Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#51

Post by lotsofpulp »

js2 wrote: post #13
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…

You don't see a difference between bribing someone under the table to get only your child in, vs a public donation that benefits the entire student body besides your child? The rules may be unfair but at least in the latter case, everyone knows that they are up against.

> vs a public donation that benefits the entire student body besides your child?

Not a donation if the donor is receiving something in exchange.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#52

Post by lotsofpulp »

svachalek wrote: post #35
rumcajz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've meant what is considered morally acceptable by an average American. I guess that you are describing who manages to get away with the corruption, rather than asserting that bribery by the rich is considered more acceptable that the bribery by the poor.

It’s more that “philanthropy” and “lobbying” are acceptable while “bribery” is not, even though sometimes the distinction is a pretty blurry line.

It’s more like everyone tries to get away with as much fraud as possible under the guise of plausible deniability, which “philanthropy” and “lobbying” provide.

Let’s see all this “philanthropy” if tax deductible donations have to be anonymous.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#53

Post by simonh »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #50
fortran77 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference. I'm surprised you don't see it. If a billionaire donates a new building to a college so his dim-witted son can get in, the entire school benefits because they have a new facility. And the school can see to it that nobody gets "displaced" by this dim-witted kid by increasing the class size by 1. If a wealthy person bribes and athletic coach to get his kid into school, the school gets no money…

> If a billionaire donates a new building to a college so his dim-witted son can get in, It’s not a donation if they’re getting something in return.

That’s maybe fair, but just a matter of semantics. It doesn’t change the fact that a $10m endowment can generate enough income to support a handful of full cost academic scholarships in perpetuity.

Anyone not seeing the difference between that and a sports coach pocketing a few tens of thousands of dollars is suffering from severe ideological impairment.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#54

Post by jmole »

supernova87a wrote: post #36

The most entertaining argument I read about this whole scandal is that it wasn't fraud, it was theft , and that's why the US Attorney is going after it on behalf of the colleges. Theft from the colleges . https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha... "...Here is one thing that U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the charges: “There can be no separate college admissions system for the wea…

I mean - economically speaking - why wouldn't a college take a student in exchange for a building? It would be unfair to not allow this, no?

I think the unfairness argument should be taken up a level - it's unfair that someone can even have the wealth to do this.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#55

Post by lotsofpulp »

simonh wrote: post #53
lotsofpulp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a billionaire donates a new building to a college so his dim-witted son can get in, It’s not a donation if they’re getting something in return.

That’s maybe fair, but just a matter of semantics. It doesn’t change the fact that a $10m endowment can generate enough income to support a handful of full cost academic scholarships in perpetuity. Anyone not seeing the difference between that and a sports coach pocketing a few tens of thousands of dollars is suffering from severe ideological impairment.

It’s not semantics when erroneous terminology nets someone a few million in tax deductions.

A donation is eligible for tax deductions. Payment in lieu of acceptance for child or increased probability of acceptance for child is not tax deductible.

A sports coach pocketing a few thousand dollars, versus a much wealthier person pocketing a few million from all taxpayers. Where is the ideological impairment?

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#56

Post by js2 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #51
js2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see a difference between bribing someone under the table to get only your child in, vs a public donation that benefits the entire student body besides your child? The rules may be unfair but at least in the latter case, everyone knows that they are up against.

> vs a public donation that benefits the entire student body besides your child? Not a donation if the donor is receiving something in exchange.

I was just sloppy with my wording. I should have said quid pro quo contribution. In any case, the amount above the fair market value of the benefit received is a donation.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapter-4/subchapter-1/polic...

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#57

Post by 0134340 »

rumcajz wrote: post #15

I have hard time understanding what goes for the bribery in US. Apparently, a lot of stuff that would be considered corruption in Europe is just business as normal in the US. In this particular case I would guess that what they did would be considered OK. Apparently it wasn't. Can someone from the US comment on where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies?

I suppose it's because this idea of individualistic and competitive 'work hard and make it yourself' attitude permeates our culture and so nepotism, or this case taking advantage of powerful family ties, is somewhat frowned upon as a free ride to success. Of course this also contrasts with our favor for another potentially major part of success based on who you know rather than what you know and social networking, both of which are less frowned upon than nepotism.

I guess the US and like countries attempt to base privilege on well-documented rules instead of ad-hoc, less predictable and more ambiguous 'do me a favor and I do you a favor' bribery that's more known in other countries. Of course it doesn't always work this way but in theory. The good ol' boy network is still a thing and money does buy judicial privilege in many cases but at least we sort of try.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#58

Post by hinkley »

viburnum wrote: post #30
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 you gotta bribe the right people or it’s a crime.

Always has been.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#60

Post by Supermancho »

tunesmith wrote: post #48
glaucon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a non-USAian such as myself it's just so marvellous that a case involving, a sort of, corruption has the resulting penalty affected by a "plea bargain". "Plea bargains", a strange mixture of government approved gambling and trial by ordeal making a travesty of the justice system.

Generally it makes a little sense to me in this case - accept accountability sooner, get a more lenient penalty. Not sure if that is more common or rare in other cultures?

In Germany, plea bargains are not common practice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Germany
Post reply on HN