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

Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#31

Post by gonehome »

andreilys wrote: post #29
gonehome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and not giving the universities the bribe directly (likely because the actual 'fee' for getting your kid in is more than they could afford). I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in. Says a lot about the actual signalling value vs. educationa…

“ I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in.” You would be surprised at how difficult it is to fail out of programs. From what I’ve seen profs have an unwritten rule to not fail students from school admin, otherwise they might complain and so it’s easier to give a D than fail them completely.

Yeah, admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine).

While you do get some education, I'd argue the majority of the value is the signalling the institutions provide by being selective.

It's about forcing scarcity for social status.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#32

Post by rsynnott »

rumcajz wrote: post #15

I have hard time understanding what goes for the bribery in US. Apparently, a lot of stuff that would be considered corruption in Europe is just business as normal in the US. In this particular case I would guess that what they did would be considered OK. Apparently it wasn't. Can someone from the US comment on where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies?

Their bribe wasn't big enough, so it was the BAD sort of bribe, seems to be about the size of it. Bizarre.

I have a lot of concerns about the Irish college admissions system (a numeric score is derived from final school year exam results; places are filled based on the highest scores who applied by a national computer system, then anyone left is shunted to their second choice (which may be in a different institution) and so on), but at least people can't outright buy a place.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#35

Post by svachalek »

rumcajz wrote: post #25
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies? It scales proportional to your wealth. The varsity blues parents were just too poor to issue a proper bribe.

I've meant what is considered morally acceptable by an average American. I guess that you are describing who manages to get away with the corruption, rather than asserting that bribery by the rich is considered more acceptable that the bribery by the poor.

It’s more that “philanthropy” and “lobbying” are acceptable while “bribery” is not, even though sometimes the distinction is a pretty blurry line.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#36

Post by supernova87a »

The most entertaining argument I read about this whole scandal is that it wasn't fraud, it was theft, and that's why the US Attorney is going after it on behalf of the colleges. Theft from the colleges.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...

"...Here is one thing that U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the charges:

“There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, and I'll add that there will not be a separate criminal justice system either.”

Level playing field! Here is another thing he said less than a minute later:

“We’re not talking about donating a building so that a school’s more likely to take your son or your daughter. We’re talking about deception and fraud.”

There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, except for the extremely well-known one where you donate a building in exchange for getting your kid in! “Lol just donate a building like a real rich person,” the U.S. Attorney almost said. Josh Barro’s analysis on Twitter is exactly right:

The admissions slots were stolen from the colleges and resold on the black market. Which is a crime, for good reason. We don’t have to act like there wasn’t a legal, primary market for the admissions slots already.

I think the key is not to understand this as a crime against other applicants, or the public, or “fairness.” It’s a crime against the schools.

It is not about fairness; it is about theft. Selective colleges have admissions spots that they want to award in particular ways. They want to award some based on academic factors; they want to award others based on athletic skill; they want to award others in exchange for cash, but—and this is crucial—really a whole lot of cash. Buildings are not cheap.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#37

Post by diob »

microtherion wrote: post #6
denago wrote: post #2

seems silly to send people to prison for this

As a comparison, a homeless mother who deliberately enrolled her 5-year-old in the wrong school district was sentenced to 5 years in prison: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-he... I would argue that the kind of bribery at the heart of this case is considerably worse, as it fosters a mentality that everything is for sale at the right price.

Neither should be offenses that cause someone to go to prison. Criminal justice reform is so badly needed in this country.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#38

Post by LanceH »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #21
bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

Setting aside the question of whether Lori and her husband are truly rich or not, you don't like that super rich people openly make donations to get their kids into school they don't deserve to be in so you're okay with other rich people cheating too? I honestly don't understand the logic behind your comment, shouldn't you be upset about both?

I don't agree with OP as the college is the victim here of some semi-embezzlement (admission slots being used for employee benefit).

That said, I'm always a bit miffed by the enthusiasm for prosecuting the person bribing rather than the person accepting the bribe. It's not just in bribery. You see the same targeting of the interloper in cases of adultery. It's like everything was perfectly fine until contracts and vows were broken due to temptation alone.

We should be cutting deals with everyone that offered a bribe and nailing people to the wall you accepted the bribes. They are the ones truly stealing. The others are buying stolen property (certainly also bad).

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#39

Post by HaloZero »

microtherion wrote: post #27
Aliabid94 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but "bribing" the college directly with donations subsidizes the cost of tuition for everyone else. Students don't benefit if the donations go to middlemen instead.

USC had, as of last year, a $5.7B endowment. I suspect they don't really adjust their tuition based on the level of donations they get.

Actually, they do. USC will give you full ride your parents make under $80,000.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#40

Post by toast0 »

andreilys wrote: post #29
gonehome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and not giving the universities the bribe directly (likely because the actual 'fee' for getting your kid in is more than they could afford). I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in. Says a lot about the actual signalling value vs. educationa…

“ I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in.” You would be surprised at how difficult it is to fail out of programs. From what I’ve seen profs have an unwritten rule to not fail students from school admin, otherwise they might complain and so it’s easier to give a D than fail them completely.

That depends on the school. My 4-year would put you on academic suspension if your GPA was too low, which ended with you kicked out (well forced to take a 1 year break and have to ask to return... Not a lot of people did, especially since credits expired after 7 years). Although, I did get a D in a class I should have failed by the curve because I didn't write up all the lab reports, but I did well on all the tests and went to office hours to ask how to not fail, and a better grade than I deserved in a final quarter class where I wrote an apology note on the final exam, because I skipped studying that lieu of other course work, since that one wasn't needed to graduate.

On the other hand, my mom teaches pre-baccalaruate math at a CSU and gets all kinds of grief from administration for failing kids who don't earn a passing grade.

Post reply on HN