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

171–180 of 321 posts

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

#171

Post by Balgair »

Oh dear God. Reading into the indictments, it seems that a lot of the kids never had a clue that they were complicit in the schemes:

>... and it was like, the kids though, and it was funny 'cause the kids will call me and say, "Maybe I should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I'll do better even" Right? And they just have no idea that they didn't even get the score that they thought they got.

Can you even imagine what those people are going through?

One day you are a USC/Harvard/Stanford grad. The next day you are a fraud. And not only that, you are revealed to the entire world to be dumb as a box of rocks, just totally naked and shamed. And you had no clue. Your closest family members spent tens of thousands of dollars fooling you, committing very serious crimes on your behalf, and all the while, lying to you about your intelligence and work ethic.

For those people, it must feel like The Truman Show or an episode of The Twilight Zone. It's totally unreal.

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

#172

Post by freewilly1040 »

kbenson wrote: post #71
lph wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

The comparison of massive and powerful organizations to ma and pa grocery stores is really tiresome. Stanford university has a hell of a lot more power than your grocery store and occupies a privileged position in society. They should have proportionally more responsibility to society than your grocery store.

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

#173

Post by lainga »

Balgair wrote: post #171

Oh dear God. Reading into the indictments, it seems that a lot of the kids never had a clue that they were complicit in the schemes: >... and it was like, the kids though, and it was funny 'cause the kids will call me and say, "Maybe I should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I'll do better even" Right? And they just have no idea that they didn't even get the score that they thought they got. C…

And what if you find this out, but worked your ass off and got straight As during your degree? Were your parents giving you unknown help then, too? Can you ask them? Where does it end?

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

#174

Post by zipzap324 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #117
zipzap324 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Colleges can admit whoever they want for whatever reason they want, there's nothing fraudulent about that. Unfair? Obviously but certainly not fraudulent. The examples I gave however are illegal and obviously different than donations for admission.

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

#175

Post by Balgair »

lainga wrote: post #173
Balgair wrote: post #171

Oh dear God. Reading into the indictments, it seems that a lot of the kids never had a clue that they were complicit in the schemes: >... and it was like, the kids though, and it was funny 'cause the kids will call me and say, "Maybe I should do that again. I did pretty well and if I took it again, I'll do better even" Right? And they just have no idea that they didn't even get the score that they thought they got. C…

And what if you find this out, but worked your ass off and got straight As during your degree? Were your parents giving you unknown help then, too? Can you ask them? Where does it end?

Like, they tried so hard on your behalf. They spent so much money on you. They really did it out of the goodness of their hearts and in love of their child, in their own twisted way.

And now? I mean, it all blew up in their faces. All their best intentions made everything just so much more horrible for their children. They'll never wash this off.

My lord, not even Aristophanes himself could write a tragedy on this scale.

EDIT: And the parents were laughing with their fixer at the deception that they pulled on their kids! They were laughing at the naivete of their very children that they fooled. I can't even begin to process what was going through those parents' minds. What were they thinking?!

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

#176

Post by gowld »

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.

At the more desirable schools, tuition fees don't pay for tuition costs either. There's a correlation between how much the college (and its donors) give to a student and the quality of the college, for reasons that are obvious upon reflection: it aligns incentives. If the school is paying for your attendance, their motive is for you to succeed at something (or else why would they bother schooling you)? If the school is profiting from your enrollment, their motivation is for you to enroll, not suceed.

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

#177

Post by gowld »

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…

Tortious Interference might apply in the case of "bribing an employee to violate their employment contract"

wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

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

#178

Post by gowld »

mcguire wrote: post #77
rb808 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're private clubs, not public charities. One of the reasons people want to go to these schools is because they have lots of resources. If you ban wealthy parents and alumni from donating, the school wont be outstanding, so the University has good reason to accept these.

Technically, they are public charities. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Is...

Your link does not support your claim:

"charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational"

Obviously a university is scientific and literary, and a college is educational.

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

#179

Post by gowld »

gumby wrote: post #97
dan-robertson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a research institution is to do research, not provide degrees to some selection of particularly smart young people. They will act in ways to increase the research they can do. People don’t deserve to be let in just because they are clever, they also should have some probability of furthering the research aims through their studying/paying fees. Why is it more unfair to let in someone who can pay for a…

Your first two statements I agree with but they don't really apply to this article which is about undergraduates. Undergrads are pretty much irrelevant to major research institutions (e.g. my undergraduate alma mater MIT spends only about 16% of its budget on undergrads who are actually subsidized -- tuition is about 14% of revenue). Grad students are what matter and apart from the B school they are mostly paid (bare…

Research students are paid to intend. professional students (business, law, government, medical, dental, etc) are not. And some scientific/art students are not research students (often these are students who enter as Masters candidates, not PhD candidates)

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

#180

Post by gowld »

sandworm101 wrote: post #66
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 may not be meritocratic, but it's not corrupt Maybe not in the 1800s, but doing that today violates any number of published school policies. It likely also violates several laws, especially if the school receives state/federal funding (they all do). Violating published policies, circumventing established admission systems, and denying a spot for a qualified candidate in order to accommodate a wealthy donor, tha…

Not all of them do!

A few, most famously Hillsdale, refuse government money in order to protect their civil liberties (including as race-agnostic admission procedures, for better or for worse).

https://deanclancy.com/a-list-of-colleges-that-dont-take-fed...

Post reply on HN