Oh, I totally expect a slap on the wrist. But that's a problem with the courts and white collar crime laws.
I feel like a lot of people are out for blood here though, and haven't succeeded at justifying it. If you can't demonstrate the elements of a crime (by which I mean mens rea and actus rea) on the part of a student I don't think it's just to punish them.
The sports analogy is close, but invalidating achievements serves as a form of restitution to other competitors (esp with records). Also, it's harder to believe ignorance there.
So as long as you are able to setup a RICO hierarchy of plausible deniability, the beneficiary of criminal fraud should be able to continue to benefit?
Oh, I totally expect a slap on the wrist. But that's a problem with the courts and white collar crime laws.
I feel like a lot of people are out for blood here though, and haven't succeeded at justifying it. If you can't demonstrate the elements of a crime (by which I mean mens rea and actus rea) on the part of a student I don't think it's just to punish them.
The sports analogy is close, but invalidating achievements serves as a form of restitution to other competitors (esp with records). Also, it's harder to believe ignorance there.
So as long as you are able to setup a RICO hierarchy of plausible deniability, the beneficiary of criminal fraud should be able to continue to benefit?
What, like a backwards RICO, where the one benefiting from the criminal activity isn't the mastermind giving the orders? Depends on who you rooted for in Les Misérables, I guess
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It was a modest house by this town’s standards, a center-entrance colonial, three bedrooms and a two-car garage on a quarter-acre lot. The inside hadn’t welcomed a renovator in many, many years, and the outside didn’t wear its age particularly well.
Its owner: Peter Brand, Harvard University’s legendary fencing coach. Its assessed value: $549,300.
So when the house sold to a wealthy Maryland businessman for close to a million dollars in May 2016, the town’s top assessor was so dumbfounded that he wrote the following in his notes: “Makes no sense.”
The buyer, it turns out, was the father of a high school junior who was actively looking at applying to Harvard with an eye toward being on the fencing team.
...Soon enough, Jie Zhao’s younger son would gain admission and join the team. And Zhao, who never lived a day in the Needham house, would sell it 17 months after he bought it for a $324,500 loss.
My favorite detail in this little saga are how these guys got caught: 17 months after the sale, Zhao decides to dump the property, which he never even rented., and lists it with an agent. A couple of flippers come along, look at it, check out the previous sale price and the previous owner of record, and joke among themselves that I guess somebody was trying to get his kid onto the Harvard fencing team. Then a few weeks later the Varsity Blues scandal breaks. So they decide to call a Globe reporter.
How much stuff like this goes completely undetected? My guess would be, “a lot.”
I've skimmed the thread, but I don't know that I feel these question has been adequately answered:
Is Fraud a big deal or not?
Some of the arguments I've seen here read to me like "Committing fraud is no big deal if we cannot definitively establish that a lasting harm has been committed"
So, are we to accept that the various college submission processes that exist be considered to be more like Guidelines, which people should feel free to circumvent if they have the means to do so, provided no physical violence is involved?
Are we ok with the fact that a potentially brilliant, but non-rich, young person was likely denied entry into a prestigious school because their spot was bumped by a likely less qualified, but richer, kid?
I mean, it sucks for the rich kid if they were (falsely) led to believe that they earned their spot in college, but them getting that spot means someone else was denied. Even if they are capable of succeeding in the course work, I feel it's fair to assume that the bumped kid was likely to be just as, if not more, successful. Shouldn't the opportunity that was denied the qualified candidate be considered a lasting harm, to that candidate as well as to society, as that kid may have made a lasting contribution thanks to an education they no longer have access to?
Why do we appear to be operating on the assumption that the rich kid is just as valuable in this equation as the candidate they usurped?
Furthermore, what does it say about our society if we've decided that the response to Fraud has now become "eh, whaddya gonna do?"
Pragmatically, I don't see the benefit of expelling the students if they haven't personally violated the code of conduct. Will it open admission spots or something?
The benefit is in protecting the brand. Since the degree is the only thing with tangible value, letting kids who got the degree by fraud keep it damages the value of the degree.
I realize this is an older post, but the problem as I see it is not that the students got in through unknowing fraud, it's that the universities have made entry so difficult that fraud may be the only way to get in. Education shouldn't be a brand. Any same degree (e.g. mechanical engineer) from a certified ABET university should be valued equally.
Personally I would give all the adults hefty community service with a focus on them having to interact with and serve underprivileged communities. Prison time... well in general I'm not a big fan of prisons. But obviously a fine would be a slap on the wrist.
As for the kids... if they knowingly participated in fraud it's fine to kick them out. Universities are supposed to have ethical standards. (don't always actually do, but they're supposed to) If they didn't, it seems harsh to kick them out when they might have put years into getting a degree. Every single one, regardless of their complicity, is sure to face harsh public shaming regardless.
Ivy League schools or prestigious universities don't actually offer practical benefits for most students over less prestigious universities except for the potential for social networking.
Oh, I totally expect a slap on the wrist. But that's a problem with the courts and white collar crime laws.
I feel like a lot of people are out for blood here though, and haven't succeeded at justifying it. If you can't demonstrate the elements of a crime (by which I mean mens rea and actus rea) on the part of a student I don't think it's just to punish them.
The sports analogy is close, but invalidating achievements serves as a form of restitution to other competitors (esp with records). Also, it's harder to believe ignorance there.
@Gundi seems to feel that "prestigious universities don't actually offer practical benefits for most students" which I feel is demonstrably false. Perhaps for messed up reasons, but false nonetheless, which looks like it informs his feelings that kicking the kids out, who are benefitting from their parent's fraudulent activity "seems harsh". If a child is denied an opportunity due to their parents' malfeisance, that sucks, but that's an issue between the child and the parent. The harm committed against this child was committed by the parent, in this case, not society. The kid you bumped didn't get a degree from that school, why should you?
Meanwhile, @Polarite seems to be arguing that the thread hasn't succeeded in justifying the vitriol directed at the perpetrators of this kind of fraud, repeating that he doesn't feel it's "just" to punish the students who benefited from the fraud in fraud in question.
So I suppose that means my previous post is more directly directed at them and those who agree with them than perhaps at the entire thread in general.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
Analogies to physical objects don't work for non-physical objects.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It was a modest house by this town’s standards, a center-entrance colonial, three bedrooms and a two-car garage on a quarter-acre lot. The inside hadn’t welcomed a renovator in many, many years, and the outside didn’t wear its age particularly well.
Its owner: Peter Brand, Harvard University’s legendary fencing coach. Its assessed value: $549,300.
So when the house sold to a wealthy Maryland businessman for close to a million dollars in May 2016, the town’s top assessor was so dumbfounded that he wrote the following in his notes: “Makes no sense.”
The buyer, it turns out, was the father of a high school junior who was actively looking at applying to Harvard with an eye toward being on the fencing team.
...Soon enough, Jie Zhao’s younger son would gain admission and join the team. And Zhao, who never lived a day in the Needham house, would sell it 17 months after he bought it for a $324,500 loss.
My favorite detail in this little saga are how these guys got caught: 17 months after the sale, Zhao decides to dump the property, which he never even rented., and lists it with an agent. A couple of flippers come along, look at it, check out the previous sale price and the previous owner of record, and joke among themselves that I guess somebody was trying to get his kid onto the Harvard fencing team. Then a few weeks later the Varsity Blues scandal breaks. So they decide to call a Globe reporter.
How much stuff like this goes completely undetected? My guess would be, “a lot.”
Reading that story, it sounds like the coach might have just grifted him. Already had a son on the team, mother is an alumnus, regularly throws money at the team anyway, etc.
Maybe that's enough, maybe he tried to grease the wheels anyway, but, IF Zhang is telling the truth: My favorite part is when he told the realtor to take the first offer and was surprised it was so much less than he paid.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards. It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair. Furthermore, I would hope that the parent will also learn that if he truly wants what's best for his little girl in the future, he'll consider more carefully how his actions affect her. In the longer term, my hope would be that such a little girl would grow up now knowing that she can't expect things to just be given to her own eventual children just because she got rich and/or sneaky.
It's the whole "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" fallacy applied at a societal level. Essentially, it feels to me like we're making allowances for abhorrent behaviour by allowing parents to use their kids as hostages. That's fucking gross! And while you might describe my solution as akin to shooting the hostage, these kids will be FINE! Their parents are rich, they'll get over it! Denying a rich kid access to the degree of their choice is not nearly as likely to cause as much lasting harm to them as it might to a less rich, but probably more deserving, kid who was denied that opportunity alltogether for reasons completely outside their control.
It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair.
This goes against a major precept in our society - we don't hold the child accountable for the sins of the parent.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards. It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair. Furthermore, I would hope that the parent will also learn that if he truly wants what's best for his little girl in the future, he'll consider more carefully how his actions affect her. In the longer term, my hope would be that such a little girl would grow up now knowing that she can't expect things to just be given to her own eventual children just because she got rich and/or sneaky.
It's the whole "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" fallacy applied at a societal level. Essentially, it feels to me like we're making allowances for abhorrent behaviour by allowing parents to use their kids as hostages. That's fucking gross! And while you might describe my solution as akin to shooting the hostage, these kids will be FINE! Their parents are rich, they'll get over it! Denying a rich kid access to the degree of their choice is not nearly as likely to cause as much lasting harm to them as it might to a less rich, but probably more deserving, kid who was denied that opportunity alltogether for reasons completely outside their control.
What kind of reparation is there for a fraudulently acquired education? Make the degree holder forget what they learned? Several court ordered concussions? This is why analogies to physical things don't really work here.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards. It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair. Furthermore, I would hope that the parent will also learn that if he truly wants what's best for his little girl in the future, he'll consider more carefully how his actions affect her. In the longer term, my hope would be that such a little girl would grow up now knowing that she can't expect things to just be given to her own eventual children just because she got rich and/or sneaky.
It's the whole "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" fallacy applied at a societal level. Essentially, it feels to me like we're making allowances for abhorrent behaviour by allowing parents to use their kids as hostages. That's fucking gross! And while you might describe my solution as akin to shooting the hostage, these kids will be FINE! Their parents are rich, they'll get over it! Denying a rich kid access to the degree of their choice is not nearly as likely to cause as much lasting harm to them as it might to a less rich, but probably more deserving, kid who was denied that opportunity alltogether for reasons completely outside their control.
What kind of reparation is there for a fraudulently acquired education? Make the degree holder forget what they learned? Several court ordered concussions? This is why analogies to physical things don't really work here.
They still get the knowledge but if you prevent them from any accreditation it takes a lot of the impact from studying at a school like that from you. Most people are just going to assume you were a drop out who could not handle an ivy league school and then your education is setback by years as you try to get your degree. If the schools were real dicks they could also prevent you from claiming any credits from classes you have already done so you could set peoples careers back by years.
I'm not a big believer in "they'll get over it, they'll be fine" because I'm part of the system that works in the background to make that happen. Making a girl hate her dad and isolating her from her friends - job well done, I'll be over here picking up the pieces, thanks. Who knows, if I think there was real harm done, I might call someone to do a human interest story in a publication I know a lot of alumni read and let the circumstances decide what direction funding goes for the institution. Don't underestimate the effect of harming an innocent person, unless you want to make my job easier.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards. It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair. Furthermore, I would hope that the parent will also learn that if he truly wants what's best for his little girl in the future, he'll consider more carefully how his actions affect her. In the longer term, my hope would be that such a little girl would grow up now knowing that she can't expect things to just be given to her own eventual children just because she got rich and/or sneaky.
It's the whole "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" fallacy applied at a societal level. Essentially, it feels to me like we're making allowances for abhorrent behaviour by allowing parents to use their kids as hostages. That's fucking gross! And while you might describe my solution as akin to shooting the hostage, these kids will be FINE! Their parents are rich, they'll get over it! Denying a rich kid access to the degree of their choice is not nearly as likely to cause as much lasting harm to them as it might to a less rich, but probably more deserving, kid who was denied that opportunity alltogether for reasons completely outside their control.
What kind of reparation is there for a fraudulently acquired education? Make the degree holder forget what they learned? Several court ordered concussions? This is why analogies to physical things don't really work here.
They still get the knowledge but if you prevent them from any accreditation it takes a lot of the impact from studying at a school like that from you. Most people are just going to assume you were a drop out who could not handle an ivy league school and then your education is setback by years as you try to get your degree. If the schools were real dicks they could also prevent you from claiming any credits from classes you have already done so you could set peoples careers back by years.
This is Illegal.
Credits earned must count as credits earned. Credits earned do not have to be considered equivalent to comparable courses and how that is done is dependent upon the content of the courses through mechanisms defined by regional accreditation.
Even if the students are expelled, the credits they completed must be honored. If those credits have equivalency agreements between other schools, they must be accepted.
There is no way around this. Period.
Enc on
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
IE: if I took English 101 at Washington State and there is an existent path between that school and some school in the SUNY system (Say English 1000) you must accept that course as the equivalency. If you do it for one student, you must do it for all students.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards. It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair. Furthermore, I would hope that the parent will also learn that if he truly wants what's best for his little girl in the future, he'll consider more carefully how his actions affect her. In the longer term, my hope would be that such a little girl would grow up now knowing that she can't expect things to just be given to her own eventual children just because she got rich and/or sneaky.
It's the whole "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" fallacy applied at a societal level. Essentially, it feels to me like we're making allowances for abhorrent behaviour by allowing parents to use their kids as hostages. That's fucking gross! And while you might describe my solution as akin to shooting the hostage, these kids will be FINE! Their parents are rich, they'll get over it! Denying a rich kid access to the degree of their choice is not nearly as likely to cause as much lasting harm to them as it might to a less rich, but probably more deserving, kid who was denied that opportunity alltogether for reasons completely outside their control.
What kind of reparation is there for a fraudulently acquired education? Make the degree holder forget what they learned? Several court ordered concussions? This is why analogies to physical things don't really work here.
They still get the knowledge but if you prevent them from any accreditation it takes a lot of the impact from studying at a school like that from you. Most people are just going to assume you were a drop out who could not handle an ivy league school and then your education is setback by years as you try to get your degree. If the schools were real dicks they could also prevent you from claiming any credits from classes you have already done so you could set peoples careers back by years.
That could apply to students currently enrolled, but what about someone already out of school? Who received licensure in a profession based in part on that degree? What impact should that have on legally binding agreements made under the assumption of their qualifications? Do you have to audit any accounting documents they we're involved in? Fire any employees they were a hiring manager for?
This began at least as early as 2011, that means graduates who have been working somewhere for 4 years after graduating. It isn't as easy as requiring the cash equivalent of goods/ services stolen in restitution, because it doesn't really have one.
I'm not a big believer in "they'll get over it, they'll be fine" because I'm part of the system that works in the background to make that happen. Making a girl hate her dad and isolating her from her friends - job well done, I'll be over here picking up the pieces, thanks. Who knows, if I think there was real harm done, I might call someone to do a human interest story in a publication I know a lot of alumni read and let the circumstances decide what direction funding goes for the institution. Don't underestimate the effect of harming an innocent person, unless you want to make my job easier.
Criminal punishments always hurt more than just the criminal. For instance, a kid whose father goes to prison for stealing is fatherless and probably poor due to it. For some reason we don't have as much heart for those kids as posh kids whose families stole their education.
+5
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
As someone who works in this field, what I'd think would happen is the student would be evaluated as if they were a regular student in the average admittance. If they were, and they likely would be admitted anyway, they should be retained.
If they were deficient to the average criteria, expel them with the same path towards readmission as a student who received extended failing grades (usually some combination of taking coursework at a community college and meeting specific grade criteria to prove evidence that they can meet basic entrance requirements) and then allow for readmission within that timeframe.
If the student was the one responsible for the forgery/graft to get in, there isn't a worry here. There are mechanisms already in place like this to deal with students who fudge their way in somehow, and it does occasionally happen through forgery. It's nearly always immediate expulsion with no option for re-admittance.
But for students who could be reasonably assumed to have no idea of the event, test them against the average admittance criteria and let them either prove they should be there, or give them a path to earn their way back in the same as with any student.
Imagine I go out and steal a bunch of Girl Scout cookies, take them home and feed them to my kids. Suppose my kids don’t know and never asked me to steal, making them blameless in my crime. I’m later caught. Do we make my children regurgitate the cookies? Do we punish them at all for eating stolen cookies if they didn’t know?
Now, if not all the cookies are eaten, sure, you can make an argument to give the rest back. Or if my kids encouraged me to steal cookies or knew about the theft and didn’t report the crime, they should be held accountable.
Education can’t be taken back since it’s time and effort, just like you can’t give back eaten cookies. Unless you like poop.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
There have been cases like that one Louisiana school where adults committed fraud to get students who were not privileged into Ivy League schools by exploiting racist narratives the admissions people ate up and doctoring records.
While it is easy to want to tell the rich children of rich families to go to heck because they will likely still end up fine, I doubt there is a way to just hurt the rich kids and not students like that Louisiana school.
Couscous on
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
None of these analogies work because education doesn't have an easy equivalent. These are both financial, conceptual, and legal constructs that have specific meanings and operations here. No for instance is accurate but the one we have at the core of the situation.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards.
Frankly, it sounds like the schools already lack ethical standards by allowing the very rich to buy their way in through school donation programs.
I'd be for ensuring the school grants an extra non-donor position to another student for each position shown to be filled through bribes (perhaps under the same conditions as the fraudulent position, especially where the position was meant to be for a disadvantaged student).
That way the schools are forced to take the hit to their exclusivity because of their behaviour, and the damage to other candidates is remediated without unnecessarily punishing the rich kid for his parent's actions.
The school is probably going to revoke the kid's qualifications anyway to protect themselves.
Which should also be disallowed in my opinion.
Um? The perpetrators of the fraud are the parents, not the students (at least, in the abstract - the question of which students were complicit being unresolved)
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards.
Frankly, it sounds like the schools already lack ethical standards by allowing the very rich to buy their way in through school donation programs.
I'd be for ensuring the school grants an extra non-donor position to another student for each position shown to be filled through bribes (perhaps under the same conditions as the fraudulent position, especially where the position was meant to be for a disadvantaged student).
That way the schools are forced to take the hit to their exclusivity because of their behaviour, and the damage to other candidates is remediated without unnecessarily punishing the rich kid for his parent's actions.
The school is probably going to revoke the kid's qualifications anyway to protect themselves.
Which should also be disallowed in my opinion.
So there are schools and then there are schools.
You can't totally stop ivy league private colleges from accepting donations nor for really having those donations impact admissions. Because they are private entities run by garbage people.
You can probably make it harder for the same to apply to public schools, but part of why such practices happen occasionally in public schools is because that 3 million dollar endowment is replacing a portion of the 1-5% budget cut the state has cut from their budget every year for going on 20 years straight. Which is why you see buildings and laboratories named after wealthy patrons and people are generally ok with that form of problem, but when its lining one person's pocketbook (like with the current situation) the claws come out. There are acceptable levels of gray. Problematic levels, but acceptable.
Saying private schools lack ethical standards is like calling the sky blue. That's been true since their foundation decades/centuries ago.
Saying public schools lack ethical standards ignores the consistent pitfall and desperate search for funding to continue the mission of actually staying open the educate the general populace.
This isn't to say these concerns aren't there. But the application between paying a guy and funding a school are very different and while both are problematic and should be avoided, they aren't perhaps the same problem.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I wonder what happens to poor kids whose parents scam them into a better high school by faking residency, I bet it comports with the idea of not visiting the sins of the parent upon the child, let me sip some hot tea while I Google up a link...
The tip travels up the chain to a suburban school administrator, who then requests a formal investigation. If the investigators find the student in question doesn’t live within district boundaries, the district moves to disenroll him or her.
Translation: The district kicks the kid of out school.
This type of thing happens hundreds of times each year in the four collar counties outside Philadelphia — maybe even thousands. Almost every suburban school district spends time and resources trying to root out families it suspects of lying about their addresses and illegally crossing district lines.
*spit take*
+13
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I was one of those kids, though not for the quality of the school. My parents moved to a neighboring county my senior year of high school and on paper I lived with my friend's family according to the county. They do look into things, our band director nearly blew it by mentioning my hour long commute at one of our last practices and they only let me stay because there was a month left before graduation.
I was one of those kids, though not for the quality of the school. My parents moved to a neighboring county my senior year of high school and on paper I lived with my friend's family according to the county. They do look into things, our band director nearly blew it by mentioning my hour long commute at one of our last practices and they only let me stay because there was a month left before graduation.
It's super common.
Same. And largely the same reason; the school was only marginally "better" (both districts were suburban) but it was mostly about not wanting to leave all my friends behind halfway through high school. And yeah, half my teachers and half the office knew, and didn't care, even though I was a total discipline case and super low-achiever. They liked me, I suppose. But yeah, if the district office found out I'd have been bounced quicker than shit. Free to take my credits to another high school, but no longer welcome in my current one.
That could apply to students currently enrolled, but what about someone already out of school? Who received licensure in a profession based in part on that degree? What impact should that have on legally binding agreements made under the assumption of their qualifications? Do you have to audit any accounting documents they we're involved in? Fire any employees they were a hiring manager for?
This began at least as early as 2011, that means graduates who have been working somewhere for 4 years after graduating. It isn't as easy as requiring the cash equivalent of goods/ services stolen in restitution, because it doesn't really have one.
I'd treat it like a security clearance, or other ongoing qualification requirement. Losing it today may mean you no longer get to perform the functions of your job, however in some cases is may not impugn any work done previously. You were properly qualified at the time, your license was valid at the time, etc. the work performed should still be acceptable.
I would agree it's probably not a knot worth unraveling just to punish a few failkids. But at the same time, unless we throw a pretty heavy book at the parents who committed the fraud (hahaha they have money so no) then allowing them to maintain the credential from the university just encourages the fraud. Because if the worst case scenario is you pay some fines and look dumb on TMZ (assuming you're one of the few famous ones), and your kid still gets to go to the school and keep their degree, then that's just part of the price now. And likely worth the risk.
We know damn well none of these kids have loans. At most they lose a couple more years of having to go to school. Make them take their credits, transfer them somewhere they can legitimately get in, perform the minimum credits at the new institution required to graduate, and get a new degree.
Or just throw the parents in real prison for acceptable lengths of time. Either works for me.
You could also threaten the school itself with probation and audits. Parents aren't the ones that get federal funding, so government jurisdiction ends at the school
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You could also threaten the school itself with probation and audits. Parents aren't the ones that get federal funding, so government jurisdiction ends at the school
This is a point I can agree with, threaten sanctions against such schools, demand they do a better job of policing their admissions programs under threat of losing any government subsidies they might enjoy. If they end up proving that they can’t police themselves, maybe consider taking the admissions process out of their hands altogether.
Spitballing here but maybe, if an institution fails to demonstrate that their submissions process is being conducted in an impartial manner, introduce a new system where they must instead select their candidates from a pool of preapproved students who earned their a spot via, I don’t know, a government-run qualification program.
3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You could also threaten the school itself with probation and audits. Parents aren't the ones that get federal funding, so government jurisdiction ends at the school
This is a point I can agree with, threaten sanctions against such schools, demand they do a better job of policing their admissions programs under threat of losing any government subsidies they might enjoy. If they end up proving that they can’t police themselves, maybe consider taking the admissions process out of their hands altogether.
Spitballing here but maybe, if an institution fails to demonstrate that their submissions process is being conducted in an impartial manner, introduce a new system where they must instead select their candidates from a pool of preapproved students who earned their a spot via, I don’t know, a government-run qualification program.
That would be all kinds of awful, but some regulations and enforcement might be reasonable, however whatever system you can think of. It will be run for the time being by betsy devos.
You could also threaten the school itself with probation and audits. Parents aren't the ones that get federal funding, so government jurisdiction ends at the school
This is a point I can agree with, threaten sanctions against such schools, demand they do a better job of policing their admissions programs under threat of losing any government subsidies they might enjoy. If they end up proving that they can’t police themselves, maybe consider taking the admissions process out of their hands altogether.
Spitballing here but maybe, if an institution fails to demonstrate that their submissions process is being conducted in an impartial manner, introduce a new system where they must instead select their candidates from a pool of preapproved students who earned their a spot via, I don’t know, a government-run qualification program.
That would be all kinds of awful, but some regulations and enforcement might be reasonable, however whatever system you can think of. It will be run for the time being by betsy devos.
Like I said, I hadn't really thought it out, hence the term "spitballing". That being said, if we're going to start criticizing all ideas because our current political situation is fucked, then we might as well start backsliding into nihilism again, which will just get this thread closed. I mean if we've now decided that our system of government has completely failed and can't be trusted to carry out it's mandate, we have far greater problems than college admissions fraud.
The schools themselves were the victims of fraud, not the perpetrators. Reforms could attempt to make decisions less discretionary, or more transparent, but that's about all you can do without still ultimately relying on humans not abusing their position.
The schools themselves were the victims of fraud, not the perpetrators. Reforms could attempt to make decisions less discretionary, or more transparent, but that's about all you can do without still ultimately relying on humans not abusing their position.
The schools were, arguably, both. They were the victims in this particular case, but only insofar as the parents didn't participate in the front-door bribery that is the norm, and tried to get in for less. Unless Truly Young getting accepted into the multimillion-dollar Andre Young School of the Arts at the University of Southern California is considered perfectly legitimate and above board.
The schools themselves were the victims of fraud, not the perpetrators. Reforms could attempt to make decisions less discretionary, or more transparent, but that's about all you can do without still ultimately relying on humans not abusing their position.
Not sure I agree.
Do we know if any of the schools detected the fraudulent admissions cases when the students sucked at the sport and/or classes?
If the students otherwise performed to standard, then I don't think the school was harmed at all, as the quality of their alumni was not harmed.
If they did not, and they were still allowed to graduate, then the schools have perpetuated the fraud through not giving appropriate care to the quality of students that graduated through them.
The third option is that the schools noticed their new intake had the handwriting skills of a primary school kid, and informed the authorities whilst preventing the student from graduating, and then I'm not sure what harm there would have been done to the school.
I guess they don't get paid for the classes the ejected student won't be attending?
Posts
So as long as you are able to setup a RICO hierarchy of plausible deniability, the beneficiary of criminal fraud should be able to continue to benefit?
What, like a backwards RICO, where the one benefiting from the criminal activity isn't the mastermind giving the orders? Depends on who you rooted for in Les Misérables, I guess
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As LGM points out:
Is Fraud a big deal or not?
Some of the arguments I've seen here read to me like "Committing fraud is no big deal if we cannot definitively establish that a lasting harm has been committed"
So, are we to accept that the various college submission processes that exist be considered to be more like Guidelines, which people should feel free to circumvent if they have the means to do so, provided no physical violence is involved?
Are we ok with the fact that a potentially brilliant, but non-rich, young person was likely denied entry into a prestigious school because their spot was bumped by a likely less qualified, but richer, kid?
I mean, it sucks for the rich kid if they were (falsely) led to believe that they earned their spot in college, but them getting that spot means someone else was denied. Even if they are capable of succeeding in the course work, I feel it's fair to assume that the bumped kid was likely to be just as, if not more, successful. Shouldn't the opportunity that was denied the qualified candidate be considered a lasting harm, to that candidate as well as to society, as that kid may have made a lasting contribution thanks to an education they no longer have access to?
Why do we appear to be operating on the assumption that the rich kid is just as valuable in this equation as the candidate they usurped?
Furthermore, what does it say about our society if we've decided that the response to Fraud has now become "eh, whaddya gonna do?"
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Most of the thread was debating whether the students should be expelled I think. Punishing the parents was a given.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I realize this is an older post, but the problem as I see it is not that the students got in through unknowing fraud, it's that the universities have made entry so difficult that fraud may be the only way to get in. Education shouldn't be a brand. Any same degree (e.g. mechanical engineer) from a certified ABET university should be valued equally.
and this:
@Gundi seems to feel that "prestigious universities don't actually offer practical benefits for most students" which I feel is demonstrably false. Perhaps for messed up reasons, but false nonetheless, which looks like it informs his feelings that kicking the kids out, who are benefitting from their parent's fraudulent activity "seems harsh". If a child is denied an opportunity due to their parents' malfeisance, that sucks, but that's an issue between the child and the parent. The harm committed against this child was committed by the parent, in this case, not society. The kid you bumped didn't get a degree from that school, why should you?
Meanwhile, @Polarite seems to be arguing that the thread hasn't succeeded in justifying the vitriol directed at the perpetrators of this kind of fraud, repeating that he doesn't feel it's "just" to punish the students who benefited from the fraud in fraud in question.
So I suppose that means my previous post is more directly directed at them and those who agree with them than perhaps at the entire thread in general.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That may be, but the students are the beneficiaries of that fraud. If some guy steals a bunch of Salvation Army kettles, but then gives the money he stole to the Girl Scouts so that they can afford their camping trip that year, because his daughter is in that troupe, the Girl Scouts may be blameless, and they could really use the funds, but that doesn't mean they get to keep the proceeds of the crime!
Heck you might even believe that the Salvation Army had it coming because a news story came out that their board is corrupt, but that doesn't change the fact that that money doesn't belong to the Girl Scouts, no matter how good the work they do is!
Analogies to physical objects don't work for non-physical objects.
To make the analogy more accurate, let's say the Girl Scouts went on that camping trip and spent the money before discovering the crime. Now what?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Reading that story, it sounds like the coach might have just grifted him. Already had a son on the team, mother is an alumnus, regularly throws money at the team anyway, etc.
Maybe that's enough, maybe he tried to grease the wheels anyway, but, IF Zhang is telling the truth: My favorite part is when he told the realtor to take the first offer and was surprised it was so much less than he paid.
My recommendation would be that the thief be exposed, made to repay the Salvation Army in full, pay some form of reparation to the Girl Scouts for exposing them to his iniquity, and his daughter be banned from further Girl Scout activities. I believe it is important that society sets a firm precedent to ensure that parents understand that their child is not more deserving of opportunities because they lack ethical standards. It sucks that the little girl will be denied further opportunities, yes, but I would hope that she will grow to understand that it was because her dad was a fuckwit, and not because society is unfair. Furthermore, I would hope that the parent will also learn that if he truly wants what's best for his little girl in the future, he'll consider more carefully how his actions affect her. In the longer term, my hope would be that such a little girl would grow up now knowing that she can't expect things to just be given to her own eventual children just because she got rich and/or sneaky.
It's the whole "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" fallacy applied at a societal level. Essentially, it feels to me like we're making allowances for abhorrent behaviour by allowing parents to use their kids as hostages. That's fucking gross! And while you might describe my solution as akin to shooting the hostage, these kids will be FINE! Their parents are rich, they'll get over it! Denying a rich kid access to the degree of their choice is not nearly as likely to cause as much lasting harm to them as it might to a less rich, but probably more deserving, kid who was denied that opportunity alltogether for reasons completely outside their control.
This goes against a major precept in our society - we don't hold the child accountable for the sins of the parent.
What kind of reparation is there for a fraudulently acquired education? Make the degree holder forget what they learned? Several court ordered concussions? This is why analogies to physical things don't really work here.
They still get the knowledge but if you prevent them from any accreditation it takes a lot of the impact from studying at a school like that from you. Most people are just going to assume you were a drop out who could not handle an ivy league school and then your education is setback by years as you try to get your degree. If the schools were real dicks they could also prevent you from claiming any credits from classes you have already done so you could set peoples careers back by years.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is Illegal.
Credits earned must count as credits earned. Credits earned do not have to be considered equivalent to comparable courses and how that is done is dependent upon the content of the courses through mechanisms defined by regional accreditation.
Even if the students are expelled, the credits they completed must be honored. If those credits have equivalency agreements between other schools, they must be accepted.
There is no way around this. Period.
That could apply to students currently enrolled, but what about someone already out of school? Who received licensure in a profession based in part on that degree? What impact should that have on legally binding agreements made under the assumption of their qualifications? Do you have to audit any accounting documents they we're involved in? Fire any employees they were a hiring manager for?
This began at least as early as 2011, that means graduates who have been working somewhere for 4 years after graduating. It isn't as easy as requiring the cash equivalent of goods/ services stolen in restitution, because it doesn't really have one.
Criminal punishments always hurt more than just the criminal. For instance, a kid whose father goes to prison for stealing is fatherless and probably poor due to it. For some reason we don't have as much heart for those kids as posh kids whose families stole their education.
If they were deficient to the average criteria, expel them with the same path towards readmission as a student who received extended failing grades (usually some combination of taking coursework at a community college and meeting specific grade criteria to prove evidence that they can meet basic entrance requirements) and then allow for readmission within that timeframe.
If the student was the one responsible for the forgery/graft to get in, there isn't a worry here. There are mechanisms already in place like this to deal with students who fudge their way in somehow, and it does occasionally happen through forgery. It's nearly always immediate expulsion with no option for re-admittance.
But for students who could be reasonably assumed to have no idea of the event, test them against the average admittance criteria and let them either prove they should be there, or give them a path to earn their way back in the same as with any student.
Imagine I go out and steal a bunch of Girl Scout cookies, take them home and feed them to my kids. Suppose my kids don’t know and never asked me to steal, making them blameless in my crime. I’m later caught. Do we make my children regurgitate the cookies? Do we punish them at all for eating stolen cookies if they didn’t know?
Now, if not all the cookies are eaten, sure, you can make an argument to give the rest back. Or if my kids encouraged me to steal cookies or knew about the theft and didn’t report the crime, they should be held accountable.
Education can’t be taken back since it’s time and effort, just like you can’t give back eaten cookies. Unless you like poop.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
While it is easy to want to tell the rich children of rich families to go to heck because they will likely still end up fine, I doubt there is a way to just hurt the rich kids and not students like that Louisiana school.
Frankly, it sounds like the schools already lack ethical standards by allowing the very rich to buy their way in through school donation programs.
I'd be for ensuring the school grants an extra non-donor position to another student for each position shown to be filled through bribes (perhaps under the same conditions as the fraudulent position, especially where the position was meant to be for a disadvantaged student).
That way the schools are forced to take the hit to their exclusivity because of their behaviour, and the damage to other candidates is remediated without unnecessarily punishing the rich kid for his parent's actions.
The school is probably going to revoke the kid's qualifications anyway to protect themselves.
Which should also be disallowed in my opinion.
So there are schools and then there are schools.
You can't totally stop ivy league private colleges from accepting donations nor for really having those donations impact admissions. Because they are private entities run by garbage people.
You can probably make it harder for the same to apply to public schools, but part of why such practices happen occasionally in public schools is because that 3 million dollar endowment is replacing a portion of the 1-5% budget cut the state has cut from their budget every year for going on 20 years straight. Which is why you see buildings and laboratories named after wealthy patrons and people are generally ok with that form of problem, but when its lining one person's pocketbook (like with the current situation) the claws come out. There are acceptable levels of gray. Problematic levels, but acceptable.
Saying private schools lack ethical standards is like calling the sky blue. That's been true since their foundation decades/centuries ago.
Saying public schools lack ethical standards ignores the consistent pitfall and desperate search for funding to continue the mission of actually staying open the educate the general populace.
This isn't to say these concerns aren't there. But the application between paying a guy and funding a school are very different and while both are problematic and should be avoided, they aren't perhaps the same problem.
https://whyy.org/segments/suburban-schools-residency-enforcement-disproportionately-affects-kids-of-color/
*spit take*
It's super common.
Same. And largely the same reason; the school was only marginally "better" (both districts were suburban) but it was mostly about not wanting to leave all my friends behind halfway through high school. And yeah, half my teachers and half the office knew, and didn't care, even though I was a total discipline case and super low-achiever. They liked me, I suppose. But yeah, if the district office found out I'd have been bounced quicker than shit. Free to take my credits to another high school, but no longer welcome in my current one.
I'd treat it like a security clearance, or other ongoing qualification requirement. Losing it today may mean you no longer get to perform the functions of your job, however in some cases is may not impugn any work done previously. You were properly qualified at the time, your license was valid at the time, etc. the work performed should still be acceptable.
I would agree it's probably not a knot worth unraveling just to punish a few failkids. But at the same time, unless we throw a pretty heavy book at the parents who committed the fraud (hahaha they have money so no) then allowing them to maintain the credential from the university just encourages the fraud. Because if the worst case scenario is you pay some fines and look dumb on TMZ (assuming you're one of the few famous ones), and your kid still gets to go to the school and keep their degree, then that's just part of the price now. And likely worth the risk.
We know damn well none of these kids have loans. At most they lose a couple more years of having to go to school. Make them take their credits, transfer them somewhere they can legitimately get in, perform the minimum credits at the new institution required to graduate, and get a new degree.
Or just throw the parents in real prison for acceptable lengths of time. Either works for me.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is a point I can agree with, threaten sanctions against such schools, demand they do a better job of policing their admissions programs under threat of losing any government subsidies they might enjoy. If they end up proving that they can’t police themselves, maybe consider taking the admissions process out of their hands altogether.
Spitballing here but maybe, if an institution fails to demonstrate that their submissions process is being conducted in an impartial manner, introduce a new system where they must instead select their candidates from a pool of preapproved students who earned their a spot via, I don’t know, a government-run qualification program.
Like I said, I hadn't really thought it out, hence the term "spitballing". That being said, if we're going to start criticizing all ideas because our current political situation is fucked, then we might as well start backsliding into nihilism again, which will just get this thread closed. I mean if we've now decided that our system of government has completely failed and can't be trusted to carry out it's mandate, we have far greater problems than college admissions fraud.
The schools were, arguably, both. They were the victims in this particular case, but only insofar as the parents didn't participate in the front-door bribery that is the norm, and tried to get in for less. Unless Truly Young getting accepted into the multimillion-dollar Andre Young School of the Arts at the University of Southern California is considered perfectly legitimate and above board.
Not sure I agree.
Do we know if any of the schools detected the fraudulent admissions cases when the students sucked at the sport and/or classes?
If the students otherwise performed to standard, then I don't think the school was harmed at all, as the quality of their alumni was not harmed.
If they did not, and they were still allowed to graduate, then the schools have perpetuated the fraud through not giving appropriate care to the quality of students that graduated through them.
The third option is that the schools noticed their new intake had the handwriting skills of a primary school kid, and informed the authorities whilst preventing the student from graduating, and then I'm not sure what harm there would have been done to the school.
I guess they don't get paid for the classes the ejected student won't be attending?