10 ms·
‘Father is Surgeon,’ ‘1 mil pledge’: The Role of Money in USC Admissions
- everybodyknows 7y agoAnecdotal data point here: I happen to know for a fact that "donated" cash has gotten students into USC as far back as the 1960's.
- whalesalad 7y agoIt’s a private school. I don’t understand the issue.
- aatharuv 7y agoPeople assume that people going to a college have a minimum level of competence, where $$$ is not one of the elements factoring into that competence.
- whalesalad 7y agoI’d posit that assumption is what is invalid, not this behavior.
- brianobush 7y agoAre they an accredited institution? A degree is more than a piece of paper.
- whalesalad 7y agoThe topic here is around admissions.
- munk-a 7y agoYou generally need to be admitted to get a degree.
- whalesalad 7y agoYes, but you don't get handed a degree just for being admitted.
- jessaustin 7y agoThat's less true for expensive private schools than it is for less exclusive public universities. Nobody gets kicked out of USC for poor grades.
- bretpiatt 7y agoMy understanding of the issue is they are a private non-profit and in exchange for the tax benefits of non-profit status they agree to not discriminate.
- aqme28 7y agoIt might not be a legal issue, but it can still be a moral one. We should try to make this society at least somewhat meritocratic.
- whalesalad 7y agoHow do Women’s schools fit into that?
- save_ferris 7y ago...the same way men's schools do?
- whalesalad 7y agoNot suggesting that there is anything wrong with women's schools ... just pointing out that nothing in life is a meritocracy.
- save_ferris 7y agoYou're right in that pure meritocracy without bias doesn't exist. It never has, and probably never will. However, the post you replied to argued that we should strive for a more meritocratic society, and I think we can all agree that some societies are more meritocratic than others. That's what I take issue with on your point. I challenge you to name a perfect system in the universe that was created by a human. Just because perfection doesn't truly exist doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it anyway. Or else what's the point in even being here?
- tempsy 7y agoIn addition to tax benefits, they are primarily funded by federal student loans.
- chrisseaton 7y agoBuying a service doesn’t get you a right to say how the they should run their business.
- sct202 7y agoIt does when you're the biggest customer.
- neetle 7y agoIt'd be less of an issue if the entry process wasn't advertised as meritocratic, I suspect.
- briandear 7y agoIs it advertised as meritocratic? Many students do gain acceptance on merit. That doesn't preclude other students getting in on connections.
- ausbah 7y agoThey receive tax payer money, so have some accountability to the public?
- sword_smith 7y agoI agree. Just because you accept some tax breaks should not, in my opinion, mean that you stop being a private organization. If a university's standard is lowered because the rich, not the best are admitted, that will be reflected in the academic standards of the university and would make it less attractive.
- munk-a 7y agoCan I reword that to: "Just because I receive public funding I shouldn't have to act like a publicly funded organization?" Also, I totally reject this on the basis that education is a public service that allows economic mobility - restricting it to the rich, whether in a public or private setting - is immoral.
- sword_smith 7y ago"Also, I totally reject this on the basis that education is a public service that allows economic mobility - restricting it to the rich, whether in a public or private setting - is immoral." So because you have to pay for something, only the rich will afford it? Just like only the rich surf the internet, because AT&T charges a subscription?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoI grew up thinking our world was egalitarian, but as an adult I see how untrue that is. I long for a society where privilege is not so pronounced. Where no one is so wealthy while others starve. We don’t live in that world yet, but I do believe it’s possible. We need to grow in to something better. The old ways aren’t working for all but a few of us.
- strikelaserclaw 7y agoI don't believe all people are equal but we should certainly aim to progress in incremental steps to a society which is more inline with the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.
- rhizome 7y agoThis may sound beyond the pale, but I think nothing will happen along these lines until banks (at least) are allowed to fail. There's too much socialism among the privileged and too little among the less so. Society is way behind the people who have figured out how to externalize risks, such that equalization is criticized as oppression.
- jessaustin 7y agoThere is no logical way to dispute your obviously-correct suggestion, and yet it will never come to pass in USA. Therefore, USA itself doesn't have a great deal of time remaining.
- rhizome 7y agoit will never come to pass in USA Not with that attitude it won't!
- jessaustin 7y agoYou're right! If only we had voted harder, a single investment banker who caused the "financial crisis" might have gone to prison for a couple of days. Better luck next time! (Because all the bankers got rich instead of incarcerated, "next time" is inevitable.)
- baggy_trough 7y agoCollege admissions should be anonymous and strictly based on standardized tests.
- dbt00 7y agoStandardized test taking is a skill but hardly the only one that matters.
- spaceflunky 7y agoAlso, Goodhart's Law. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." There's people who spend their whole adolescence studying for the SATs and their parents pay for every possible tutor and advantage they can find. Side note, my friend's mom got him diagnosed with ADHD so that he could get extra time on SAT (spoiler: he never had ADHD). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- gamedori 7y agoCurrent research shows a 20~30 point SAT1 improvement from specialized coaching [1]: > From 1981 to 1990, three separate analyses of all the prior studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. They found a coaching effect of 9 to 25 points on the SAT Verbal and of 15 to 25 points on the SAT Math. In 2004, Derek Briggs, using the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, found effects of 3 to 20 points for the SAT Verbal and 10 to 28 points for the SAT Math. Donald Powers and Donald Rock, using a nationally representative sample of students who took the SAT after its revisions in the mid-1990s, found an average coaching effect of 6 to 12 points on the SAT Verbal and 13 to 18 points on the SAT Math. I have not seen any studies on the effect of accomodations, though. I think the amount parents will pay for those relatively meagre extra points, and the fact that the parents in this case had to resort open bribery, speaks relatively well for the meritocraticness of the current system. Open the books, show us that nothing is being swept under the rug, and just let the undeserving children of millionaires go to third tier schools. [1] http://www.aei.org/publication/abolish-the-sat-2/ http://www.aei.org/publication/abolish-the-sat-2/
- ohazi 7y agoI found it difficult to get upset over the original scandal knowing that this was considered the "correct" way to buy an admission. In my view, either both of these should be considered fraud/bribery and outlawed, or neither of them should be.
- chaostheory 7y agoThe difference is with public donations, it benefits the entire student body. It subsidizes the cost of attending the university for everyone at the expense of a few people. With the scandal of bribing officials, it only enriches the officials.
- ineedasername 7y agoIt's not completely egalitarian, insider influence plays an out-sized role in many areas of society, but that doesn't mean it is the only thing that matters. In the US at least, we still live in a society that has historically unprecedented (though unfortunately dwindling) class mobility. It's easy to look at the college scandal and think that's the only way anyone gets in, but in reality that only represents a fraction (perhaps a sizable one, but not the majority) of things.
- ohazi 7y agoI'm not trying to claim that this is a huge problem, I'm trying to make a principled argument: I don't think there is a big difference between donating to a school and bribing a coach. Both of these things are bribery. The reason the former is considered acceptable is because the universities have spent decades making us think that this is a normal, reasonable thing. And telling us not to worry, because they would never allow themselves to be influenced by a donation when making admissions decisions. This is plainly false. University administrators are fucking hypocrites.
- ineedasername 7y agoI can't disagree with any of what you wrote. I agree with it all. I just want to avoid the generalization that that's how everything works or how everyone "gets ahead" in life.
- jtdev 7y agoAs an employer, I’ll take a hard luck scrappy fighter from some obscure midwest school over these cream puff shoo-ins any day...
- whalesalad 7y agoAs an employer I don’t even consider the university you attended. It’s meaningless to me.
- 171243 7y agoReally? You don't see a different in regionally accredited or non-accredited schools?
- aklemm 7y agoYet, in reality, it's not so simple. The "cream puff shoo-ins" are both overvalued and undervalued at the same time.
- gowld 7y agoAre you willing to interview 1000 people to find that scrappy fighter? Most employers aren't.
- egdod 7y agoThis isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Rick Singer stuff. Bribing a coach to use his influence to get you admitted is waaaaaay worse than donating money to a school with the (universal!) understanding that this will help your kid’s chances.
- fenwick67 7y agoWhy is bribing a coach worse than bribing a university?
- gowld 7y agoWhen you shop for goods, why is paying a clerk under the table worse than paying the business? The rule of law and contracts.
- egdod 7y agoThe second one isn’t a bribe.
- tempsy 7y agoDonating to a university presumably benefits all students (in the form of a new building or whatever). Bribing a coach only benefits that single individual.
- chaostheory 7y agoBecause when you donate to a university, that money goes into either improving the university (new buildings or renovations and updated equipment) or helping with university expenses such as maintenance. i.e. it subsidizes the cost of attending the university for everyone at the expense of a very few wealthy families. When you just bribe the coach, it helps no one but the coach.
- ohazi 7y agoAgain, whether "it benefits everyone" or "private universities should be allowed to use whatever criteria they want" -- I don't care for arguments about whether the ends justify the means. I'm arguing that the act itself is immoral. You are paying money to {univeristy|coach}, with the expectation that (a) the payment will help your kid's admissions prospects, and (b) {university|coach} will maintain the facade that money did not have any influence. That's bribery.
- ineedasername 7y agoI'm not sure that the defense, "But other people were doing it, even with the school's approval!" Is much of a defense here. Other people doing bad things generally doesn't exempt a person from prosecution for their own bad actions. That the school was soliciting such bribes just means they may have their own criminal liability.
- gowld 7y agoWhat is the crime for exchanging legal goods and services in exchange for payment?
- ineedasername 7y agoNothing is wrong, by definition, with legal exchanges. The crux of the argument here is specifically that this quid-pro-quo was not legal, that it was obtained or solicited fraudulently.
- fountainofage 7y agoDid anyone else notice the reframing the article ends on? It spends every paragraph on 7-figure donations, then concludes with a quote that no one cares about families that make $100k donations. Clearly Mr. Brunold wants people to focus on the $50k to $100k donation range that doesn't grant an admissions advantage, but no one seems to care about those other than him (and maybe the WSJ).