4 ms·

I have to admit as an average intelligence middle class health care worker I actually assumed the ultra rich 100% did pay for their way into university. WhenI s

by 14 7y ago

I have to admit as an average intelligence middle class health care worker I actually assumed the ultra rich 100% did pay for their way into university. WhenI saw the admission scandal break I was actually surprised that these rich people had to go out of their way to craft reasons for their kids to attend like fake sports scholarships and such. It was only after I was made to realize how their actions were illegal.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rolltiide 7y ago
breaking: world's worst kept secret exposed
Analemma_ 7y ago
The scandal was actually interesting because it showed the gulf between "rich" and "ultra-rich". The ultra-rich have always been able to buy their kids' way into college with 8-digit donations for new buildings; that's so obvious it's hardly even a secret. It's the merely-kinda-rich, who can't throw around that kind of money, who have to resort to the fake scholarships and so on. Which makes it kind of difficult to feel bad for the colleges who were supposedly the "victim" of these scams: they have no problem with bribery, they were just complaining that they didn't get their cut.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  Even the rich can donate to the college and have a good chance of getting their kids in. The problem in the admissions scandal was simply that the money wasn't going to the college (which would nominally benefit the whole student body); instead it went into the pocket of an individual.
soared 7y ago
Same - I assumed donate over x and your kids get accepted. It turns out that x is exceptionally higher than I thought.
InterestBazinga 7y ago
I believe the reason it became a huge scandal was because, the money that was used for the purchase wasnt given to the university rather than accomplice's pocket. Thus, not providing further opporunities for the needy. And for you to legally purchase a seat in those universities, it was gonna cost them much higher price tag.
linksnapzz 7y ago
The people caught up in the Varsity Blues prosecution weren't rich-rich, like D.E. Shaw. They were merely Hollywood-rich, such that they could afford to pay a bribe equal to the price of a luxury car to bypass admissions. Which is what the whole fuss is about-colleges would prefer to be bribed multiple millions by people like David Shaw for his kids, rather than a paltry few tens of thousands, like what the CT lawyer or Mrs. Half-the-voices-on-the-simpsons paid in bribes, the filthy plebes. The only people who should be able to corrupt the admissions process are the colleges themselves, and then only for amounts in excess of $1,000,000 paid by the gentry. That the act of bribing one's way into a particular school is now a federal crime (the so-called "honest services fraud") is risible and out of the scope of what criminal law should concern itself with.
- javagram 7y ago
  Bribing employees of a company to perform corrupt actions should obviously be criminal. It’s ridiculous to say that it shouldn’t. Paying high prices above board and openly for services is not fraud or corruption, bribing an employee to break clear standards and policies at their work place absolutely is.
  - linksnapzz 7y ago
    Clearly, the proper enforcement of your execution of your employer's code of conduct && your boss's instructions needs to be handled by police and prosecutors, paid out of tax dollars. I'm glad you live in a place so flush with cash, and so tranquil such that this looks like a good use of the time and money of the state. OTOH, we could accept that no ratable harm has been done to the public at large, and that this comes down to a private dispute between the university, the bribee, and the briber, where the latter two could be sued by the former for negligence in performance and tortious interference respectively. Civil law provides remedies for this, what is possibly achieved by making it criminal?
    - javagram 7y ago
      Corrupt societies hurt everything they touch. Decriminalizing bribery, as you suggest, would help turn the USA into a stereotype of a third world country - where government officials and private businesses alike demand graft and bribes at every step of a business transaction. Moving money like that is also, inter alia, going to corrupt the income tax system - if employees are receiving a significant percentage of their income through cash bribes from customers, it’s unlikely they’d report it properly on their income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bribery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bribery These laws seem quite reasonable to me. Do you also believe an employee stealing or embezzling funds from their employer should be a civil, not criminal matter? Edit: to add, some of the colleges in the admissions scandal were public, not private colleges - USC and UCLA. So bribery of the officials in that case was bribery of an employee of the state, not just a private business. It should be obvious that legalizing bribery of state employees is a very dangerous path to go down.

by 14 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rolltiide 7y ago

breaking: world's worst kept secret exposed

Analemma_ 7y ago

The scandal was actually interesting because it showed the gulf between "rich" and "ultra-rich". The ultra-rich have always been able to buy their kids' way into college with 8-digit donations for new buildings; that's so obvious it's hardly even a secret. It's the merely-kinda-rich, who can't throw around that kind of money, who have to resort to the fake scholarships and so on. Which makes it kind of difficult to feel bad for the colleges who were supposedly the "victim" of these scams: they have no problem with bribery, they were just complaining that they didn't get their cut.

InitialLastName 7y ago
Even the rich can donate to the college and have a good chance of getting their kids in. The problem in the admissions scandal was simply that the money wasn't going to the college (which would nominally benefit the whole student body); instead it went into the pocket of an individual.

soared 7y ago

Same - I assumed donate over x and your kids get accepted. It turns out that x is exceptionally higher than I thought.

InterestBazinga 7y ago

I believe the reason it became a huge scandal was because, the money that was used for the purchase wasnt given to the university rather than accomplice's pocket. Thus, not providing further opporunities for the needy. And for you to legally purchase a seat in those universities, it was gonna cost them much higher price tag.

linksnapzz 7y ago

The people caught up in the Varsity Blues prosecution weren't rich-rich, like D.E. Shaw. They were merely Hollywood-rich, such that they could afford to pay a bribe equal to the price of a luxury car to bypass admissions. Which is what the whole fuss is about-colleges would prefer to be bribed multiple millions by people like David Shaw for his kids, rather than a paltry few tens of thousands, like what the CT lawyer or Mrs. Half-the-voices-on-the-simpsons paid in bribes, the filthy plebes. The only people who should be able to corrupt the admissions process are the colleges themselves, and then only for amounts in excess of $1,000,000 paid by the gentry. That the act of bribing one's way into a particular school is now a federal crime (the so-called "honest services fraud") is risible and out of the scope of what criminal law should concern itself with.

javagram 7y ago
Bribing employees of a company to perform corrupt actions should obviously be criminal. It’s ridiculous to say that it shouldn’t. Paying high prices above board and openly for services is not fraud or corruption, bribing an employee to break clear standards and policies at their work place absolutely is.
- linksnapzz 7y ago
  Clearly, the proper enforcement of your execution of your employer's code of conduct && your boss's instructions needs to be handled by police and prosecutors, paid out of tax dollars. I'm glad you live in a place so flush with cash, and so tranquil such that this looks like a good use of the time and money of the state. OTOH, we could accept that no ratable harm has been done to the public at large, and that this comes down to a private dispute between the university, the bribee, and the briber, where the latter two could be sued by the former for negligence in performance and tortious interference respectively. Civil law provides remedies for this, what is possibly achieved by making it criminal?
  - javagram 7y ago
    Corrupt societies hurt everything they touch. Decriminalizing bribery, as you suggest, would help turn the USA into a stereotype of a third world country - where government officials and private businesses alike demand graft and bribes at every step of a business transaction. Moving money like that is also, inter alia, going to corrupt the income tax system - if employees are receiving a significant percentage of their income through cash bribes from customers, it’s unlikely they’d report it properly on their income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bribery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bribery These laws seem quite reasonable to me. Do you also believe an employee stealing or embezzling funds from their employer should be a civil, not criminal matter? Edit: to add, some of the colleges in the admissions scandal were public, not private colleges - USC and UCLA. So bribery of the officials in that case was bribery of an employee of the state, not just a private business. It should be obvious that legalizing bribery of state employees is a very dangerous path to go down.