5 ms·

I like how an official donation is an acceptable way to get your kid into a school but a backdoor bribe is not. What is the effective difference? I'll answer

I like how an official donation is an acceptable way to get your kid into a school but a backdoor bribe is not. What is the effective difference? I'll answer my own question. The school and government get their share. So, it's not about what's right or wrong, it's just about the money, like always.

vkou 7y ago
The difference is that the university will sell out its admission spots for its own benefit, but doesn't want its agents to sell said spots for their own benefit. A university will happily tarnish its illusion of 'meritocracy' for the right amount of money - as long as it is the beneficiary. It's not going to let its employees tarnish that image for personal gain. Life isn't fair, and neither are admissions (Although the universities try their best to convince children and the non-thinking otherwise.)
- Cerium 7y ago
  I see the key as being benefit of all students (university has more money) vs benefit of one (bribe).
  - vkou 7y ago
    That doesn't matter. When a store's employees steal merchandise from a store, and sell it out of the back door, they aren't guilty of raising prices for the store's customers. They are guilty of theft... From their employer. Nobody wastes time moralizing about what impact their actions have on shoppers, because it's a second-order effect. Selling the illusion of a university being a meritocracy is the same thing. Employees doing it for personal gain are stealing from the university, not the students.
- awa 7y ago
  I agree, and technically the university can cap the number of students taken this way and try to understand the first and second order effects. (If we take this 1 extra student we might be able to take in 25 extra regular students in 5 years due to the funding) However, In this case, the spot was for a good student with a solid sailing sports background that was taken.
xvector 7y ago
> I like how an official donation is an acceptable way to get your kid into a school but a backdoor bribe is not. I don't think that's ever been acceptable. I mean, people do it, but it's not acceptable in the least. I feel pretty bad for the kids too. They will forever know that they aren't a 'real' student.
- Mc_Big_G 7y ago
  >"The Zhao family claims that they are victims of Singer, and that they believed their $6.5 million — by far the largest sum paid to Singer as part of his scheme — was a perfectly legal donation to Stanford. This generous act was not only done for the good of the school and its students, but also done out of the love and support of Yusi by a caring mother,” the family said in a statement to the Times." Their defense is that they thought it was a legal donation, but clearly still expected that it would buy their daughter admission.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  I'm not sure about that. What is money for, if not to live a better life? Some things may/should be beyond money, but I'm not at all sure that a slot at a college is one of them.
  - Retra 7y ago
    Money is for engaging in economic transactions? Just because you would use it to better your own life doesn't mean that's its only possible purpose. If you're spending it, surely someone else's life should be improved as well, and you still should be able to justify why you're selecting the improvements you are.
- koiz 7y ago
  >They will forever know that they aren't a 'real' student. I don't think they care at all.
- vkou 7y ago
  > I don't think that's ever been acceptable. I mean, people do it, but it's not acceptable in the least. Given that everyone, from faculty, to students, to employers, accepts it, without batting an eye, I'd daresay that yes, it is acceptable. You may personally not like it, but society accepts it. There's a lot of, for instance, sociopathic behaviours that I do not like, and most people consider unfair, unjust, unethical, etc - yet our society not only accepts, but rewards them.
BadassFractal 7y ago
There's clearly large power variance within the 1%. 10M net worth is a wonderful lifestyle, but that crowd can only dream of the kind of doors that having billions opens.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Won't somebody think of the bottom 99% of the 1%???
matz1 7y ago
The article doesn't mentioned right or wrong ?
- vfulco2 7y ago
  Some cultures only see pragmatism. Right or wrong in a Western sense is non-existent. The only "wrong" is getting caught.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jdc 7y ago
> 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.[1] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369775
nwallin 7y ago
The effective difference is that when an ineligible student is admitted as a result of a "donation", the funds are used to further the education of the students who earned their spot. Whether it's new facilities, new research projects, or reduced tuition, all students benefit from a donation to the university itself. I would rather attend a school with a $500 million endowment and a handful of idiots running around than a school with a $400 million endowment where everyone who is there deserved to be there.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  I wouldn't - because those idiots are going to be running around outside of the school after they've finished running around inside it. Idiots are a problem wherever they are. If a good educational pedigree gives their idiocy a patina of respectable credibility, that's a social and political problem, not just an educational one.

vkou 7y ago

The difference is that the university will sell out its admission spots for its own benefit, but doesn't want its agents to sell said spots for their own benefit. A university will happily tarnish its illusion of 'meritocracy' for the right amount of money - as long as it is the beneficiary. It's not going to let its employees tarnish that image for personal gain. Life isn't fair, and neither are admissions (Although the universities try their best to convince children and the non-thinking otherwise.)

Cerium 7y ago
I see the key as being benefit of all students (university has more money) vs benefit of one (bribe).
- vkou 7y ago
  That doesn't matter. When a store's employees steal merchandise from a store, and sell it out of the back door, they aren't guilty of raising prices for the store's customers. They are guilty of theft... From their employer. Nobody wastes time moralizing about what impact their actions have on shoppers, because it's a second-order effect. Selling the illusion of a university being a meritocracy is the same thing. Employees doing it for personal gain are stealing from the university, not the students.
awa 7y ago
I agree, and technically the university can cap the number of students taken this way and try to understand the first and second order effects. (If we take this 1 extra student we might be able to take in 25 extra regular students in 5 years due to the funding) However, In this case, the spot was for a good student with a solid sailing sports background that was taken.

xvector 7y ago

> I like how an official donation is an acceptable way to get your kid into a school but a backdoor bribe is not. I don't think that's ever been acceptable. I mean, people do it, but it's not acceptable in the least. I feel pretty bad for the kids too. They will forever know that they aren't a 'real' student.

Mc_Big_G 7y ago
>"The Zhao family claims that they are victims of Singer, and that they believed their $6.5 million — by far the largest sum paid to Singer as part of his scheme — was a perfectly legal donation to Stanford. This generous act was not only done for the good of the school and its students, but also done out of the love and support of Yusi by a caring mother,” the family said in a statement to the Times." Their defense is that they thought it was a legal donation, but clearly still expected that it would buy their daughter admission.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
I'm not sure about that. What is money for, if not to live a better life? Some things may/should be beyond money, but I'm not at all sure that a slot at a college is one of them.
- Retra 7y ago
  Money is for engaging in economic transactions? Just because you would use it to better your own life doesn't mean that's its only possible purpose. If you're spending it, surely someone else's life should be improved as well, and you still should be able to justify why you're selecting the improvements you are.
koiz 7y ago
>They will forever know that they aren't a 'real' student. I don't think they care at all.
vkou 7y ago
> I don't think that's ever been acceptable. I mean, people do it, but it's not acceptable in the least. Given that everyone, from faculty, to students, to employers, accepts it, without batting an eye, I'd daresay that yes, it is acceptable. You may personally not like it, but society accepts it. There's a lot of, for instance, sociopathic behaviours that I do not like, and most people consider unfair, unjust, unethical, etc - yet our society not only accepts, but rewards them.

BadassFractal 7y ago

There's clearly large power variance within the 1%. 10M net worth is a wonderful lifestyle, but that crowd can only dream of the kind of doors that having billions opens.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Won't somebody think of the bottom 99% of the 1%???

matz1 7y ago

The article doesn't mentioned right or wrong ?

vfulco2 7y ago
Some cultures only see pragmatism. Right or wrong in a Western sense is non-existent. The only "wrong" is getting caught.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jdc 7y ago

> 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.[1] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369775

nwallin 7y ago

The effective difference is that when an ineligible student is admitted as a result of a "donation", the funds are used to further the education of the students who earned their spot. Whether it's new facilities, new research projects, or reduced tuition, all students benefit from a donation to the university itself. I would rather attend a school with a $500 million endowment and a handful of idiots running around than a school with a $400 million endowment where everyone who is there deserved to be there.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I wouldn't - because those idiots are going to be running around outside of the school after they've finished running around inside it. Idiots are a problem wherever they are. If a good educational pedigree gives their idiocy a patina of respectable credibility, that's a social and political problem, not just an educational one.