4 ms·

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.

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.