10 ms·

Donating a building is a payment to the university. The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not c

Donating a building is a payment to the university. The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits other students, which is why the universities take the deals in the first place. In this case, we're talking about bribery of specific employees to act against the interests of their employer. That's simply corruption. They might be equally non-meritocratic, but they're definitely not equally dishonest or equally socially harmful.

TheTruth321 8y ago
LMAO ... "it's not corrupt" ... This place has turned to horsesh!t ...
fmajid 8y ago
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.
- everdrive 8y ago
  The FBI can only enforce based on the law.
- rb808 8y ago
  They're private clubs, not public charities. One of the reasons people want to go to these schools is because they have lots of resources. If you ban wealthy parents and alumni from donating, the school wont be outstanding, so the University has good reason to accept these.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Pragmatically defensible corruption is still corruption.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Technically, they are public charities. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Issues/Taxation%20%26%20Finance/Tax-Exempt-Status-of-Universities-FINAL.pdf https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Is...
    - gowld 8y ago
      Your link does not support your claim: "charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational" Obviously a university is scientific and literary, and a college is educational.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > They're private clubs, not public charities. Actually, they are publicly subsidized (by tax deductibility of donations made to them) because they are private charities.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    Plus it may not be against the interest of the other students to get a chance to network with rich kids (and the related future business/investment opportunities).
- dan-robertson 8y ago
  The purpose of a research institution is to do research, not provide degrees to some selection of particularly smart young people. They will act in ways to increase the research they can do. People don’t deserve to be let in just because they are clever, they also should have some probability of furthering the research aims through their studying/paying fees. Why is it more unfair to let in someone who can pay for a great deal of research to be done than to reduce student numbers to pay for research to be done?
  - gumby 8y ago
    Your first two statements I agree with but they don't really apply to this article which is about undergraduates. Undergrads are pretty much irrelevant to major research institutions (e.g. my undergraduate alma mater MIT spends only about 16% of its budget on undergrads who are actually subsidized -- tuition is about 14% of revenue). Grad students are what matter and apart from the B school they are mostly paid (barely) to attend.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Research students are paid to intend. professional students (business, law, government, medical, dental, etc) are not. And some scientific/art students are not research students (often these are students who enter as Masters candidates, not PhD candidates)
      - gumby 8y ago
        I was replying to a comment specifically about research universities, which are indeed a small subset of all institutes of higher learning. Research, including scientific research, does happen at institutions that aren't "research universities."
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  It may be unfair, but it's not corrupt.
- kokokokoko 8y ago
  I wonder if you can help me understand this better. Why does a specific private university need let in the smartest or most capable students? What does that have to be their goal or they are unjust? Why can't they have different reasons and goals when building their student body? I understand things like racism and other forms of bigotry. But what's wrong with adding some students that will bring in the perspective of the super wealthy? Not to mention the significant additional funds it will provide for everyone else? It feels like having a purely merit based population of students would create a very stagnant and dull environment.
  - BubRoss 8y ago
    For starters, they do seem to claim to be merit based (with the applications and all that)
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Well, they don't - but then they'll eventually get the reputation of being a party school rather than the prestige that goes with outstanding academics. It feels like having a purely merit based population of students would create a very stagnant and dull environment. 'This university sucks! Everyone here is a nerd.' OK, you probably did not mean it that way but I can't resist having a little fun with this. If all you want to do is shake things up, why not just draft random working class people via lottery? For extra amusement, make them go even if they don't want to. True, we would not learn anything about the perspective of the super wealthy, but they already have billboards and TV stations to inform us of their opinions.
- stvswn 8y ago
  Legality aside, "corruption" implies fraud. Fraud implies personal gain by dishonest means. The allocation of spots at a private university to the children of wealthy donors would only be corruption if it were dishonest, but it's not.
- XCabbage 8y ago
  Why is this any more corrupt than any other exchange of services for money? Yes, there's a system available to the masses that the super-rich are bypassing using their wealth. The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"? What's different here? If there's no dishonesty and nobody is harmed, what's the moral issue? Why are universities, unique among all society's institutions, required to operate as perfect meritocracies?
  - smallgovt 8y ago
    >> The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"? Short answer: The difference lies in the transfer of wealth to the next generation and our meritocratic values. As a society, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to. At least in the US, meritocracy is big part of our value system. We believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life. So, let's look at some examples: Example A) Person A works his/her ass off and becomes rich off the fruits of his labor. He then spends his riches on private jets and private health insurance. Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? No. He deserves a higher quality of life because he worked his ass off. Example B) Person A then purchases access to an elite university for his child, who as a direct result, enjoys a better life than his poorer peer who works just as hard. Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? Yes. His child didn't deserve their higher quality of life because they didn't work their ass for it. You don't have to agree with meritocratic values, but it explains the difference.
    - XCabbage 8y ago
      I'm happy to concede that it's a violation of the ideal of meritocracy, and already did. But so, for that matter, is buying your child a private jet or buying your child health insurance that others can't afford. It's the fact that money is being spent by a parent on a child who hasn't earned it that makes it unmeritocratic. The case of this being done for a university place is still not special, and it's still not corrupt.
- XCabbage 8y ago
  While this is technically true, it's irrelevant to the comment of mine you're replying to, which had nothing to do with legality in the first place.
lph 8y ago
So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kbenson 8y ago
  Yes? Paying someone to go against the best interests of their employer is different than paying the employer directly. Paying a grocery store cashier separately to put aside the best fruits for you is not the same as paying the store extra for a higher grade of fruit.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      I didn't say it was a publicly listed price. You could have a deal set up with the store's owner, that's fine. Having an individual deal with a cashier that results in the rest of the customers having a slightly lowered experience to the benefit of one person and it not going to the owner is the problem. If the owner is fine with the quality for the general public going down and what that does to his business, that's fine and the owners's call to make as to whether it's beneficial overall. If an employee is taking all the benefit and giving the negative consequences to the business, that's a problem. There are portions of what schools are doing here which are perfectly normal. There are portions which may not be (I imagine public funding may preclude certain admittance options, but I'm not sure). If the school is willing to put up with now the public perceives these actions and how it affects their business (because it is a business), then that's their decision.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt Maybe not in the 1800s, but doing that today violates any number of published school policies. It likely also violates several laws, especially if the school receives state/federal funding (they all do). Violating published policies, circumventing established admission systems, and denying a spot for a qualified candidate in order to accommodate a wealthy donor, that is the definition of corruption.
- gowld 8y ago
  Not all of them do! A few, most famously Hillsdale, refuse government money in order to protect their civil liberties (including as race-agnostic admission procedures, for better or for worse). https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-federal-money/ https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-fed...
  - 1stcity3rdcoast 8y ago
    As someone who went to Hillsdale, seeing my school referenced on hacker news is surprising!
Digory 8y ago
I suppose the IRS doesn't prosecute some of the tax fraud, because it might be difficult to prove a quid pro quo or the value of an admission. Sometimes, alumni give to their alma mater for charitable reasons! And some USC grads do better than some Yale grads, I'm sure. But maybe the IRS should try to brush back the most conspicuous cases of donating to receive admission. I'm seeing stories of admissions officers being pretty open about it at Ivy League schools.
thefounder 8y ago
If the donor pays for a service why does it "donates" instead to pay? This smells very much like donating to a political party just to get government contracts which I believe is bribery.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  It is exactly that, and they get reduced taxes for it.
- extra88 8y ago
  I don't like it but U.S. courts do not consider party donations, or even more direct benefits, to get contracts bribery unless there's explicit evidence; B following A does not mean A caused B unless the people involved say so, even if there's a clear pattern. I think it's a corollary of their misguided "money is speech" interpretation of the 1st amendment. A university admissions bribery case is unlikely to benefit from such 1st amendment arguments.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> It also benefits other students, which is why the universities take the deals in the first place. This is a little overgenerous. > In this case, we're talking about bribery of specific employees to act against the interests of their employer. That's simply corruption. Perhaps. What crime is it? I went and looked at the charges that were filed, here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis... (Kudos to patch.com for actually including a link to the charges in their coverage. Middle finger to the Washington Post.) Charges are divided into three groups, which appear to correspond to different roles in the bribery. At the top are four people "charged by information". William Singer and Mark Riddell are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. (And some other charges.) Based on the media coverage, this is because some payments in the bribery system took the form of donations to a nonprofit operated by Riddell, and this is tax fraud. (One of those other charges is "conspiracy to defraud the United States".) Rudy Meredith is charged with wire fraud, the catchall crime that everyone in the country is guilty of. John Vandemoer is charged with racketeering. The second group, "charged by indictment", are all charged with racketeering, except for David Sidoo who is charged with mail and wire fraud. I don't know what these people are supposed to have done. I'd like to think that a racketeering charge requires the organization you're involved with to have committed a crime; that would imply that what they're really charged with is helping the sham charity commit tax fraud. The third group, "charged by complaint", are the parents. One and all they are charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud. It doesn't look to me like paying an admissions officer to admit your child is a crime at all. Similarly, bribing a maitre'd to seat you more quickly is bribing a specific employee to act against the interests of his employer, but it's not a crime. Taking the bribe might or might not be a crime. All of the charges here that involve a crime relate to using a sham nonprofit for tax benefits.
- XCabbage 8y ago
  > It doesn't look to me like paying an admissions officer to admit your child is a crime at all. I have not had a chance yet to look properly at the case, but I'd assumed the "fraud" charges are for precisely the act of paying an admissions officer to admit a child. Do you have reason to think that's not the case? > bribing a maitre'd to seat you more quickly is bribing a specific employee to act against the interests of his employer, but it's not a crime It's petty enough you wouldn't expect anyone to be prosecuted over it, but are you sure it's not a crime?
Balgair 8y ago
Anecdata: In my extended family, we have some members with a fair bit of 'bread'. These family members met at a somewhat known (yet small-ish) college and really loved the place and all the memories they had there. They donated a lot of money over the years and, yes, had a building named after them. When it came time for their daughter to apply to college, the choice was obvious. However, the daughter was rejected outright due to a multitude of factors. She wasn't violent, or addicted, or lazy. Nothing like that. She just wasn't ahead of the other applicants. Well, you can imagine that the parents were none too enthused. All the love they had for that college, those dreams for their daughter, gone. There were phone calls and in person visits. Still, the daughter was not what they were looking for. In the end, things have gone alright for everyone. The building still has their names on it, though the donations have ceased. The daughter is doing just fine at the school she is now at. The college is dealing with it's own issues just as it ever was. Though there may be corruption at many universities and colleges, there are still a fair number of places where merit and fair decisions still reign. I'd look to those schools for the graduates to hire. Integrity is still in high demand, just as it will ever be.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  When I hear stuff like this I wonder what in the hell could have been so great about their experience that they'd want to do something like that. It makes me wonder what I missed out on in college that I don't feel the same way. Did I just by chance happen to not go to some meeting or join some club that would have changed everything?
  - milquetoastaf 8y ago
    It's different when you're rich
  - tsunamifury 8y ago
    It really is if you gained access to a circle of people who have moved up in influence in varying sectors. My Alma-mater gave me access to leaders, hiring and referral opportunities, and even a life long partner with similar ambitions. I can probably name a good long list of of people I can call and get a a little help from now if I was in a bit of a pinch or need a little perspective.
icedchai 8y ago
I wonder how many of these parents tried the "more legit" route, like offering to donate to the school? We'll never know...
smallgovt 8y ago
I think you're making a valid argument that misses the larger point. I agree that the practice of university donations in exchange for college admission is neither legally corrupt nor dishonest. However, it is still wrong according to our societal values. That is, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to and meritocracy is big part of our value system. At least in the states, we believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life. When parents purchase access to an elite university for their child, they are conferring an advantage to their child over the child's peers that is unearned and unfair. Elite college admissions is a zero sum game. There are only a certain number of spots available and purchasing a spot for a kid who slacked off in school necessarily takes the same opportunity away from a more deserving kid.
bsanr 8y ago
These universities publicly portray their admissions process as meritocratic. They go out of their way to dispel the notion that buying your way in is officially an option. That it IS an option, in spite of their assurances, is corruption in my book, regardless of whether or not it's an open secret.
kamaal 8y ago
>>Donating a building is a payment to the university. >>It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt Its just dampening the effects a little, but its the same though. Donating X, just means the person who bought in the donation gets promoted or gets awarded some bonus or gets rewards by their employer(university). Instead of receiving the bribe directly. This is a classic trick from corruption handbooks used by ace corrupt people. When you trade something for something which could be wrong, only stupid people directly do it through exchange of money. Clever people trade through favors and indirect profit/help. They also call this lobbying in places like politics. In many other places they call these things incentives, commissions, brokerage or whatever. This is really one of those classic problems with defining corruption. Books and stories can always be cooked in a way to make anything look good.

TheTruth321 8y ago

LMAO ... "it's not corrupt" ... This place has turned to horsesh!t ...

fmajid 8y ago

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

everdrive 8y ago
The FBI can only enforce based on the law.
rb808 8y ago
They're private clubs, not public charities. One of the reasons people want to go to these schools is because they have lots of resources. If you ban wealthy parents and alumni from donating, the school wont be outstanding, so the University has good reason to accept these.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Pragmatically defensible corruption is still corruption.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Technically, they are public charities. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Issues/Taxation%20%26%20Finance/Tax-Exempt-Status-of-Universities-FINAL.pdf https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Is...
  - gowld 8y ago
    Your link does not support your claim: "charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational" Obviously a university is scientific and literary, and a college is educational.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > They're private clubs, not public charities. Actually, they are publicly subsidized (by tax deductibility of donations made to them) because they are private charities.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Plus it may not be against the interest of the other students to get a chance to network with rich kids (and the related future business/investment opportunities).
dan-robertson 8y ago
The purpose of a research institution is to do research, not provide degrees to some selection of particularly smart young people. They will act in ways to increase the research they can do. People don’t deserve to be let in just because they are clever, they also should have some probability of furthering the research aims through their studying/paying fees. Why is it more unfair to let in someone who can pay for a great deal of research to be done than to reduce student numbers to pay for research to be done?
- gumby 8y ago
  Your first two statements I agree with but they don't really apply to this article which is about undergraduates. Undergrads are pretty much irrelevant to major research institutions (e.g. my undergraduate alma mater MIT spends only about 16% of its budget on undergrads who are actually subsidized -- tuition is about 14% of revenue). Grad students are what matter and apart from the B school they are mostly paid (barely) to attend.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Research students are paid to intend. professional students (business, law, government, medical, dental, etc) are not. And some scientific/art students are not research students (often these are students who enter as Masters candidates, not PhD candidates)
    - gumby 8y ago
      I was replying to a comment specifically about research universities, which are indeed a small subset of all institutes of higher learning. Research, including scientific research, does happen at institutions that aren't "research universities."
jeffdavis 8y ago
It may be unfair, but it's not corrupt.
kokokokoko 8y ago
I wonder if you can help me understand this better. Why does a specific private university need let in the smartest or most capable students? What does that have to be their goal or they are unjust? Why can't they have different reasons and goals when building their student body? I understand things like racism and other forms of bigotry. But what's wrong with adding some students that will bring in the perspective of the super wealthy? Not to mention the significant additional funds it will provide for everyone else? It feels like having a purely merit based population of students would create a very stagnant and dull environment.
- BubRoss 8y ago
  For starters, they do seem to claim to be merit based (with the applications and all that)
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Well, they don't - but then they'll eventually get the reputation of being a party school rather than the prestige that goes with outstanding academics. It feels like having a purely merit based population of students would create a very stagnant and dull environment. 'This university sucks! Everyone here is a nerd.' OK, you probably did not mean it that way but I can't resist having a little fun with this. If all you want to do is shake things up, why not just draft random working class people via lottery? For extra amusement, make them go even if they don't want to. True, we would not learn anything about the perspective of the super wealthy, but they already have billboards and TV stations to inform us of their opinions.
stvswn 8y ago
Legality aside, "corruption" implies fraud. Fraud implies personal gain by dishonest means. The allocation of spots at a private university to the children of wealthy donors would only be corruption if it were dishonest, but it's not.
XCabbage 8y ago
Why is this any more corrupt than any other exchange of services for money? Yes, there's a system available to the masses that the super-rich are bypassing using their wealth. The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"? What's different here? If there's no dishonesty and nobody is harmed, what's the moral issue? Why are universities, unique among all society's institutions, required to operate as perfect meritocracies?
- smallgovt 8y ago
  >> The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"? Short answer: The difference lies in the transfer of wealth to the next generation and our meritocratic values. As a society, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to. At least in the US, meritocracy is big part of our value system. We believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life. So, let's look at some examples: Example A) Person A works his/her ass off and becomes rich off the fruits of his labor. He then spends his riches on private jets and private health insurance. Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? No. He deserves a higher quality of life because he worked his ass off. Example B) Person A then purchases access to an elite university for his child, who as a direct result, enjoys a better life than his poorer peer who works just as hard. Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? Yes. His child didn't deserve their higher quality of life because they didn't work their ass for it. You don't have to agree with meritocratic values, but it explains the difference.
  - XCabbage 8y ago
    I'm happy to concede that it's a violation of the ideal of meritocracy, and already did. But so, for that matter, is buying your child a private jet or buying your child health insurance that others can't afford. It's the fact that money is being spent by a parent on a child who hasn't earned it that makes it unmeritocratic. The case of this being done for a university place is still not special, and it's still not corrupt.
XCabbage 8y ago
While this is technically true, it's irrelevant to the comment of mine you're replying to, which had nothing to do with legality in the first place.

lph 8y ago

So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 8y ago
Yes? Paying someone to go against the best interests of their employer is different than paying the employer directly. Paying a grocery store cashier separately to put aside the best fruits for you is not the same as paying the store extra for a higher grade of fruit.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I didn't say it was a publicly listed price. You could have a deal set up with the store's owner, that's fine. Having an individual deal with a cashier that results in the rest of the customers having a slightly lowered experience to the benefit of one person and it not going to the owner is the problem. If the owner is fine with the quality for the general public going down and what that does to his business, that's fine and the owners's call to make as to whether it's beneficial overall. If an employee is taking all the benefit and giving the negative consequences to the business, that's a problem. There are portions of what schools are doing here which are perfectly normal. There are portions which may not be (I imagine public funding may preclude certain admittance options, but I'm not sure). If the school is willing to put up with now the public perceives these actions and how it affects their business (because it is a business), then that's their decision.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt Maybe not in the 1800s, but doing that today violates any number of published school policies. It likely also violates several laws, especially if the school receives state/federal funding (they all do). Violating published policies, circumventing established admission systems, and denying a spot for a qualified candidate in order to accommodate a wealthy donor, that is the definition of corruption.

gowld 8y ago
Not all of them do! A few, most famously Hillsdale, refuse government money in order to protect their civil liberties (including as race-agnostic admission procedures, for better or for worse). https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-federal-money/ https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-fed...
- 1stcity3rdcoast 8y ago
  As someone who went to Hillsdale, seeing my school referenced on hacker news is surprising!

Digory 8y ago

I suppose the IRS doesn't prosecute some of the tax fraud, because it might be difficult to prove a quid pro quo or the value of an admission. Sometimes, alumni give to their alma mater for charitable reasons! And some USC grads do better than some Yale grads, I'm sure. But maybe the IRS should try to brush back the most conspicuous cases of donating to receive admission. I'm seeing stories of admissions officers being pretty open about it at Ivy League schools.

thefounder 8y ago

If the donor pays for a service why does it "donates" instead to pay? This smells very much like donating to a political party just to get government contracts which I believe is bribery.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
It is exactly that, and they get reduced taxes for it.
extra88 8y ago
I don't like it but U.S. courts do not consider party donations, or even more direct benefits, to get contracts bribery unless there's explicit evidence; B following A does not mean A caused B unless the people involved say so, even if there's a clear pattern. I think it's a corollary of their misguided "money is speech" interpretation of the 1st amendment. A university admissions bribery case is unlikely to benefit from such 1st amendment arguments.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> It also benefits other students, which is why the universities take the deals in the first place. This is a little overgenerous. > In this case, we're talking about bribery of specific employees to act against the interests of their employer. That's simply corruption. Perhaps. What crime is it? I went and looked at the charges that were filed, here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis... (Kudos to patch.com for actually including a link to the charges in their coverage. Middle finger to the Washington Post.) Charges are divided into three groups, which appear to correspond to different roles in the bribery. At the top are four people "charged by information". William Singer and Mark Riddell are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. (And some other charges.) Based on the media coverage, this is because some payments in the bribery system took the form of donations to a nonprofit operated by Riddell, and this is tax fraud. (One of those other charges is "conspiracy to defraud the United States".) Rudy Meredith is charged with wire fraud, the catchall crime that everyone in the country is guilty of. John Vandemoer is charged with racketeering. The second group, "charged by indictment", are all charged with racketeering, except for David Sidoo who is charged with mail and wire fraud. I don't know what these people are supposed to have done. I'd like to think that a racketeering charge requires the organization you're involved with to have committed a crime; that would imply that what they're really charged with is helping the sham charity commit tax fraud. The third group, "charged by complaint", are the parents. One and all they are charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud. It doesn't look to me like paying an admissions officer to admit your child is a crime at all. Similarly, bribing a maitre'd to seat you more quickly is bribing a specific employee to act against the interests of his employer, but it's not a crime. Taking the bribe might or might not be a crime. All of the charges here that involve a crime relate to using a sham nonprofit for tax benefits.

XCabbage 8y ago
> It doesn't look to me like paying an admissions officer to admit your child is a crime at all. I have not had a chance yet to look properly at the case, but I'd assumed the "fraud" charges are for precisely the act of paying an admissions officer to admit a child. Do you have reason to think that's not the case? > bribing a maitre'd to seat you more quickly is bribing a specific employee to act against the interests of his employer, but it's not a crime It's petty enough you wouldn't expect anyone to be prosecuted over it, but are you sure it's not a crime?

Balgair 8y ago

Anecdata: In my extended family, we have some members with a fair bit of 'bread'. These family members met at a somewhat known (yet small-ish) college and really loved the place and all the memories they had there. They donated a lot of money over the years and, yes, had a building named after them. When it came time for their daughter to apply to college, the choice was obvious. However, the daughter was rejected outright due to a multitude of factors. She wasn't violent, or addicted, or lazy. Nothing like that. She just wasn't ahead of the other applicants. Well, you can imagine that the parents were none too enthused. All the love they had for that college, those dreams for their daughter, gone. There were phone calls and in person visits. Still, the daughter was not what they were looking for. In the end, things have gone alright for everyone. The building still has their names on it, though the donations have ceased. The daughter is doing just fine at the school she is now at. The college is dealing with it's own issues just as it ever was. Though there may be corruption at many universities and colleges, there are still a fair number of places where merit and fair decisions still reign. I'd look to those schools for the graduates to hire. Integrity is still in high demand, just as it will ever be.

nsxwolf 8y ago
When I hear stuff like this I wonder what in the hell could have been so great about their experience that they'd want to do something like that. It makes me wonder what I missed out on in college that I don't feel the same way. Did I just by chance happen to not go to some meeting or join some club that would have changed everything?
- milquetoastaf 8y ago
  It's different when you're rich
- tsunamifury 8y ago
  It really is if you gained access to a circle of people who have moved up in influence in varying sectors. My Alma-mater gave me access to leaders, hiring and referral opportunities, and even a life long partner with similar ambitions. I can probably name a good long list of of people I can call and get a a little help from now if I was in a bit of a pinch or need a little perspective.

icedchai 8y ago

I wonder how many of these parents tried the "more legit" route, like offering to donate to the school? We'll never know...

smallgovt 8y ago

I think you're making a valid argument that misses the larger point. I agree that the practice of university donations in exchange for college admission is neither legally corrupt nor dishonest. However, it is still wrong according to our societal values. That is, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to and meritocracy is big part of our value system. At least in the states, we believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life. When parents purchase access to an elite university for their child, they are conferring an advantage to their child over the child's peers that is unearned and unfair. Elite college admissions is a zero sum game. There are only a certain number of spots available and purchasing a spot for a kid who slacked off in school necessarily takes the same opportunity away from a more deserving kid.

bsanr 8y ago

These universities publicly portray their admissions process as meritocratic. They go out of their way to dispel the notion that buying your way in is officially an option. That it IS an option, in spite of their assurances, is corruption in my book, regardless of whether or not it's an open secret.

kamaal 8y ago

>>Donating a building is a payment to the university. >>It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt Its just dampening the effects a little, but its the same though. Donating X, just means the person who bought in the donation gets promoted or gets awarded some bonus or gets rewards by their employer(university). Instead of receiving the bribe directly. This is a classic trick from corruption handbooks used by ace corrupt people. When you trade something for something which could be wrong, only stupid people directly do it through exchange of money. Clever people trade through favors and indirect profit/help. They also call this lobbying in places like politics. In many other places they call these things incentives, commissions, brokerage or whatever. This is really one of those classic problems with defining corruption. Books and stories can always be cooked in a way to make anything look good.