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

151–160 of 321 posts

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

#151

Post by dang »

sheepdestroyer wrote: post #3

[flagged]

That's a way to lose flagging rights on HN. This issue is indeed annoying, but has long been settled on HN: If there's a workaround, it's ok. Users usually post workarounds in the thread. This is in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html and there's more explanation here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Now that you know this, can you please stop posting off-topic comments like this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19299014?

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

#152

Post by kbenson »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #144
kbenson wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think donating tens of millions of dollars for an individual to get their name on a building is theft from everyone in the nation?

What if it's a hospital or clinic in an area? Are those people being stolen from or left worse off for it being possible in their area because someone gets their name there?

I can't help but feel you're being both far too pedantic in wanting to prosecute a crime that doesn't seem to actually hurt anyone (and actually benefits large groups and communities), and also completely misidentifying it as a crime when it's allowed by tax law.

I mean, at least part of the purpose of the law is to encourage people to give their wealth for the good of society by encouraging additional benefits (write-offs) in addition to the benefits that have always existed (recognition), so all I see here is a system functioning as designed, for the good of all. I'm not sure how you're seeing some great miscarriage of justice here.

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

#153

Post by Balgair »

tsunamifury wrote: post #146
nsxwolf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same-ish. My Alma was a great place for me at that time. I grew up a LOT and have very fond memories, specifically of my department. Via the push from professors, I learned so much and I am very grateful for that. I used to donate to just the department, but with a change in leadership, that is no longer possible. That time, that place, and that person who I was, will always be special to me.

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

#154

Post by Balgair »

nemothekid wrote: post #141
logfromblammo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Per my anecdata, it wasn't a research university, just a liberal arts college. From what I can remember, most of the donated funds that my extended family gave went to scholarships, though I'm not 100% on that.

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

#155

Post by projectramo »

Wohlf wrote: post #129
projectramo wrote: post #124

I understand why it is unethical, but what law did they break? The coach is not a government employee, so aren't you legally permitted to bribe them?

They commited textbook fraud. You can take a look at the charges for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis...

Exactly what I was looking for, thank you.

Weird that they have so many of them on "mail fraud." That part confuses me more than it enlightens me.

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

#156

Post by lotsofpulp »

umvi wrote: post #131
lotsofpulp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not familiar with tax deductible donation related law, but in that case, universities need to make sure they aren't breaking the law. Is that what's happening? As far as I can tell, saying "get really good test scores or pay us a million dollars to get in" is not illegal.

No university says "get really good test scores or pay us a million dollars to get in". Universities get to keep their pretense of having objective admissions and that you can't buy your way in, and the donor gets admissions, personal advertising, and a tax deduction.

There's a reason no university simple states a price on their admissions page

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

#157

Post by JamesBarney »

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…

This seems like a pretty straightforward issue of an employee doing something shady they should be fired for. I'm sure they will and the schools will put into place checks to make sure this is harder in the future.

> Is donating 'sexual favors' ok ?

Prostitution is currently illegal and I'm sure this against the most colleges code of conducts. I really can't imagine a possible future where this becomes a problem. "Come to HigherEdUniv, we accept an SAT score of 1400 or 1200 and a blow job".

> Should the same principles be applied for job promotions in private corporations ?

Sexual favors? No this is currently illegal and falls under sexual harassment / prostitution.

Giving a lot of money to a corporation for a promotion. This seems like pretty straightforward yes, companies exchange money for control all the time. YCombinator is founded on it.

Giving a lot of money to a boss without the agreement of the company for a promotion. This is shady but I've never seen or heard of this happen in the U.S. Normal corporate governance seems to take care of this issue.

> Is it ok to do similar differential treatment, for different students, for their grades throughout the study, and not just initial admission?

From a legal standpoint sure this seems ok. How long would a university exist if they did this, not very long.

> … aren't those kinds of behaviors, that are then breading the 'financial services execs that 'look the other way' and caused financial crisis of '08? Completely different problem and set of behaviors. These types of scams involve only a handful of people and have very little impact on society. Financial crises happen pretty often and affect everyone in the U.S.

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

#158

Post by timavr »

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…

Private universities are private as in control, not in funding. John Hopkins is a private university whose research is nearly 90% funded by the government. None of the private universities can exist without government funding.

So when Harvard professor whose salary comes from grants lectures a donor's child, who didn't get the grades to be there in the first place, it raises a question, if the arrangement makes sense.

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

#159

Post by gabbygab »

It's understandable that every parent wants the best for their children and wants to give them a leg up in life and will do almost anything help their children. It's human nature that every parent appreciates and you can't fault them for that. But bribing and cheating isn't fair to other parents and their children.

But then neither is legacy preference of alumni's children. Or giving special treatment to large donors. Or a slew of other preferential admission policies.

How does one even start to fix this? It's structural and natural. The longer you live, the more you realize life isn't ideal. Meritocracy and fairness are wonderful ideals but ultimately impractical and unrealistic. Or maybe we just haven't evolved to that stage in human development?

I recently watched Forrest Gump and this story reminded me of Gump's mother trading sexual favors for school admission for her son. Was that ethical or even legal? I imagine we could argue about it forever and never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

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

#160

Post by tareqak »

I wonder how the points of view vary on admission based on:

1) financial compensation (ranging from bribes as described in the article all the way to large donations)

2) affirmative action

both of those approaches result in the admissions process deviating from being 100% meritocratic, and yet both of those approaches can be argued to help the educational institution and society overall (better facilities, more research, adding different perspectives, helping a disadvantaged group etc). I thought about this topic and this comparison in particular on my own over the weekend, so the coincidence of this being posted so soon feels a bit uncanny to me.

Post reply on HN