While we're all angry at this bribery program, can we please also be angry at legacy admissions? Far more kids skate in on legacy than bribes and the school doesn't even get a nice bit of cash for those sorts of admissions.
L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
41–50 of 294 posts
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least donating a building gives value to the other attending students that far outweighs the cost of their child going
I reject this - if we want admission in the US to be entirely wealth based and Oligarchic we should just buy that concept whole-hog. Many of us (I hope?) believe that scholarships that allow smart people coming from bad backgrounds to succeed are worth their cost[1] so clearly the ability to make use of your education is part of our general societal motivation to give someone one. [1] There are lots of scholarships,…
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#43They're not that elite if they're gonna get ensnared in this one. If you're one of the elite you just donate a building, which is a completely legal way to get your kids into a school of your choice.
At least donating a building gives value to the other attending students that far outweighs the cost of their child going
This assertion that it's a value-add for the rest of the students assumes that they wouldn't have new buildings donated by alumni as an honest donation and not a bribe.
I think it would be very interesting to see a plot of the number of buildings named for the donor + how many children of donors were admitted in exchange for these buildings. I would expect that schools can get all the endowment they need without trading admission for it. Anyone seriously trading a building for a spot in the school is not making a trade in the best interest of the school, they are playing favorites to keep particular donors happy. But wouldn't the school be better off as a whole, to stand with integrity, without the cloud of corrupt donors?
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#44I'm surprised that this scandal doesn't seem to be causing anyone to think one step further and realize that the entire premise of "elite" colleges with competitive admissions is a device for the perpetuation of inequality. We're devoting most of our advanced educational resources to helping people who would already be successful reap even more rewards. I understand the idea of meritocracy in fields with life or deat…
Back a while high school was the sort of "standard education" things have changed and now college is considered the default level people should have in the workforce, back when college was rare I think private colleges made sense, they were more of a final specialty training step at the end of your education - now that has shifted over to PhDs - let PhD programs remain privatized for whatever reasons, but we should extend government grants to cover all two and four year degrees and publicize the sector. Some kids will still stop their education at middle school - or high school, but we as a society benefit if everyone who wants one can get a college education.
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree with you. I’m just commenting on the fact that these people should not be let off the hook just because they donate a building.
There is no hook or wrong doing in giving a building. It benefits a lot of people. These folks actually did something illegal. Grouping people who actually gave to the university with people who paid a scam artist is wrong.
There's nothing wrong with giving, but there is something wrong with giving and calling it a donation, when in reality it's a quid pro quo transaction. Which is illegal, but unprovable. Matt Levine's comment quoted elsewhere in this thread is describes the only difference in the scenarios.
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#462 years in jail for this is absurd. A week would be more than enough.
What is your reasoning for such a small penalty?
Generally a person who is caught and convicted of crime X is penalized enough to dissuade others of that crime. Which means that the severity of the penalty times the odds of being caught has to be proportional to the value of committing the crime. Since the parents were willing to spend tens of thousands, and their odds of being caught were low, the appropriate penalty should be stiff if it is to have the right effect.
Now is it disproportionate to other crimes? No. Most states have laws about the theft of large amounts of property. With per state thresholds starting in the $1-$5k range, you can get a prison sentence for grand larceny of 1-10 years.
So treat this as stealing from some other applicant the right to go to the university of their choice. I can come to this being a value stolen of tens of thousands in multiple ways. Starting with the fact that the thieves were willing to spend tens of thousands, and continuing with an estimate of the impact on that unlucky loser's future income. That makes it grand larceny, and a 2 year jail sentence is perfectly in line with crimes of a similar magnitude.
While I am generally against how much the US puts people in jail, I applaud the fact that this case treats white collar crime with similar seriousness to blue collar crime.
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#47What is criminal about this? I never heard of someone going to jail for cheating on an SAT test. And why aren't the admissions boards going to jail for accepting the bribes?
Because the proctor was the one who was bribed, not the organization itself.
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reject this - if we want admission in the US to be entirely wealth based and Oligarchic we should just buy that concept whole-hog. Many of us (I hope?) believe that scholarships that allow smart people coming from bad backgrounds to succeed are worth their cost[1] so clearly the ability to make use of your education is part of our general societal motivation to give someone one. [1] There are lots of scholarships,…
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
Colleges are an educational resource, that we currently conceive of as limited - this resource should be distributed primarily to the students who benefit from it the most. Other factors like legacy, donations, bribes, and athletic ability should all be removed from the equation.
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#49Affirmative action on one side, cheaters on the other. At least a dozen people cheated on the SAT in my school and had the audacity to brag about it.
Financial aid if you poor, paid for if you rich. Middle class honest kids hurt the most. Had top 1% scores, no ivies or UCLA for me (got UCB at least) and I’m Asian. My little cousin, same scores and rejected from UCSC 10 years later...much worse now than before
Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps those sentences are equally or more absurd?
I absolutely agree and personally feel that incarceration as vengeance is immoral and incarceration only becomes a moral action when it is a deterrent to future actions. If you were omnipresent and knew that a murderer would never murder again - and that the jailing of that murderer would not prevent any future murders - then I'd consider it to be immoral to jail them. Unfortunately a lot of America is on the vengean…
So you get one free murder? No, the deterrent had to be there beforehand, so that our hypothetical killer who is certain she only wants to kill one person will be exposed to that deterrence. Even if she is not thereby deterred, the fact that the punishment is applied to her will have a deterrent effect on others contemplating a similar crime. Therefore the punishment has value even if there is no need to prevent the murderer from killing again. (Edit: you did point out that the omniscience allows you to know that there will actually be no deterrent effect but that's asking a lot :)