having done that. Going to Stanford or Berkeley or MIT or UW and doing CS there will mean that when you graduate, a whole lot of hiring managers will see that you attended the same college they did and give you an automatic boost. And if you go to USC film school, you're pretty much guaranteed to know someone who will one day be very successful in the film industry and will help you get jobs or connections to have your own projects produced. Heck, the school does that for you. So yeah, in most cases it doesn't matter, but in some very specific cases it does.
- aliston 8y agoMy point is not that going to a top college isn't a great opportunity. My point is that for someone who could have gotten into Stanford, the actual admission it isn't defining. Someone with that sort of intelligence and drive will find a way to meet the future CEO, get a great job and so on regardless of whether they attend. I went to Stanford. I love my undergrad. But I also have faced plenty of rejection and adversity on the way and since graduating. What matters is how you respond to that rejection, which is what the struggle to earn admission reflects. Having your parents bail you out means you will never learn those lessons.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- heyyyouu 8y agoWhat I find interesting is that when my kid got into a UC via a semi-sport yes, it helped her, but only a tiny bit -- the overall average GPA for these students is only slightly lower (by two points -- 4.0 vs 4.2) than the overall average of who get in, but you still HAVE to make the requirements, and the SAT requirements and other requirements stay exactly the same. Why is it different at other schools like UCLA? That would seem to be an easy fix for this.
- projectramo 8y agoI understand why it is unethical, but what law did they break? The coach is not a government employee, so aren't you legally permitted to bribe them?
- Wohlf 8y agoThey commited textbook fraud. You can take a look at the charges for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis...
- projectramo 8y agoExactly what I was looking for, thank you. Weird that they have so many of them on "mail fraud." That part confuses me more than it enlightens me.
- kazinator 8y agoThe underlying problem is that a college only needs a smattering of renowned alumni in order to maintain its academic prestige; graduating a whole lot of dummies who paid their way in doesn't detract from the cherry-picked examples of academic achievement. The remaining bulk of its prestige can be rooted in money and social position. That seems to be the formula.
- reallydude 8y agoA friend of mine, from high school (~1994), had the experience of being in a family that won the state lottery. He skipped high school a lot after that, driving around in his new car. Later, I heard his parents bought him a degree from USC. USC has had a reputation in California of corruption for decades. This story should not be a surprise for many.
- chmaynard 8y agoYou should contact the FBI and report this as hearsay. It might be useful in the ongoing investigation.
- kkarakk 8y agowhy is this downvoted? actually relevant comment
- Zimahl 8y agoGetting in to college in the mid-90s wasn't as hard as it is now. I can't speak for USC, but when I started college in 1995 there were no concerns from the guidance counselors with my grades and SATs to get into any public school. I don't think with those same grades you are guaranteed a spot these days. There are just so many applicants for college that you have to be in a higher percentile.
- sizzle 8y agoCurious what he did with his life after USC given the windfall he received, any idea what he's up to?
- reallydude 8y agoAs of today, it looks like he is a freelance software consultant.
- 75dvtwin 8y agogeneral sentiment of many here is, A) a private university can set any criteria they want for admissions. B) a private, federally accredited, university can set different criteria of admission for different people C) If a parent donates large amount of money directly to the school, and their children get accept with lower criteria -- it is perfectly ok. --- Are there conditions, that would not make this line of thinking not ok ? Is donating 'sexual favors' ok ? Should the same principles be applied for job promotions in private corporations ? Is it ok to do similar differential treatment, for different students, for their grades throughout the study, and not just initial admission? What does it mean to be an 'accredited university'? Does accreditation implies any form of fairness? Is that legally enforceable ? Will the deans of those universities be responsible for lax rules, eg.. looking the other way? … aren't those kinds of behaviors, that are then breading the 'financial services execs that 'look the other way' and caused financial crisis of '08?
- stmfreak 8y agoI think this is an issue for the universities to settle with their employees that are diverting funds away from the universities for personal gain. It becomes a government and criminal matter when those same private institutions benefit from government regulations, such as loan guarantees, that are not available to other private institutions. I wonder why they are only mentioning the “wealthy parents” in this article over the corrupt administrators that enabled them?
- JamesBarney 8y agoThis seems like a pretty straightforward issue of an employee doing something shady they should be fired for. I'm sure they will and the schools will put into place checks to make sure this is harder in the future. > Is donating 'sexual favors' ok ? Prostitution is currently illegal and I'm sure this against the most colleges code of conducts. I really can't imagine a possible future where this becomes a problem. "Come to HigherEdUniv, we accept an SAT score of 1400 or 1200 and a blow job". > Should the same principles be applied for job promotions in private corporations ? Sexual favors? No this is currently illegal and falls under sexual harassment / prostitution. Giving a lot of money to a corporation for a promotion. This seems like pretty straightforward yes, companies exchange money for control all the time. YCombinator is founded on it. Giving a lot of money to a boss without the agreement of the company for a promotion. This is shady but I've never seen or heard of this happen in the U.S. Normal corporate governance seems to take care of this issue. > Is it ok to do similar differential treatment, for different students, for their grades throughout the study, and not just initial admission? From a legal standpoint sure this seems ok. How long would a university exist if they did this, not very long. > … aren't those kinds of behaviors, that are then breading the 'financial services execs that 'look the other way' and caused financial crisis of '08? Completely different problem and set of behaviors. These types of scams involve only a handful of people and have very little impact on society. Financial crises happen pretty often and affect everyone in the U.S.
- gabbygab 8y agoIt's understandable that every parent wants the best for their children and wants to give them a leg up in life and will do almost anything help their children. It's human nature that every parent appreciates and you can't fault them for that. But bribing and cheating isn't fair to other parents and their children. But then neither is legacy preference of alumni's children. Or giving special treatment to large donors. Or a slew of other preferential admission policies. How does one even start to fix this? It's structural and natural. The longer you live, the more you realize life isn't ideal. Meritocracy and fairness are wonderful ideals but ultimately impractical and unrealistic. Or maybe we just haven't evolved to that stage in human development? I recently watched Forrest Gump and this story reminded me of Gump's mother trading sexual favors for school admission for her son. Was that ethical or even legal? I imagine we could argue about it forever and never come to a satisfactory conclusion.
- tareqak 8y agoI wonder how the points of view vary on admission based on: 1) financial compensation (ranging from bribes as described in the article all the way to large donations) 2) affirmative action both of those approaches result in the admissions process deviating from being 100% meritocratic, and yet both of those approaches can be argued to help the educational institution and society overall (better facilities, more research, adding different perspectives, helping a disadvantaged group etc). I thought about this topic and this comparison in particular on my own over the weekend, so the coincidence of this being posted so soon feels a bit uncanny to me.
- dqpb 8y agoNext up: Wealthy Parents avoid jail time with legal bribery scheme - Plea Bargains
- Balgair 8y agoOh dear God. Reading into the indictments, it seems that a lot of the kids never had a clue that they were complicit in the schemes: >... and it was like, the kids though, and it was funny 'cause the kids will call me and say, "Maybe I should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I'll do better even" Right? And they just have no idea that they didn't even get the score that they thought they got. Can you even imagine what those people are going through? One day you are a USC/Harvard/Stanford grad. The next day you are a fraud. And not only that, you are revealed to the entire world to be dumb as a box of rocks, just totally naked and shamed. And you had no clue. Your closest family members spent tens of thousands of dollars fooling you, committing very serious crimes on your behalf, and all the while, lying to you about your intelligence and work ethic. For those people, it must feel like The Truman Show or an episode of The Twilight Zone. It's totally unreal.
- lainga 8y agoAnd what if you find this out, but worked your ass off and got straight As during your degree? Were your parents giving you unknown help then, too? Can you ask them? Where does it end?
- Balgair 8y agoLike, they tried so hard on your behalf. They spent so much money on you. They really did it out of the goodness of their hearts and in love of their child, in their own twisted way. And now? I mean, it all blew up in their faces. All their best intentions made everything just so much more horrible for their children. They'll never wash this off. My lord, not even Aristophanes himself could write a tragedy on this scale. EDIT: And the parents were laughing with their fixer at the deception that they pulled on their kids! They were laughing at the naivete of their very children that they fooled. I can't even begin to process what was going through those parents' minds. What were they thinking?!
- smallgovt 8y ago>> They'll never wash this off. I wouldn't go that far. If I ever interacted with these unaware children, I would go out of my way to not hold it against them. They did nothing wrong.
- Golfkid2Gadfly 8y agoThe real scandal is how many kid of congress people get into good schools, not because they're deserving nor because of bribes, but b/c the schools figure they might mifgt need a favor sometime so will take a moron
- highschoolx 8y agoUS high school senior here. Made a throwaway for this. Seeing this makes my blood boil. Not only is it essentially an open secret that the admissions process actively discriminates against Asians and other high-achieving ethnic groups--and gives a massive leg up to legacies, children of donors, etc.--these people thought they were good enough, by virtue of their wealth, to bribe and cheat their way into these top universities (and some of them, honestly, shouldn't even need cheating to get into!) I've worked my tail off for the past four years (if not more) to weasel my way past the racially biased admissions office, and now I see this--brazen corruption from the elite whose egos ride on their trust-fund children's college acceptances. After my personal experience and now this, I've come to a conclusion: the college admissions process in the US is fundamentally broken. This case isn't just an aberration--it's a pattern. I shudder to imagine just what my children will have to go through. </rant>
- anigbrowl 8y agoWe live in quite a corrupt society, so here is the part where I tempt you to undertake a nihilistic leap into radical politics: http://www.capitalaspower.com/ http://www.capitalaspower.com/ I shudder to imagine just what my children will have to go through. Things have been known to improve as well to decline. Don't let your anger make you pessimistic, experience will supply you with plenty of occasions for that later.
- jtfairbank 8y agoHow is that Capital As Power site radical at all when it merely purports to explore the dominant mode of capitalism / politics in the USA today? Now if you linked to something like https://sub.media/ https://sub.media/ or https://itsgoingdown.org/ https://itsgoingdown.org/ I'd understand...
- anigbrowl 8y agoI like to invite people to climb into the pool as opposed to just tossing them in at the deep end :)
- 8y ago
- ovx99 8y agoI for one am COMPLETELY SHOCKED that rich parents are able to get their kids into top colleges using their money and influence. Wow, how long has this been going on without anyone realizing it? Wow.
- a3n 8y agoI wonder if these parents will be punished as much as parents who get caught cheating on government assistance programs so that their kids have housing or food or health care. Probably not. They can afford lawyers to defend them and negotiate plea deals and settlements.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wolfspider 8y agoThis is a really good reason why college should be free and more accessible. Take away the opportunity for money to play a part in the exclusivity or stature of admission. If the studies themselves were valued more than the names of the schools it wouldn't matter as much which school was chosen. The funding sources could be bonded (that's what Freddie and Fannie are- agency bonds) and go directly to the institutions. The schools would be there to provide and not take advantage of students or put a lien on their future earnings. The money that the parents provide should go to the living expenses and study supplies of their children. For those who don't have that kind of support- the same colleges should be able to offer courses to them even if they have to get a job and have less free time or continuing education. Academics have become too rigid and this is the inflection point.
- gorbachev 8y agoAnyone seen any information about what's expected to happen to the kids of these lowlife scum? I'm assuming they'll be expelled, just haven't seen it actually mentioned explicitly anywhere.
- lozenge 8y agoI highly doubt it. They aren't being charged and supposedly had no idea. And they have affluenza to boot. Perhaps the tennis admission - there's no way she could not have known.
- dustindiamond 8y agoThey are paying full-price tuition, so probably nothing will happen as long as they continue to pay. I went to school with a girl who’s mother pretended to be a guidance counselor and obtained a copy of the SAT test prior to the daughter taking the exam. The daughter was accepted to Harvard, and the mother charged and convicted, but the daughter has a Harvard degree now.
- ghobs91 8y agoThis is why they should make it law that your kids can't attend a university if you've donated there. This and the legacy admissions nonsense is beyond absurd. It's why I roll my eyes so hard when investors say that attending a top school is a "signal" that makes you a better bet to invest in as a founder. That signal is pretty damn weak if those top schools so rampantly accept bribes.
- oefrha 8y ago> they should make it law that your kids can't attend a university if you've donated there. Wow, not so fast. I'm a Stanford grad and I donate a bit of money every year when they ask. Should my future kids be excluded from admissions? There's a world of difference between donating and donating to get your kids admitted.
- ghobs91 8y agoYes. If after that law passed, you still chose to donate, then it would show your intentions were to benefit your alma mater, and not to get your kids in. These elite schools all have massive endowments, on top of the ridiculously inflated tuition they charge, so give me a break if you're trying to tell me they need these donations. Otherwise, the idea of an elite school on your resume "signaling" something about you is meaningless. These schools are supposed to be bastions of knowledge and research, not expensive country clubs for rich kids to network with each other.
- known 8y ago"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" --Einstein
- rixrax 8y agoSo you let in people with dubious qualification that wouldn’t have met the entry requirements. Yet they seem to graduate from these schools. Therefore curriculum must be simple enough that even less qualified|gifted|hardworking can pass. How does that make those graduates feel that got in legit, and worked hard for their degrees? As a side note - somehow this topic and the wrong it represents to me makes me want to cry for mob justice.
- godelski 8y agoI think this is also a great argument for making prestige a low priority in selection.
- JoshTko 8y agoThose with money can always find a way to gain advantage. So if you have Private universities, those with means will find ways to game the system. And they will gain opportunity inequality over those that do not have the means. Stated differently, having unequal education institutions means that those that are richer will always be at an advantage to getting in the better institutions and long term contribute to opportunity inequality.
- Latteland 8y agoCertainly, people do at least some times give money to universities thinking they will get something out of it, like a kid being admitted. You know in closed doors it is discussed explicitly, and the fund raisers at the universities must be trying to skirt the legal limits. A bunch of them must be wandering if they are next or were wiretapped talking to the guilty ones here.
- Latteland 8y agoIt doesn't seem fare that it's okay to donate millions of dollars to the university without a hope you get something like you kid in and it's not a crime (I don't care that it's an institution and not a person, you can get something). Most programmers think we are in a meritocratic society and we all got to our positions based solely on raw ability, including me. Probably we are full of it. :-) I'm from a small town in the south, but my dad worked as an engineer at IBM. No doubt I was helped because I was around engineers, we talked about the world, and I knew I could probably make it there too. And he had money to help me in college.
- waterhouse 8y agoThe caption to the video currently says this: "Authorities charged more than people, like actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, March 12 with being part of a long-running college admittance scam. (Allie Caren, Justin Scuiletti/The Washington Post)" It seems to be saying that actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are more than people. One of the HN comments quotes "The Justice Department on Tuesday charged more than 30 wealthy people — including two television stars". The article currently begins with "The Justice Department on Tuesday charged 50 people — including two television stars". I suppose it must have been edited—and, based on the caption I see, there must be less scrutiny that goes into edits than into the original.
- tempodox 8y agoThe FBI must be extremely bored to waste their time with that trivial day-to-day bribery that everyone takes for granted. The cultural shock to those poor rich parents must be debilitating. How is the country supposed to work if you can't grease the wheels? On the plus side, any actual crime must obviously have been extinguished.
- 6295475823 8y agosachin tamang dipesh tamang
- jacquesm 8y agoWhat really vexes me about stuff like this is that the rich parent's kids already have all the advantages they could possibly wish for. Why would they take away the one thing that might level the playing field a bit: education for those who worked very hard to get admitted and then get pre-empted by someone else who won the birthday lottery?
- JudasGoat 8y agoI wonder if the applicants bumped by the bribed admissions would be able to bring legal action against all parties in this case? The amount of income lost by rejection to a prestigious school would seem to be a large number.