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

81–90 of 321 posts

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

#81

Post by i_am_proteus »

wallace_f wrote: post #49
athenot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the condition for a donation to be tax-deductible is that you claim you didn't get anything in return for your donation. Donating for improvement that affects others is one thing, but donating for a quid pro quo might affect this.

Why can't a poor kid from Oakland, or wherever, watch the classes online and self-study, and pay a nominal fee to exam? In other words, is the concept of creating barriers to entry, limiting competition, not unreasonable? In any market, economists say that is anticompetitive, and should even be illegal. Are people paying for education? Or for epaulets? So let's talk about this "materially improving things for other s…

They're paying for epaulets. I took graduate courses at a "local" state university before starting a full-time program at a big-name-top-low-number private school. The private school was not a better education, but it was undoubtedly better for my career because of the "epaulets."

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

#82

Post by dhimes »

NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

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…

So, I've seen admissions described by three doors:

Front Door: Student performance (scholastic and academic)

Back Door: Family donations

Side Door: What this article is about. Part of the ruse was faking athletic credentials to get into a more likely of admissions candidates (athletes have an advantage, apparently).

So in this case, they lied.

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

#83

Post by dan-robertson »

fmajid wrote: post #58
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…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

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 great deal of research to be done than to reduce student numbers to pay for research to be done?

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

#85

Post by cm2187 »

rb808 wrote: post #74
fmajid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

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.

Plus it may not be against the interest of the other students to get a chance to network with rich kids (and the related future business/investment opportunities).

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

#86

Post by jeffdavis »

fmajid wrote: post #58
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…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

It may be unfair, but it's not corrupt.

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

#87

Post by cm2187 »

auntienomen wrote: post #70
wyldfire wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is no secret It sounds like you agree, then? It should be public.

It is public. Universities almost always include the donation size when they put out press releases about the new building.

And usually the building bears the name of the donor!

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

#88

Post by Digory »

XCabbage wrote: post #44
NowThenGoodBad wrote: post #7

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 suppose the IRS doesn't prosecute some of the tax fraud, because it might be difficult to prove a quid pro quo or the value of an admission.

Sometimes, alumni give to their alma mater for charitable reasons! And some USC grads do better than some Yale grads, I'm sure.

But maybe the IRS should try to brush back the most conspicuous cases of donating to receive admission. I'm seeing stories of admissions officers being pretty open about it at Ivy League schools.

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

#90

Post by maxxxxx »

Alex3917 wrote: post #2

This is pretty wild. Seeing the FBI tackle something like this is so far outside of the legal and cultural norms of society that it's difficult to even really comment on.

"outside of the legal and cultural norms of society"

True. Usually the norm is that wealthy people are exempt from prosecution. I am sure whoever pursued this will get a lot of angry calls from powerful people.

Post reply on HN