Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

Post by raincom » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #23

bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and not giving the universities the bribe directly (likely because the actual 'fee' for getting your kid in is more than they could afford). I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in. Says a lot about the actual signalling value vs. educationa…

Post by creato » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #38

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside the question of whether Lori and her husband are truly rich or not, you don't like that super rich people openly make donations to get their kids into school they don't deserve to be in so you're okay with other rich people cheating too? I honestly don't understand the logic behind your comment, shouldn't you be upset about both?

I don't agree with OP as the college is the victim here of some semi-embezzlement (admission slots being used for employee benefit). That said, I'm always a bit miffed by the enthusiasm for prosecuting the person bribing rather than the person accepting the bribe. It's not just in bribery. You see the same targeting of the interloper in cases of adultery. It's like everything was perfectly fine until contracts and vo…

Post by andreilys » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #40

andreilys wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in.” You would be surprised at how difficult it is to fail out of programs. From what I’ve seen profs have an unwritten rule to not fail students from school admin, otherwise they might complain and so it’s easier to give a D than fail them completely.

That depends on the school. My 4-year would put you on academic suspension if your GPA was too low, which ended with you kicked out (well forced to take a 1 year break and have to ask to return... Not a lot of people did, especially since credits expired after 7 years). Although, I did get a D in a class I should have failed by the curve because I didn't write up all the lab reports, but I did well on all the tests a…

Post by treis » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #38

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside the question of whether Lori and her husband are truly rich or not, you don't like that super rich people openly make donations to get their kids into school they don't deserve to be in so you're okay with other rich people cheating too? I honestly don't understand the logic behind your comment, shouldn't you be upset about both?

I don't agree with OP as the college is the victim here of some semi-embezzlement (admission slots being used for employee benefit). That said, I'm always a bit miffed by the enthusiasm for prosecuting the person bribing rather than the person accepting the bribe. It's not just in bribery. You see the same targeting of the interloper in cases of adultery. It's like everything was perfectly fine until contracts and vo…

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #10

bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

Technically, they are being prosecuted for paying off somebody who was not entitled to give their children preferential admissions treatment, while if you're donating to the university, they ARE entitled to give preferential treatment. But I agree, on a moral level, that legacy admissions are an odious practice, and particularly so when tied to donations.