4 ms·
I 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 t
by ohazi 7y ago
I 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.