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

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#71

Post by esoterica »

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…

> 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 finding a cheaper way to get their children into selective colleges than paying the ten million+ selective colleges charge a for legacy admission.

Yes, and the cheaper way involves fraud, which is why people are being prosecuted. It's like you're saying robbing a bank shouldn't be a crime because people are just trying to find a cheaper way to get money from a bank than depositing the money first.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#72

Post by WalterBright »

gonehome wrote: post #31
andreilys wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ 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.

> admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school

At Caltech this definitely was not true. None of my fellow students were legacy that I knew of, and none were rich that I was aware of.

> (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine)

Also not true of Caltech. Caltech sometimes did make mistakes in admitting students who couldn't hack the program, and those poor students suffered until they gave up. It didn't matter how hard they worked, it just didn't work for them.

On the other hand, some students (like Hal Finney) effortlessly, and I mean effortlessly, aced everything.

Not me, I had to work fairly assiduously or I got F's.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#73

Post by WalterBright »

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.

How do you think they got that endowment? :-)

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#74

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jmole wrote: post #54
supernova87a wrote: post #36

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 wea…

I mean - economically speaking - why wouldn't a college take a student in exchange for a building? It would be unfair to not allow this, no? I think the unfairness argument should be taken up a level - it's unfair that someone can even have the wealth to do this.

Colleges should compete for students based on the number of endowed buildings and sports facilities, and not on irrelevant metrics like academics.

In fact there should be a two-speed college system - one for very wealthy people who like having buildings and stadiums named after them, and a separate vocational academic system for those who can't afford to operate on that level.

Studying would be optional on the fast track. Academic life would become a round of partying, networking, and assortative mating, and efficiency would be enhanced by shortening it by a year or two. This would increase student throughput and further boost the property portfolios of the high status educational institutions.

With this system everyone would know exactly what their money was buying, and immoral attempts to cheat the system would become very easy to spot.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#75

Post by newacct583 »

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.

Not in the sense of accounting balance, no. But at elite schools, elimination of tuition need is absolutely a core goal of finance and fundraising.

I think there's way too much cynicism in the comments here. These schools really do take their social responsibilities seriously and really do offer and prioritize student aid. And to the extent they can't, it's because they simply don't have the cash available. Giving to universities is a good thing (well, usually -- maybe there's an argument that the super-elite schools with outrageous endowments don't need this, I guess).

Should universities be "selling" spots for this purpose? I don't know. But it's not correct to imply that they don't have a good use for that money.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#76

Post by gonehome »

WalterBright wrote: post #72
gonehome wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school At Caltech this definitely was not true. None of my fellow students were legacy that I knew of, and none were rich that I was aware of. > (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine) Also not true of Caltech. Caltech sometimes did make mistakes in admitting students who couldn't hack the program, and those poor students suffered until they gave up. It…

Yeah Caltech is specialized enough that I could see it being an exception.

To expand on my previous point it’s not that all majors are unfailable - I knew plenty of kids that failed out of STEM and switched to some more generic liberal arts major anyone can pass.

At Caltech that’s probably not an option.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#77

Post by downrightmike »

icantspellwell wrote: post #16

First, we don't know whether the children of the guilty were kicked out of school. So, the only victims here are students and athletes who lost an earned spot in university. But they don't have any agency here. The universities administration has no skin in the game - they get paid, the endowments are bountiful, and the professors keep on suffering on. There may even be a backslaps and high five deal to recapture any…

The university is trying to protect its reputation and goodwill. The trial helps as a warning to other parents: cough up the money the way they want and your kids get in, or risk the lottery.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#78

Post by Alex3917 »

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…

Giving money to the development office doesn't get your kids legacy status. They'll get admitted, but not in a way that is unfairly taking away a slot from an actual legacy.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#79

Post by danans »

spaced-out wrote: post #64
js2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just sloppy with my wording. I should have said quid pro quo contribution. In any case, the amount above the fair market value of the benefit received is a donation. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapter-4/subchapter-1/polic...

Oh really? And how would one access the fair market value of an admission to Harvard?

Well, the bribes paid in this scandal were on the order of a few hundred thousand dollars paid per admission.

Another way to look at it is to look at the total cost of fully private preparatory primary and secondary schooling for a child, in programs that groom them to maximize their chance for admission (what a lovely childhood that sounds like). That's probably about half a million dollars, give or take, depending upon where you live.

So I'd guess it's somewhere in that ballpark of 200k-500k. I don't know what the median size of donation-based admissions is though.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#80

Post by WalterBright »

gonehome wrote: post #76
WalterBright wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> admissions isn't really about who can succeed at the school At Caltech this definitely was not true. None of my fellow students were legacy that I knew of, and none were rich that I was aware of. > (since basically anyone who gets in will be fine) Also not true of Caltech. Caltech sometimes did make mistakes in admitting students who couldn't hack the program, and those poor students suffered until they gave up. It…

Yeah Caltech is specialized enough that I could see it being an exception. To expand on my previous point it’s not that all majors are unfailable - I knew plenty of kids that failed out of STEM and switched to some more generic liberal arts major anyone can pass. At Caltech that’s probably not an option.

I would be nice if liberal arts programs also required calculus and physics. An educated person should know something about science besides these "I believe in science" memes on the internet.

Of course, I have no chance of becoming World Dictator, so those who don't like math are safe :-)

Post reply on HN