201–210 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
A friend of mine, from high school (~1994), had the experience of being in a family that won the state lottery. He skipped high school a lot after that, driving around in his new car. Later, I heard his parents bought him a degree from USC. USC has had a reputation in California of corruption for decades. This story should not be a surprise for many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Short answer: The difference lies in the transfer of wealth to the next generation and our meritocratic values.
As a society, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to. At least in the US, meritocracy is big part of our value system.
We believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life.
So, let's look at some examples:
Example A) Person A works his/her ass off and becomes rich off the fruits of his labor. He then spends his riches on private jets and private health insurance.
Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? No. He deserves a higher quality of life because he worked his ass off.
Example B) Person A then purchases access to an elite university for his child, who as a direct result, enjoys a better life than his poorer peer who works just as hard.
Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? Yes. His child didn't deserve their higher quality of life because they didn't work their ass for it.
You don't have to agree with meritocratic values, but it explains the difference.
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…
Probably not. They can afford lawyers to defend them and negotiate plea deals and settlements.
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…
I agree that the practice of university donations in exchange for college admission is neither legally corrupt nor dishonest.
However, it is still wrong according to our societal values.
That is, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to and meritocracy is big part of our value system.
At least in the states, we believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life.
When parents purchase access to an elite university for their child, they are conferring an advantage to their child over the child's peers that is unearned and unfair.
Elite college admissions is a zero sum game. There are only a certain number of spots available and purchasing a spot for a kid who slacked off in school necessarily takes the same opportunity away from a more deserving kid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When you are born into privilege (kid of a celebrity), you are afforded the best private tutors and academic resources that money can buy during you academic career, starting from childhood. Assuming you are born with a neurotypical brain, you are at an advantage over your less wealthy peers from day one whether you perceive it or not.