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

161–170 of 321 posts

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

#161

Post by XCabbage »

fmajid wrote: post #58
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…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

Why is this any more corrupt than any other exchange of services for money?

Yes, there's a system available to the masses that the super-rich are bypassing using their wealth. The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"? What's different here?

If there's no dishonesty and nobody is harmed, what's the moral issue? Why are universities, unique among all society's institutions, required to operate as perfect meritocracies?

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

#162

Post by lotsofpulp »

kbenson wrote: post #152
lotsofpulp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

That's the beauty of this type of white collar crime, it allows for so much plausible deniability and difficulty in identifying who is hurt and who benefits.

The simplest argument, however, is that the purpose of taxes is to provide the services that a society wants, theoretically indicated by the way it votes. The services and products that the taxes buy should benefit everyone in the nation. If the country has a budget of $x and needs to levy a tax of $y (obviously must be calibrated to ability of one to pay), then why are we allowing adjustments to this?

Why open up the door to abuse? If you want to donate, then donate, what difference does that make to the money needed for government expenditures? The fact that we would even need a donation to a hospital is indicative of a broken system.

The end result of the tax deduction is that we have abuses, and we now have to spend more resources to police the abuses. And the only way to stop the abuses is to close the loophole that allows it.

All of the complexity of the tax laws simply enable more and more corruption. We should be aiming for transparency and simplicity, and instead we end up playing this "steal or be stolen from" game where you try to suck more out of it (but don't make it obvious) than you put in. How does donating millions to Harvard or an art museum benefit society? And even if it did, why would we want to give up our democracy's power to democratically spend the tax receipts the way we want, and instead give that power to a single person to spend however they want?

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

#163

Post by XCabbage »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #106
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…

> It also benefits other students, which is why the universities take the deals in the first place. This is a little overgenerous. > In this case, we're talking about bribery of specific employees to act against the interests of their employer. That's simply corruption. Perhaps. What crime is it? I went and looked at the charges that were filed, here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admis... (K…

> It doesn't look to me like paying an admissions officer to admit your child is a crime at all.

I have not had a chance yet to look properly at the case, but I'd assumed the "fraud" charges are for precisely the act of paying an admissions officer to admit a child. Do you have reason to think that's not the case?

> bribing a maitre'd to seat you more quickly is bribing a specific employee to act against the interests of his employer, but it's not a crime

It's petty enough you wouldn't expect anyone to be prosecuted over it, but are you sure it's not a crime?

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

#165

Post by XCabbage »

fmajid wrote: post #58
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…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

While this is technically true, it's irrelevant to the comment of mine you're replying to, which had nothing to do with legality in the first place.

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

#166

Post by XCabbage »

lph wrote: post #64
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…

So, to recap, bribing individuals is bad, but bribing the school is fine. Got it.

It's not "bribing" the school, because what's being paid for is something that the school has the right to give. This comment makes about as much sense to me as saying:

> So, to recap, paying someone to steal my car is bad, but paying me to give you my car is fine. Got it.

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

#167

Post by kbenson »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #162
kbenson wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

That's the beauty of this type of white collar crime, it allows for so much plausible deniability and difficulty in identifying who is hurt and who benefits. The simplest argument, however, is that the purpose of taxes is to provide the services that a society wants, theoretically indicated by the way it votes. The services and products that the taxes buy should benefit everyone in the nation. If the country has a bu…

> it allows for so much plausible deniability and difficulty in identifying who is hurt and who benefits.

The reason you're having trouble identifying who is hurt in this case is because very, very few are, but the people who benefit are generally a large group.

In the worst case of the story in question, if someone donated a large amount to a school and their child was given preferential treatment, the loser is possibly a child whose spot is taken, but the beneficiaries are all the other students of the school, and possibly an additional amount of future (or current) students that would not have been able to attend, if those funds are used to allow more applicants.

> The simplest argument, however, is that the purpose of taxes is to provide the services that a society wants

This is a tax program used to incentivize trade of non-traditional goods, and trade generally benefits all involved. What we have are people that are not benefiting society in a way they could (people saving money that's not being put to use in the economy, but specifically more so than needed to safeguard their safety or way of life), and a program to incentivize them to use it in exchange for goods they desire (recognition, genuine altruism) but might need a push to pursue. That push is the government subsidization of the transaction to some degree.

As subsidies go, encouraging wealthy individuals to give money to causes that have to prove they aren't doing it for profit is probably my favorite. Sure, it can be abused by unscrupulous individuals or organizations on both ends, but I'm confident the social good achieved (over people just hoarding wealth longer) far outweighs the negatives.

> All of the complexity of the tax laws simply enable more and more corruption.

Non-profit deductions are simple. You'll have to do much more to convince me that a few anecdotal misuses outweigh what I see as one of the major causes of redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy over many decades.

The pragmatic approach is to attempt to measure who is hurt and by how much, and who is helped and by how much, before making an ultimate decision on whether this is good or bad. I doubt keying off anecdotal media stories about misuse of a tax law will yield better results than that.

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

#168

Post by aliston »

britch wrote: post #149
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…

That’s a pretty miserable way of looking at the college experience. Anecdotally, most college students I’ve encountered care a great deal about what they learn and appreciate college for more than a rubber stamp. But, likely depends on where you go and who you’re associating with.

The issue you raise with standardized testing could be addressed by subsidizing the cost for low income students or making the test free. The wealthy girl in the article apparently couldn’t get a good enough score regardless of how many times she could take the test. Personally I think we need some form of standardized testing because it’s the only standardized measurement tool that exists.

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

#169

Post by petty_griper »

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.

This is bizarrely instrumental reason. Few of my classmates are now captains of industry or even in my career field, but I have extremely fond memories of my college experience because it was a nurturing, supportive environment where I had a close-knit community of friends, access to a lot of different resources to pursue my interests and the freedom to experiment and explore how I wanted to live life, all relatively free of stress and serious obligations.

Granted, I went to a smallish regional state school. The experience there, or at, say, Small Liberal Arts College, may be very different from Big State Engineering or Pressure Cooker Elite U.

Post reply on HN