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

FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 321 posts

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

#141

Post by nemothekid »

logfromblammo wrote: post #132
Balgair wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ou…

I never quite understood why people donate to colleges in such a way that it is the legal entity of the university that benefits. They provide a service, and they charge money for it. The university operates as a business. I don't donate to Wal-Mart, so why would I donate to University X? Why wouldn't you instead endow a scholarship for students of your favorite college? Instead of giving cash to Wal-Mart, buy prepai…

Most universities primary function is research, and tuition doesn't pay for research. Most funds from research (should) come from grants and donations. The research into a cancer cure doesn't come from Jimmy Undergrad paying tuition.

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

#142

Post by gumby »

smt88 wrote: post #103
gumby wrote: post #95

Why is this illegal while underfunding the schools and paying $35K to a "college counselor" not equally corrupt? Because the results of the latter are less certain?

How do you suppose Yale and USC are underfunded? Who should be giving these private universities more money, exactly? For context: Yale's endowment is ~$40B and USC's is $5.5B.

I meant underfunding high schools so the candidate pool of kids are not well prepared.

For example California's public school system is one of the worst schools in the nation; even top schools like Palo Alto are pretty appalling compared to what I got on the east coast. And Palo Alto's schools get all sorts of "private" donations from PA residents, not shared with other schools. But almost all the high school and middle school students also receive private tutoring after school to make up for the crummy public education.

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

#143

Post by toast0 »

athenot wrote: post #26
naveen99 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Part of the condition for a donation to be tax-deductible is that you claim you didn't get anything in return for your donation. Donating for improvement that affects others is one thing, but donating for a quid pro quo might affect this.

The tax question here is what is the fair value of the benefit received, the waiving of admission requirements or the granting of admission. I would expect that to be pretty hard to put a dollar amount on.

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

#144

Post by lotsofpulp »

kbenson wrote: post #126
lotsofpulp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whether you think it's tax fraud probably depends on what purpose you think being able to deduct donations to non-profits serves. I would say that every donation carries with it the possibility of some benefit to the donator, no matter who does it. There's always the public relations or social benefit or being seen as "doing a good thing". Without this benefit, some amount charity might go away. Does it matter that p…

That’s why I’m against any preferential tax treatment, to prevent theft from everyone in the nation via this impossible to prosecute white collar crime.

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

#145

Post by rconti »

mark212 wrote: post #63

Apparently there are no more drug cartels to go after? We’re now worried about a has-been actress who paid $15,000 so her kid could cheat on the SAT? I’m skeptical of the FBI’s investigative priorities. Wall Street is suddenly squeaky-clean? No more insider trading? Ponzi schemes have all gone away? Municipal governments across the land are staffed by honest and dedicated civil servants? All defense contractors are s…

I think this is fantastic. I'd prefer law enforcement crack down on serious crimes of wide scope, as a punishment, as well as a deterrent for others who might wish to do the same.

If all they did was go after the most heinous crimes, it would be immediately obvious that you can 'get away with' everything else.

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

#146

Post by tsunamifury »

nsxwolf wrote: post #127
Balgair wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ou…

When I hear stuff like this I wonder what in the hell could have been so great about their experience that they'd want to do something like that. It makes me wonder what I missed out on in college that I don't feel the same way. Did I just by chance happen to not go to some meeting or join some club that would have changed everything?

It really is if you gained access to a circle of people who have moved up in influence in varying sectors.

My Alma-mater gave me access to leaders, hiring and referral opportunities, and even a life long partner with similar ambitions. I can probably name a good long list of of people I can call and get a a little help from now if I was in a bit of a pinch or need a little perspective.

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

#147

Post by stmfreak »

75dvtwin wrote: post #139

general sentiment of many here is, A) a private university can set any criteria they want for admissions. B) a private, federally accredited, university can set different criteria of admission for different people C) If a parent donates large amount of money directly to the school, and their children get accept with lower criteria -- it is perfectly ok. --- Are there conditions, that would not make this line of think…

I think this is an issue for the universities to settle with their employees that are diverting funds away from the universities for personal gain.

It becomes a government and criminal matter when those same private institutions benefit from government regulations, such as loan guarantees, that are not available to other private institutions.

I wonder why they are only mentioning the “wealthy parents” in this article over the corrupt administrators that enabled them?

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

#148

Post by aliston »

jedberg wrote: post #133
aliston wrote: post #120

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…

> The reality is that the college you attend, especially for undergrad, has relatively little bearing on your life as a whole. In most cases yes. But when we're talking about elite colleges, it has significant bearing. Living in the dorm with a future CEO may be helpful in your future job search, and if you go to an elite college, you have a much better chance of having done that. Going to Stanford or Berkeley or MIT…

My point is not that going to a top college isn't a great opportunity. My point is that for someone who could have gotten into Stanford, the actual admission it isn't defining. Someone with that sort of intelligence and drive will find a way to meet the future CEO, get a great job and so on regardless of whether they attend.

I went to Stanford. I love my undergrad. But I also have faced plenty of rejection and adversity on the way and since graduating. What matters is how you respond to that rejection, which is what the struggle to earn admission reflects. Having your parents bail you out means you will never learn those lessons.

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

#149

Post by britch »

aliston wrote: post #120

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…

> 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.

I think a lot of people (arguably the majority of people) view a degree as a piece of paper you need for a job. What you learn doesn't matter as much as having a high GPA from the right school and getting a job.

I think if you polled parents, it'd be a split of those willing to do fake scores, bribe officials, whatever it takes to give their kid a leg up.

An officially sanctioned form of this is retaking standardized tests and super-scoring. For those who can afford it, you can retake the test as many times as it takes to get the score you "deserve." If you can't get the right score in one sitting, you can cherry pick the best scores from the 4 or 5 times you took the test.

It defeats the whole purpose of a standardized test. It no longer a random sample of an estimate of a student's knowledge/ability. It's how well did you prepare. How much did you spend on tutors. How many times can you afford to take it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that SAT scores are all bullshit, especially for top schools.

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

#150

Post by nemothekid »

wallace_f wrote: post #49
athenot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the condition for a donation to be tax-deductible is that you claim you didn't get anything in return for your donation. Donating for improvement that affects others is one thing, but donating for a quid pro quo might affect this.

Why can't a poor kid from Oakland, or wherever, watch the classes online and self-study, and pay a nominal fee to exam? In other words, is the concept of creating barriers to entry, limiting competition, not unreasonable? In any market, economists say that is anticompetitive, and should even be illegal. Are people paying for education? Or for epaulets? So let's talk about this "materially improving things for other s…

>watch the classes online and self-study, and pay a nominal fee to exam?

We are already far past the point on using exam scores as a basis for admissions. Many of the Ivies, famously say every year that they could fill their incoming class with students with perfect scores and perfect GPAs many times over forcing these schools to consider other factors. The US DoE says there are 16.9m undergrads, assuming ~4m are freshmen, the top 1% is 40,000 students. The Harvard freshman class size is 2000 students. At this point its only natural, according to the "market", that people would be paying for slots.

Post reply on HN