3 ms·
If someone wants to donate $70 million and maybe their kid gets a free pass into the university, I think that’s a win-win. Presumably that $70 million is being
by zaroth 8y ago
If someone wants to donate $70 million and maybe their kid gets a free pass into the university, I think that’s a win-win.
Presumably that $70 million is being used to provide a tremendous amount of resources for everyone who attends the goal. A lot of kids get full ride scholarships on the back of that $70 million, or a pretty sweet new building gets built on the campus.
Obviously there’s a trade-off in fairness and at some point ($7 million? $700k? $70k?) you look at it and say, no that’s not worth taking a spot away from another student.
Bribery obviously is a different matter, because the gains aren’t going to the university and therefore the students in any form.
- La-ang 8y agoSo ethics have a price? Meritocracy should be bought and sold?
- zaroth 8y agoWell there isn’t a meritocracy to begin with, so that’s not the choice we actually have here. But no, I’m not a purist, I think as a practical matter the majority of choices we make have externalities or trade-offs and sometimes you weigh the good versus the bad. Society is certainly worse off as a whole by not taking the $70 million donation and maybe there’s one rich kid who doesn’t get in. Obviously this approach has its limits and can go terribly wrong. Would you let one die to save a billion? Would you shoot down a plane that’s been hijacked? I don’t think it makes sense to be moral absolutists when the world is filled with practical choices that have to be made that will save some people and hurt others. Is it really ethical to fail to provide full scholarships to let’s say 1,000 students because 1 student’s application got fast tracked? My two cents are that “legacy” students are real (probably pervasive), and so is the benefit to pocketing their big fat donations.