4 ms·
The same universities that were affected by the scandal regularly give admissions for donors’ kin. It’s just that the money went to a third party instead of the
by 8ytecoder 6y ago
The same universities that were affected by the scandal regularly give admissions for donors’ kin. It’s just that the money went to a third party instead of the college in the scandalous cases. Free market - not arguing the morality of it - allows for the person with the resources to get an edge on various things - from life saving medical treatment to life changing opportunities.
- creato 6y ago> It’s just that the money went to a third party instead of the college in the scandalous cases. That's a pretty huge difference. Letting someone donate money in exchange for admission smells bad, but if the donation is larger than the cost, they made more room for others than they occupied themselves. If a third party captures the "donation", that's just a roundabout form of theft/embezzlement.
- KSteffensen 6y agoWell, ok I guess you can argue that, but can we then get rid of the notion that the US is a meritocracy?
- ss2003 6y agoIf you aren't one those that benefit from this you already know it is not.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- JoshuaDavid 6y agoI don't know of any people who say that the US is entirely a meritocracy. I have heard the argument that success in the US is _more_ based on merit than it is in certain other places, or that basing success on merit is good and is something we should strive to do more than we currently do, but "it is possible to get ahead in ways other than merit" does not disprove either of those.