
‘Father is Surgeon,’ ‘1 mil pledge’: The Role of Money in USC Admissions - tempsy
https://www.wsj.com/articles/father-is-surgeon-1-mil-pledge-the-role-of-money-in-usc-admissions-11567548124?mod=rsswn
======
TaylorAlexander
I grew up thinking our world was egalitarian, but as an adult I see how untrue
that is. I long for a society where privilege is not so pronounced. Where no
one is so wealthy while others starve. We don’t live in that world yet, but I
do believe it’s possible. We need to grow in to something better. The old ways
aren’t working for all but a few of us.

~~~
darawk
This is such a popular sentiment lately, and I really have no idea where it
comes from. The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at
an incredible pace. Far fewer people are starving than at any time in history,
and even that number only looks to be shrinking as we gaze out into the
immediate future.

There are problems to be sure. But if your goal is eliminating
poverty...well..we're already doing that quite rapidly. It seems more like
this sentiment comes from envy of the super-rich, rather than compassion for
the extremely poor. And that I understand, but it doesn't seem to me to be a
very good reason to reshape civilization.

~~~
LeonB
> The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an
> incredible pace.

I think “basically any” is overselling it (particularly when combined with
“incredible pace”)

Climate change is hard to overlook, for example.

Income inequality is rising. That leads to more of the kind of statements
you’re objecting to.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Thank you. The potential destruction of the majority of living species on
earth is hardly an improvement!

~~~
darawk
While that's true...if you were to redistribute the wealth of the world's
richest people to the world's poorest, you would accelerate climate change by
at least an order of magnitude over night.

~~~
Tade0
Nobody is suggesting doing that specifically.

It's not inequality per se that's at fault, but a system that serves the
powerful thus increasing it.

As long as such a system is in place the powerful will exploit it for their
gain disregarding casualties like the environment.

~~~
darawk
Except that as I said, things are getting better for the world's poorest at an
incredible rate. So, if your concern is the world's poorest, you probably
don't want to mess with the current system too much.

If you do still want to mess with the current system, you probably aren't
actually concerned with helping the poor.

~~~
Tade0
That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the
only one which benefits the poor.

The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is
only making it worse.

They may be (ostensibly) better off now, but their children certainly won't.

~~~
darawk
> That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the
> only one which benefits the poor.

I'm not assuming that, i'm merely stating that this one does. If your goal is
to benefit the poor, and you have a system that does so, you should be happy.
If you are not happy, it is not because you are upset about poverty.

> The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system
> is only making it worse.

Yes, and unfortunately mitigating climate change is directly at odds with
alleviating their poverty. It's a tricky problem.

~~~
Tade0
> If your goal is to benefit the poor, and you have a system that does so, you
> should be happy.

Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones and
cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by mining.

And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably goes
to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually extracted
from these places.

> Yes, and unfortunately mitigating climate change is directly at odds with
> alleviating their poverty.

It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the
powerful.

~~~
darawk
> Problem is these benefits are superficial. On one hand you get cell phones
> and cheap flights, on the other rivers of plastic and land devastated by
> mining.

It's not superficial to the people that are no longer starving and dying of
preventable diseases.

> And it isn't even worth it, because a large part of the profit inevitably
> goes to those responsible for this devastation, so wealth is actually
> extracted from these places.

So, it's not worth lifting people out of poverty if some other people also get
rich?

> It is in this system only, which allows it in the name of profits for the
> powerful.

You think you've got a design for a social system that would lift more people
out of poverty while harming the environment less? I'm all ears.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
> You think you've got a design for a social system that would lift more
> people out of poverty while harming the environment less? I'm all ears.

If you’re actually serious, look up Communalism or Murray Bookchin. There are
in fact real and detailed ideas about alternatives that would still lift
people out of poverty without a wealthy class extracting wealth from those
places and people.

~~~
darawk
Ok. I looked this up a bit, it seems to essentially be a variant of anarcho-
syndicalism. The essential conceit of which appears to be "we're going to do
centralized planning, but local, so it'll be good instead of bad". It's
unclear to me why this would substantially resolve any of the serious
criticisms of central planning (calculation problem, local knowledge problem,
etc.)

------
egdod
This isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Rick Singer stuff. Bribing a coach
to use his influence to get you admitted is waaaaaay worse than donating money
to a school with the (universal!) understanding that this will help your kid’s
chances.

~~~
fenwick67
Why is bribing a coach worse than bribing a university?

~~~
chaostheory
Because when you donate to a university, that money goes into either improving
the university (new buildings or renovations and updated equipment) or helping
with university expenses such as maintenance. i.e. it subsidizes the cost of
attending the university for everyone at the expense of a very few wealthy
families.

When you just bribe the coach, it helps no one but the coach.

~~~
ohazi
Again, whether "it benefits everyone" or "private universities should be
allowed to use whatever criteria they want" \-- I don't care for arguments
about whether the ends justify the means. I'm arguing that the act itself is
immoral.

You are paying money to {univeristy|coach}, with the expectation that (a) the
payment will help your kid's admissions prospects, and (b) {university|coach}
will maintain the facade that money did not have any influence.

That's bribery.

~~~
egdod
> {university|coach} will maintain the facade that money did not have any
> influence

That's not really true though. For the coach, sure, as the payments happen is
secret. But for the school? If I buy Harvard a new building and get my name
put on it, everybody knows about it, _and nobody is surprised when my kid gets
admitted._

------
whalesalad
It’s a private school. I don’t understand the issue.

~~~
aqme28
It might not be a legal issue, but it can still be a moral one. We should try
to make this society at least somewhat meritocratic.

~~~
whalesalad
How do Women’s schools fit into that?

~~~
save_ferris
...the same way men's schools do?

~~~
whalesalad
Not suggesting that there is anything wrong with women's schools ... just
pointing out that nothing in life is a meritocracy.

~~~
save_ferris
You're right in that pure meritocracy without bias doesn't exist. It never
has, and probably never will. However, the post you replied to argued that we
should strive for a more meritocratic society, and I think we can all agree
that some societies are more meritocratic than others. That's what I take
issue with on your point.

I challenge you to name a perfect system in the universe that was created by a
human. Just because perfection doesn't truly exist doesn't mean we shouldn't
strive for it anyway. Or else what's the point in even being here?

------
ineedasername
I'm not sure that the defense, "But other people were doing it, even with the
school's approval!" Is much of a defense here. Other people doing bad things
generally doesn't exempt a person from prosecution for their own bad actions.
That the school was soliciting such bribes just means they may have their own
criminal liability.

~~~
gowld
What is the crime for exchanging legal goods and services in exchange for
payment?

~~~
ineedasername
Nothing is wrong, by definition, with legal exchanges. The crux of the
argument here is specifically that this quid-pro-quo was _not_ legal, that it
was obtained or solicited fraudulently.

------
jtdev
As an employer, I’ll take a hard luck scrappy fighter from some obscure
midwest school over these cream puff shoo-ins any day...

~~~
whalesalad
As an employer I don’t even consider the university you attended. It’s
meaningless to me.

~~~
171243
Really? You don't see a different in regionally accredited or non-accredited
schools?

------
ohazi
I found it difficult to get upset over the original scandal knowing that this
was considered the "correct" way to buy an admission. In my view, either both
of these should be considered fraud/bribery and outlawed, or neither of them
should be.

~~~
ineedasername
It's not completely egalitarian, insider influence plays an out-sized role in
many areas of society, but that doesn't mean it is the _only_ thing that
matters. In the US at least, we still live in a society that has historically
unprecedented (though unfortunately dwindling) class mobility. It's easy to
look at the college scandal and think that's the only way anyone gets in, but
in reality that only represents a fraction (perhaps a sizable one, but not the
majority) of things.

~~~
ohazi
I'm not trying to claim that this is a huge problem, I'm trying to make a
principled argument: I don't think there is a big difference between donating
to a school and bribing a coach. Both of these things are bribery.

The reason the former is considered acceptable is because the universities
have spent decades making us think that this is a normal, reasonable thing.
And telling us not to worry, because they would _never_ allow themselves to be
influenced by a donation when making admissions decisions. This is plainly
false. University administrators are fucking hypocrites.

~~~
ineedasername
I can't disagree with any of what you wrote. I agree with it all. I just want
to avoid the generalization that that's how _everything_ works or how
_everyone_ "gets ahead" in life.

------
fountainofage
Did anyone else notice the reframing the article ends on? It spends every
paragraph on 7-figure donations, then concludes with a quote that no one cares
about families that make $100k donations.

Clearly Mr. Brunold wants people to focus on the $50k to $100k donation range
that doesn't grant an admissions advantage, but no one seems to care about
those other than him (and maybe the WSJ).

------
everybodyknows
Anecdotal data point here: I happen to know for a fact that "donated" cash has
gotten students into USC as far back as the 1960's.

------
baggy_trough
College admissions should be anonymous and strictly based on standardized
tests.

~~~
chrisseaton
How can you possibly anonymise college admissions. Interview behind a curtain?

~~~
manfredo
Many universities don't require interviews. Most state schools don't.

~~~
chrisseaton
That seems worse - reducing them to raw data rather than giving them a chance
to explain where they’re coming from and what they want to get out of the
course?

~~~
manfredo
Interviews tend to favor wealthy, white applicants. Who do you think is going
to leave a better impression on the interviewer: someone from an upper class
family that has been coached in manners most of their life, knows what to
wear, and has practiced these interviews? Or someone from a very different
cultural background?

Furthermore, the Harvard case has also demonstrated that interviews are used
as a tool to suppress the chances of Asian applicants. While it may seem cold
to reduce candidates to their applications, if the goal is to provide a
consistent admissions process interviews are not a good choice.

