FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#111

Post by Balgair » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

XCabbage wrote: post #44

NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

This might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently getting your kid in? My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t (despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another university). It’s…

Donating a building is a payment to the university . The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits ot…

Anecdata: In my extended family, we have some members with a fair bit of 'bread'. These family members met at a somewhat known (yet small-ish) college and really loved the place and all the memories they had there. They donated a lot of money over the years and, yes, had a building named after them. When it came time for their daughter to apply to college, the choice was obvious.

However, the daughter was rejected outright due to a multitude of factors. She wasn't violent, or addicted, or lazy. Nothing like that. She just wasn't ahead of the other applicants.

Well, you can imagine that the parents were none too enthused. All the love they had for that college, those dreams for their daughter, gone. There were phone calls and in person visits. Still, the daughter was not what they were looking for.

In the end, things have gone alright for everyone. The building still has their names on it, though the donations have ceased. The daughter is doing just fine at the school she is now at. The college is dealing with it's own issues just as it ever was.

Though there may be corruption at many universities and colleges, there are still a fair number of places where merit and fair decisions still reign. I'd look to those schools for the graduates to hire. Integrity is still in high demand, just as it will ever be.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#112

Post by stvswn » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

naveen99 wrote: post #12

NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

This might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently getting your kid in? My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t (despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another university). It’s…

It’s different in the scale of the donation. 2 Million dollar donation materially improves things for other students and is tax deductible. $15,000 bribe doesn’t do much for other students except rob them of a spot.

This is precisely not the reason there's a distinction. The problem is that the $15,000 bribe went to the pockets of someone who was subverting the process (mainly the coaches), robbing the university.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#113

Post by KingFelix » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

So, I want to see some data on these kids. This could be some great research, what are these kids doing now? How do they stack up against their graduating class, with career etc. Could you find some correlations, hard to see if everything was a product of their parents cash, but I would be interested in seeing some of this Data

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#114

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

peteradio wrote: post #104

onetimemanytime wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the same thing, but one side goes to jail because they can't donate millions. One is legal because of wink and a nod, the other is illegal (as it should be) but both sides tried to do their best for their children. Jared Kushner, the brilliant philosopher went to Harvard at the same his father donated $2 Million to the university. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/what-w... I understa…

Not at all technically the same. This case involves paying off people to commit fraud. How hard is that to understand the difference.

Receiving admissions in exchange for tax deductible donations is also fraud, and just as severe.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#115

Post by extra88 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

thefounder wrote: post #101

XCabbage wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donating a building is a payment to the university . The university then gets to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right to offer for money. It also benefits ot…

If the donor pays for a service why does it "donates" instead to pay? This smells very much like donating to a political party just to get government contracts which I believe is bribery.

I don't like it but U.S. courts do not consider party donations, or even more direct benefits, to get contracts bribery unless there's explicit evidence; B following A does not mean A caused B unless the people involved say so, even if there's a clear pattern.

I think it's a corollary of their misguided "money is speech" interpretation of the 1st amendment. A university admissions bribery case is unlikely to benefit from such 1st amendment arguments.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#116

Post by kbenson » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #108

kbenson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Paying someone to go against the best interests of their employer is different than paying the employer directly. Paying a grocery store cashier separately to put aside the best fruits for you is not the same as paying the store extra for a higher grade of fruit.

Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.

I didn't say it was a publicly listed price. You could have a deal set up with the store's owner, that's fine. Having an individual deal with a cashier that results in the rest of the customers having a slightly lowered experience to the benefit of one person and it not going to the owner is the problem. If the owner is fine with the quality for the general public going down and what that does to his business, that's fine and the owners's call to make as to whether it's beneficial overall. If an employee is taking all the benefit and giving the negative consequences to the business, that's a problem.

There are portions of what schools are doing here which are perfectly normal. There are portions which may not be (I imagine public funding may preclude certain admittance options, but I'm not sure). If the school is willing to put up with now the public perceives these actions and how it affects their business (because it is a business), then that's their decision.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#117

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

zipzap324 wrote: post #56

NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

This might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently getting your kid in? My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t (despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another university). It’s…

Some of the examples were egregious, bribing Athletic Coaches to create fake profiles for the kids who weren't even athletes or paying people to take the SAT for their kids. Quite different than donating $100M for Admission.

Donating so that you get something in exchange is fraudulent, and is different, but I don't see how it's any better. It's also possibly tax fraud, therefore theft from other members of society.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#118

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #116

lotsofpulp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying the store an unknown extra amount, calling it a donation, getting your name on a building (i.e. advertising your brand) and getting a tax deduction for it isn't the same as paying the store extra in the amount of a publicly listed price available to all for a higher grade fruit.

I didn't say it was a publicly listed price. You could have a deal set up with the store's owner, that's fine. Having an individual deal with a cashier that results in the rest of the customers having a slightly lowered experience to the benefit of one person and it not going to the owner is the problem. If the owner is fine with the quality for the general public going down and what that does to his business, that's…

I mentioned the non-public price information to indicate that it's to lend a helping hand for those also wishing to commit tax fraud and deducting the "donations". If there was a public price, then they would lose that.

My intent was to demonstrate that whatever is going on is hush hush for a reason, and not comparable to a legitimate transaction where a private business owner chooses to sell a product or service to someone at whatever price the two agree upon.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#119

Post by WhompingWindows » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

KingFelix wrote: post #113

So, I want to see some data on these kids. This could be some great research, what are these kids doing now? How do they stack up against their graduating class, with career etc. Could you find some correlations, hard to see if everything was a product of their parents cash, but I would be interested in seeing some of this Data

You can find correlations with enough tests and enough variables. You may have to join in outside data but finding correlations alone is not tough. It'd be actually getting data on these people into analyzable form...that'd be a huge task that would ruffle many feathers.

Re: FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

#120

Post by aliston » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

There's so much discussion from the perspective of the parents, but what about the message this sends to the kids that it's OK to cheat your way through life?

If you could get into USC with a ~1000 SAT score like Huffman's daughter, would you even want to go? I wouldn't. It is shortchanging the achievement, and really missing the point of what admission to such a university represents.

The reality is that the college you attend, especially for undergrad, has relatively little bearing on your life as a whole. If you're in the GPA/SAT range to get into Stanford, but end up attending UC Irvine instead, you'll be just fine. You might even graduate with less debt and at the top of your class. On the other hand, if your parents bail you out and buy your way into Stanford when you're not qualified, it sets you up for a life of disappointment. You'll likely struggle to keep up with classmates, and won't know what it feels like to achieve on your own. It teaches reliance on mommy and daddy rather than reliance on yourself, which is not a sustainable approach to life when you get into the real world.