3 ms·
This article really harps on the "just donate a building like a real rich person" fallacy like so many people I've seen since this case broke. If someone donat
by creato 8y ago
This article really harps on the "just donate a building like a real rich person" fallacy like so many people I've seen since this case broke.
If someone donates resources (money, a building, whatever) to the school, and the school uses that to provide more services than one student consumes, that is a net increase in the available spots for students at the school.
In this case, people bribed individuals to enrich themselves, not the school. That is a decrease in the available spots for students at the school.
- mfringel 8y agoThere might be a net increase in available resources for each student, but there's no evidence to support that there would be net increase in available spots. e.g. Donating $25MM for a gym clearly gives students a nicer gym. It does not necessarily enlarge the size of the undergraduate matriculating class, year over year.
- analog31 8y agoCynically, it could be even worse. A nicer gym gives students a bigger tuition bill.
- Thorrez 8y agoHow is "just donate a building like a real rich person" a fallacy? The article doesn't say it's bad to donate and get in. >In this case, people bribed individuals to enrich themselves, not the school. That is a decrease in the available spots for students at the school. The article agrees with this, saying it's theft from the school, whereas donating a building isn't theft from the school.
- gimmeThaBeet 8y agoIt's not a fallacy, he's saying that its not the point. The question is why is this the crime? Matt Levine talks about insider trading a lot. He brings up the point that "it's not about fairness, its about theft". He approaches this much in the way. The crime that took place was against the schools. People misappropriated their property; the ability to trade access for money.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]