5 ms·
The actual problem here is not the bribery. The problem is that those bribes are being captured by random 3rd parties, rather than by the school itself. The cor
by darawk 8y ago
The actual problem here is not the bribery. The problem is that those bribes are being captured by random 3rd parties, rather than by the school itself. The correct way to implement college admissions is this: Charge a sliding scale fee based on application quality, and then use the excess revenue generated to subsidize poor kids tuition. Your kid has a 2.5 GPA and wants to go to Harvard? Great, that'll be a million dollars a year. You'll be funding the tuition of 20-30 kids of lesser means and everybody wins.
- chaostheory 8y agoI feel that your idea is already reality. It's just not official. The issue is that the people caught up in this scandal aren't wealthy enough to fund a building or even a building wing, or they would just go through the more acceptable route.
- tlrobinson 8y agoWilliam Rick Singer, the guy at the center of this, said exactly that: "There is a front door which means you get in on your own. The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in" (unfortunately for him, he said it on a wiretapped phone call...)
- darawk 8y agoYa, it is partially reality you're right. I just think it ought to be more explicit.
- chaostheory 8y agoBuildings, wings, and other structures are named after them. Imo it already is
- shshhdhs 8y agoI’m sure someone has a reason to not like this, but I actually think this is a fantastic approach. Especially when you raise the bar that high (a million) that it could fund many students. There’s just got to be a way to enforce it so the money doesn’t end up in some stadium renovation fund or executive bonus.
- mochomocha 8y agoNo. No amount of money should get you a way to get into an "elite" school if you don't deserve it. Unless we're ready to admit that these schools aren't really elite if any billionaire's dumb dumb kid can get in with enough money thrown at the institution. The issue with trying to solve every single problem with money is that capitalism isn't designed to solve problems where a moral compass is needed.
- skookumchuck 8y agoTheocracies justify their existence by enforcing a moral code. They haven't worked out very well.
- dls2016 8y ago> if any billionaire's dumb dumb kid can get in with enough money thrown at the institution Do you really think this isn't already the case?
- darawk 8y ago> No. No amount of money should get you a way to get into an "elite" school if you don't deserve it. Why? What's so precious about elite schooling that you're willing to sacrifice 10 kids getting a free education just to prevent one billionaire's kid from going to an elite school? > The issue with trying to solve every single problem with money is that capitalism isn't designed to solve problems where a moral compass is needed. Except that capitalism will give more people an elite education, and your moral compass will give fewer of them one. There's a reason we don't guide economies by moral compass - it doesn't work very well.
- mochomocha 8y agoIn the country I come from (France), all the top schools are publicly funded and you get in by taking exams where the whole country students compete once a year. Based on how you rank, you get in or not. Most of them have really low annual tuitions. In some of them, you're even paid! Hard to imagine anything remotely close here when there's always a way to throw money at something (your congressman, dean...) to get the outcome you want.
- leftyted 8y agoI'd urge you to think more about this. You can imagine the same thing for murder trials: 10 million per victim or you go to jail. You can use the money to make the world better! I'm not so sure. These institutions have an embedded narrative. For universities it's that they are meritocracies, where class/race/gender/etc do not matter. For the justice system it's that everyone is equal before the law and the guilty will be punished. I don't think these institutional narratives are superfluous. While it's naive to expect the institutions to live up to the narratives, the narratives end up serving as ideals. And I don't think the institutions can exist without those ideals.
- tus87 8y agoWRONG. Murder is a negative to society. A loser going to Harvard is not, may even improve society if they study well.
- mythrwy 8y agoIf Harvard had infinite seats maybe.
- opportune 8y agoI would really like universities to be meritocracies. However I went to a highly ranked school for undergrad and I can assure you it was nowhere close to a meritocracy, nor did it really try to pretend that it was. That narrative may exist for you and others, but it's entirely accidental.
- notyourday 8y agoWhen the news first broke there was an article where the some of the admissions officers were asked about it by journalist. Unfortunately I do not remember where the article was published. The gist of it was that the bribe devalued the schools -- the rate for "you will admit so and so" is north of $10 million.
- WheelsAtLarge 8y agoThe only reason admission to elite schools is so coveted is because, in theory, you can't buy your way into a degree. Once you can buy your way in then no one will want to. Your idea would work for a bit but eventually, it would fall apart.
- marrone12 8y agoWell, being a legacy student can absolutely get you into the school. You can't buy it for yourself now, but someone can have bought it for you earlier.