The College Admissions Scandal Is About More Than Just Bribery

[SummerMadness]

The College Admissions Scandal Is About More Than Just Bribery

America’s latest academic scandal has something for anyone who resents or is offended by elitist universities and wealthy celebrities, which is almost everyone. And though their wrongdoing seems obvious, the deeper lessons are mostly about our own hypocrisy — and the rather unflattering view too many Americans hold of higher education.

On Tuesday prosecutors charged dozens of parents for bribing college and test administrators for helping to get their kids into better colleges. The parents paid for their children to receive preferential and indeed illegal privileges, such as inflated test scores and phony athletic credentials. To make the story more salacious, some of those arrested were celebrities, such as Felicity Huffman of “Desperate Housewives,” and the institutions involved were highly prestigious, such as Stanford and Yale.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Sad state of affairs. Guess I didn’t realize it was so (relatively) easy to trick the system.

Weird.

 

[mala]

i don't know why this is an issue but lowered academic standards for athletes and people donating buildings, making expansions to properties and so forth is not.
it's the exact same thing.

 

[com7fy8]

i don't know why this is an issue but lowered academic standards for athletes and people donating buildings, making expansions to properties and so forth is not.

Maybe it costs less to bribe your way in, versus paying the millions for a donated building.

One person on TV was shown saying how she could care less about the education which bribery had been tried to get for her, but she wanted the social life and going to the big-arena, big-name sports events . . . I think she meant.

 

[mala]

Maybe it costs less to bribe your way in, versus paying the millions for a donated building.

One person on TV was shown saying how she could care less about the education which bribery had been tried to get for her, but she wanted the social life and going to the big-arena, big-name sports events . . . I think she meant.

it might cost less but it's the same thing.

 

[rambot]

People complain about Afirmative Action to get capable intelligent minorities into higher education.

Frankly, buying the spots for lacklustre, poorly motivated, poor performing students is FAAAAR more of an issue for me. If these kids tried, cared and were motivated, I'd care less. But I'd wager on the whole, many of them couldn't barely care less.

 

[SummerMadness]

I think the thing to remember is there are parents sitting in prison right now for using a relative’s address so their child could get an adequate public education.

 

[Ana the Ist]

i don't know why this is an issue but lowered academic standards for athletes and people donating buildings, making expansions to properties and so forth is not.
it's the exact same thing.

It's not the exact same thing....

One is legal, the other isn't.

In an article that consists of mainly bad points...I would imagine they would have made a similar one had they thought they could get away with it.

Yet the closest they came was to say that such donations give a student a very favorable admission consideration. The implication there is that there have been situations where such donations were given, and the student still wasn't admitted.

What exactly is wrong with being able to buy your child a better shot at a good education? We already give some people unfair advantages due to things like race....I don't see why money shouldn't be able to influence the process either.

 

[bhsmte]

it might cost less but it's the same thing.

No, it isnt the same thing.

One is premeditated fraud and the other isnt.

Big difference.

 

[mala]

No, it isnt the same thing.

One is premeditated fraud and the other isnt.

Big difference.

ya i know it's not. one is legal and the other isn't. but the intent is basically the same and a bribe by any other name is still a bribe.

 

[bhsmte]

ya i know it's not. one is legal and the other isn't. but the intent is basically the same and a bribe by any other name is still a bribe.

If i donate millions to build a building on campus, that is a transparent process, for all to see.and that building, will benefit all students who attend the school.

When i bribe someone to falsify my kids test scores or.pretend they are an athlete, that again, is premeditated fraud and has zero benefit to anyone else and may actually keep a qulified kid from being accepted.

There is a huge difference.

 

[whatbogsends]

If i donate millions to build a building on campus, that is a transparent process, for all to see.and that building, will benefit all students who attend the school.

When i bribe someone to falsify my kids test scores or.pretend they are an athlete, that again, is premeditated fraud and has zero benefit to anyone else and may actually keep a qulified kid from being accepted.

There is a huge difference.

I agree with you about transparency vs. fraud.

I agree with you that others benefit from a donation to the school.

However, both donations impacting admission and fraud impacting admission, may actually keep a qualified kid from being accepted.

 

[mala]

If i donate millions to build a building on campus, that is a transparent process, for all to see.and that building, will benefit all students who attend the school.

When i bribe someone to falsify my kids test scores or.pretend they are an athlete, that again, is premeditated fraud and has zero benefit to anyone else and may actually keep a qulified kid from being accepted.

There is a huge difference.

again i'm not saying that you are wrong about the legality of the thing. i'm stating that the final intention is both the same. a mechanism that a monied parent can utilize (legal or illegal) to ensure their (potentially undeserving) child has an advantage that a poorer more qualified child might not.

 

[Albion]

I tend to agree with these recent comments, but I remember that there are all sorts of other ways to cheat a qualified student out of entrance to a quality school--or at least to the one he or she wanted to attend.

Allowing real athletes (unlike the current scandal) admission and scholarships although they dont meet the academic standards set out for other applicants. Affirmative Action admissions do it. State universities that make concessions to out of state students so that the school wont be so provincial. And those examples are just for starters.

 

[Sistrin]

.

 

[Albion]

The topic of this thread is The College Admissions Scandal Is About More Than Just Bribery.

As for what I believe and what I posted, it is indeed on-topic. The topic is not Why we hate the rich.

So if we are to look at the whole issue of the College Admissions scandal, it is not simply that rich people buy their way or can game the system. THE SYSTEM PLAYS ALONG! The colleges were not acting out of character by playing favorites when it comes to admissions standards. They do it all the time and in many different ways, some of which I mentioned as examples.

Yes, some people will immediately seize upon how awful rich people supposedly are, but that misses the stated purpose of this thread--and the reality of the unfairness that has been a feature of the admissions process in some of our leading universities for a long time.

 

[FenderTL5]

Money is free speech and if giving them a bunch of speech results in "Ingratiation and access..." who's to complain?
That's how it's applied in the world of politics. Why should education be any different?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I agree with you about transparency vs. fraud.

I agree with you that others benefit from a donation to the school.

However, both donations impacting admission and fraud impacting admission, may actually keep a qualified kid from being accepted.

Yes, but if Lori and the others did that. They would be a little more respected. They wouldn't be in danger of going to jail. Or losing sponsors and jobs. And the kids wouldnt have the possibility of being expelled. Or having to drop because of fear.

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes, but if Lori and the others did that. They would be a little more respected. They wouldn't be in danger of going to jail. Or losing sponsors and jobs. And the kids wouldnt have the possibility of being expelled. Or having to drop because of fear.

I know. I agreed about the fraud. My only comment was that any way of currying favor via money, be it bribes, donation, or otherwise, can deny a deserving student admission.

That being said, it's also possible that a deserving student had their parents bribe or otherwise try to influence their admission, and that the attempted influence was unnecessary.

Lastly, not all deserving students are granted admission. Most universities have more deserving students apply than there are spots available. Some may be more deserving than others, but it's not always a "deserving vs. not deserving" comparison.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree with you about transparency vs. fraud.

I agree with you that others benefit from a donation to the school.

However, both donations impacting admission and fraud impacting admission, may actually keep a qualified kid from being accepted.

Yes, both could impact admissions. One though, is beneficial to the university and all students and transparent. The other, is deliberate fraud.

The other thing is this; if it is a university that is private and does not get public funds, they are pretty much free to do as they please. If they are getting public funds, all students, no matter who they are, should be evaluated the same.