I think you're overestimating the effect of the exposure of corruption. Take for example, your example, Penn State. I'm not sure how much hard data there is one

I think you're overestimating the effect of the exposure of corruption. Take for example, your example, Penn State. I'm not sure how much hard data there is one these things, but I'd bet that applications are as high in quantity as ever [0], job opportunities after graduation are as good as ever, and Penn State revenue has been barely affected [1]. Or perhaps people are just willing to isolate their judgement and only mentally penalize those actually involved with the scandal instead of all the professors and students. [0]: http://onwardstate.com/2014/04/30/penn-state-application-numbers-surge-up-10000-from-2013/ http://onwardstate.com/2014/04/30/penn-state-application-num... [1]: http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/penn-state-football-report-values-nittany-lions-at-just-over-a-half-billion,1462448/ http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/penn-state-footb... Note on source 1: this only shows that Penn State's football revenue, most likely the hardest hit area hasn't declined much. Edit: I see you only said Penn State's reputation was tarnished beyond repair. Question then is if there are no practical consequences of that, is the reputation really tarnished?