4 ms·

This 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

by egdod 7y ago

This 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 ago
Why is bribing a coach worse than bribing a university?
- gowld 7y ago
  When 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 ago
  The second one isn’t a bribe.
- tempsy 7y ago
  Donating 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
    Again, 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.
    - chaostheory 7y ago
      I don't disagree with you. At the same time, I don't feel that we should ignore the outcome, since they are consistent, and donations are pragmatic for everyone. The real world isn't fair, but public bribes to a uni are a lot more fair than private bribes to individuals.
    - egdod 7y ago
      > {university|coach} will maintain the facade that money did not have any influence That's not really true though. For the coach, sure, as the payments happen is secret. But for the school? If I buy Harvard a new building and get my name put on it, everybody knows about it, and nobody is surprised when my kid gets admitted.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Donations paid to the university are used to fund generous scholarships to students that would otherwise not have been able to attend. Stanford doesn't charge tuition for families making less than $125,000. And ~30% of their undergraduate population are first generation college students. Would the university be able to afford this if the donations-for-easier-admissions scheme didn't exist? Maybe, maybe not, but the reality is that the resources of universities does come in large part from the patronage of wealthy people.
ohazi 7y ago
I don't agree. Both of these things are bribery. You are using money to buy an advantage. The only difference is who gets paid. Donations are currently considered an acceptable form of bribery because the universities have spent decades crafting the narrative that a donation doesn't actually affect an applicant's prospects. But this is plainly not true. If you want to have a moral leg to stand on with your distinction, we should require universities to be transparent about which donations are buying spots for which students.
- briandear 7y ago
  > You are using money to buy an advantage. In a state school, it's obvious that this is wrong since this would be a violation of equal protection. However, I'm not sure I understand what is wrong about buying an advantage at a private school. Does a private school have some statutory responsibility to be "fair?" Does anyone have an inherent right to go to a private school? Sure, we're supposed to be outraged and pretend we are angry about a rich person getting accepted to Harvard because their mom donated $10 million towards a new medical library -- but is that really unfair or unjust? Is the rich kid going to Harvard preventing the poor kid from going to UMass? If you donate millions to a school, shouldn't that earn you the right to go there? You're literally paying for the school to exist. We could make this more fair though by ending tax exemptions for universities (specifically their endowments.) If they are to benefit from public subsidization, then there is at least some moral obligation to serve society a bit more fairly than they do now. It is quite unfair that one can donate $10 million to Harvard, enjoy the tax deduction from the charitable donation and, at the same time, receive a financially valuable benefit of your child's admission into the school. It would be like me donating a tax-deductible $10 million to an airport and my child getting free Gulfstream flights for four years as an untaxed benefit. If we eliminate the tax exemption, then there's no conflict of interest -- now, it's just a business transaction rather than a business transaction masquerading as philanthropy.
- egdod 7y ago
  This is a bit tautological, but the definition of bribery includes doing something that’s illegal. If donations to a school—along with the expectation of advantage—aren’t illegal, then it isn’t bribery.

by egdod 7y ago

fenwick67 7y ago

Why is bribing a coach worse than bribing a university?

gowld 7y ago
When 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 ago
The second one isn’t a bribe.
tempsy 7y ago
Donating 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  Again, 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.
  - chaostheory 7y ago
    I don't disagree with you. At the same time, I don't feel that we should ignore the outcome, since they are consistent, and donations are pragmatic for everyone. The real world isn't fair, but public bribes to a uni are a lot more fair than private bribes to individuals.
  - egdod 7y ago
    > {university|coach} will maintain the facade that money did not have any influence That's not really true though. For the coach, sure, as the payments happen is secret. But for the school? If I buy Harvard a new building and get my name put on it, everybody knows about it, and nobody is surprised when my kid gets admitted.
manfredo 7y ago
Donations paid to the university are used to fund generous scholarships to students that would otherwise not have been able to attend. Stanford doesn't charge tuition for families making less than $125,000. And ~30% of their undergraduate population are first generation college students. Would the university be able to afford this if the donations-for-easier-admissions scheme didn't exist? Maybe, maybe not, but the reality is that the resources of universities does come in large part from the patronage of wealthy people.

ohazi 7y ago

I don't agree. Both of these things are bribery. You are using money to buy an advantage. The only difference is who gets paid. Donations are currently considered an acceptable form of bribery because the universities have spent decades crafting the narrative that a donation doesn't actually affect an applicant's prospects. But this is plainly not true. If you want to have a moral leg to stand on with your distinction, we should require universities to be transparent about which donations are buying spots for which students.

briandear 7y ago
> You are using money to buy an advantage. In a state school, it's obvious that this is wrong since this would be a violation of equal protection. However, I'm not sure I understand what is wrong about buying an advantage at a private school. Does a private school have some statutory responsibility to be "fair?" Does anyone have an inherent right to go to a private school? Sure, we're supposed to be outraged and pretend we are angry about a rich person getting accepted to Harvard because their mom donated $10 million towards a new medical library -- but is that really unfair or unjust? Is the rich kid going to Harvard preventing the poor kid from going to UMass? If you donate millions to a school, shouldn't that earn you the right to go there? You're literally paying for the school to exist. We could make this more fair though by ending tax exemptions for universities (specifically their endowments.) If they are to benefit from public subsidization, then there is at least some moral obligation to serve society a bit more fairly than they do now. It is quite unfair that one can donate $10 million to Harvard, enjoy the tax deduction from the charitable donation and, at the same time, receive a financially valuable benefit of your child's admission into the school. It would be like me donating a tax-deductible $10 million to an airport and my child getting free Gulfstream flights for four years as an untaxed benefit. If we eliminate the tax exemption, then there's no conflict of interest -- now, it's just a business transaction rather than a business transaction masquerading as philanthropy.
egdod 7y ago
This is a bit tautological, but the definition of bribery includes doing something that’s illegal. If donations to a school—along with the expectation of advantage—aren’t illegal, then it isn’t bribery.