Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 294 posts

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#71

Post by chaostheory »

darawk wrote: post #57

The actual problem here is not the bribery. The problem is that those bribes are being captured by random 3rd parties, rather than by the school itself. The correct way to implement college admissions is this: Charge a sliding scale fee based on application quality, and then use the excess revenue generated to subsidize poor kids tuition. Your kid has a 2.5 GPA and wants to go to Harvard? Great, that'll be a million…

I feel that your idea is already reality. It's just not official. The issue is that the people caught up in this scandal aren't wealthy enough to fund a building or even a building wing, or they would just go through the more acceptable route.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#72

Post by drb91 »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #39
drb91 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schools also have an incentive to keep acceptance rate as low as possible as it’s an (extremely bullshit) signal of value.

Sure, but if we're actually talking about donating a building (maybe I took that too literally?), we're talking about 3 kids a year, tops. It would barely change the 2nd decimal place in an acceptance percentage at a lot of schools.

Yea but why would they? Their prestige is grounded in the illusion of elite meritocracy.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#73

Post by pasquinelli »

slg wrote: post #66
olliej wrote: post #29

I feel like the solution here is to not bribe your children's way into school. If your children aren't academically talented and you don't have the money to publicly buy a building for the school you should accept that and just let them live off your money and power as is traditional.

>I feel like the solution here is to not bribe your children's way into school. Or maybe the solution should be to stop accepting bribes. I really am surprised that almost all of the public outrage is being directed at the parents and more of it isn't being directed at the people who actually received the cash. I think lots of parents are willing to stretch their morals in order to give their kid every possible advan…

What if the people accepting bribes have mouths to feed at home? They're just stretching their morals for their kids too.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#74

Post by defen »

gizmo686 wrote: post #17
acchow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that legal?

What law would it break?

The IRS would probably not look kindly on universities (tax-exempt) literally selling seats at massively inflated prices. But if you give a lot of money and your kid just happens to have really great “intangibles” well that’s just fine.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#75

Post by prawn »

bradleyjg wrote: post #18
acchow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that legal?

Why not? A private university has no obligation to run its admissions program they way you think it should. The reason there is a crime here is because the universities were the victims of fraud, not because the law mandates fairness in admissions.

Do US universities receive public funding? If they did, would that influence the discussion?

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#76

Post by [deleted] »

cletus wrote: post #56

Honestly, I really don't understand the motivations for some of these parents. Take Lori Loughlin. $500,000? For USC? For two daughters, one of whom clearly isn't that interested, isn't particularly academic and isn't particularly athletic? Like... why? I can understand if someone bribes their kid into, say, Harvard or Yale Law School. There's a career where going to a good school matters. But this? It just makes no…

[deleted]

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#77

Post by ummonk »

olliej wrote: post #54
munk-a wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think building purchasing should even be allowed, remove all of the slippery slope and put students on equal footing.

You still get the wondrous private institution problem of hereditary entry (which is a great example of something that isn't explicitly racist still resulting in a fundamentally and uncorrectable racist result)

Yup and while they continue to practice legacy admissions they claim they’ve tried everything to achieve diversity and just have to do affirmative action.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#78

Post by TheCoelacanth »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #45
protomyth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no hook or wrong doing in giving a building. It benefits a lot of people. These folks actually did something illegal. Grouping people who actually gave to the university with people who paid a scam artist is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with giving, but there is something wrong with giving and calling it a donation, when in reality it's a quid pro quo transaction. Which is illegal, but unprovable. Matt Levine's comment quoted elsewhere in this thread is describes the only difference in the scenarios.

What law is broken by an explicit quid pro quo for admission?

I'm pretty sure there's nothing illegal about that, it just is avoided because it doesn't look good.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#79

Post by shshhdhs »

darawk wrote: post #57

The actual problem here is not the bribery. The problem is that those bribes are being captured by random 3rd parties, rather than by the school itself. The correct way to implement college admissions is this: Charge a sliding scale fee based on application quality, and then use the excess revenue generated to subsidize poor kids tuition. Your kid has a 2.5 GPA and wants to go to Harvard? Great, that'll be a million…

I’m sure someone has a reason to not like this, but I actually think this is a fantastic approach. Especially when you raise the bar that high (a million) that it could fund many students. There’s just got to be a way to enforce it so the money doesn’t end up in some stadium renovation fund or executive bonus.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#80

Post by darpa_escapee »

phil21 wrote: post #64
munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject this - if we want admission in the US to be entirely wealth based and Oligarchic we should just buy that concept whole-hog. Many of us (I hope?) believe that scholarships that allow smart people coming from bad backgrounds to succeed are worth their cost[1] so clearly the ability to make use of your education is part of our general societal motivation to give someone one. [1] There are lots of scholarships,…

Don't you need the funding of the super rich guy with the dumb kid who takes up a single student slot in order to offer free school to the dozen kids who "deserve" it academically? Without the first (in aggregate, over generations), the others don't even have the option.

Plenty of people make donations for reasons of prestige, legacy and even genuine care, which have nothing to do with making sure their kid gets into a certain school.
Post reply on HN