USC says it will deny all students linked to admissions scandal (and has denied six already)


“The way things are” can and should change. Making donations-for-admissions quid pro quos illegal would go a long way in that direction.

There is. It’s mostly the shock value of the extent of fraud and corruption and outright illegal behaviour involved in this case. That said, both doors have to be bricked over, because whether it’s Lori Loughlin’s little vlogger party girl or Jared Kushner, both doors allow in students who didn’t belong in the institution and allow them to trade on its name and prestige.

The worst that Loughlin’s daughter could have done with a USC degree is support her career as a social media influencer. Meanwhile, Jared’s Harvard degree is one of the justifications for giving him serious policy-making positions in the White House.


And dogs.

And porcupines.

And anything with floof…


Except for those who were much more deserving of being admitted. Institutionalized Bribery as a Viable Funding Method. Quite the lesson.


I’d be willing to bet you won’t see the back door bricked over any time soon, anymore than you’ll see the equally bonkers tipping system excised from the hospitality industry.

Even the possibility of treating the Jareds of the world like any other student (up to and including the possibility of flunking out) seems wildly optimistic…

Let’s say the goal is full public higher education, as in Germany. How do countries like the US and Canada get there from here?

So if some billionaire injects tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into an institution, you don’t think this creates seats not only for daddy’s little prince but also deserving students (albeit indirectly)? You don’t think some of that money goes to financial aid including full-ride scholarships for deserving students?

I’m not saying the system is good and proper, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater either.


I remember a scandal some time ago where this kind of thing happened for successful student-athletes playing for important university teams.


On back door payoffs, you and I differ. No problem. You have your opinion (and that’s okay!) and I believe that back door payoffs are a form of institutionalized corruption that’s been hiding in plain view for far too long. Let’s leave it at that. :neutral_face:


I’m not so sure. This scandal has brought a lot of attention to the back door, especially the high-profile example of Jared. After this I’m sure we’ll see some legislation proposed by progressive Dems in the House to make this practise difficult, if not illegal.

There will also be a lot more public speaking out by students who resent assorted Jared Kushners debasing the value of their school’s brands.

As discussed elsewhere, the real challenge with a school like Harvard (or USC) is getting in. Once you’re admitted, they do everything they can to make sure you don’t flunk out, whether you’re a wealthy dolt like Jared who got in through the back door or a scholarship student from the projects who got in through the front door.

The selective public schools (like UCLA) and STEM-focused schools like MIT are more challenging in that regard, but the public schools are not as dependent on the backdoor as the Ivies and private liberal arts colleges are and have to be accountable to taxpayers. Still, the racketeer was able to use the sports programme as a side door, and I’m sure some people get in through the back door like at every other American school.

The goal isn’t “full public higher education” in Germany. The goal is state-subsidised or free-at-point-of-purchase tuition to a certain dollar amount for any institution, private or public where the student is admitted.

Canada is getting there faster than the U.S., by the way. Tuition for Canadian citizens at Canada’s top-ranked R1 private university (University of Toronto) is around CAD$6,900/year. Tuition for U.S. citizens at the U.S.'s top-ranked R1 private university (Princeton) is around USD$44,000/year.


That would be a tough sell when it comes to private institutions. They could try saying that any institutions with back doors don’t get tax dollars. But outright dictating that a private business can’t have multiple streams? I don’t see that getting anywhere in the US.


Most of the high-end private institutions are non-profits, which are subject to more regulation. There might be a way in there based on stated mission (which, I assume, doesn’t require the admission of unqualified dimwits whose parents donate a building).

One way or another, the push-back on the side-door scandal is going to extend to trying to close the back doors, too. If the Stanford students can make their class action suit work there will doubtless be a follow-up regarding the Jareds of the world.


Except that would end up illegal because it violates NCAA athletics rules, which, in the case of fraud to hide them, are illegal. It’s rather the opposite of a school or its boosters paying the parents of an athlete to attend the school, but it’s still against NCAA regs.


One of the many endemic problems in American academia brought up in the aftermath of this scandal is that NCAA oversight is lax on sports other than men’s football and basketball. Although in one case a 5’5" dolt’s parents added 8" to his height in his profile to help make him seem suitable for USC’s basketball team.


It’s not that that far of a walk to get there. For public colleges, it’s easy. Number of students x tuition/fees/books = state funding + federal funding. For private colleges, government funds the student’s tuition/fees/books as long as they are enrolled in good standing.


I think the way to do it is by making the quid-pro-quo part of it illegal. An individual can donate, the school can accept, but the school also has to follow its admissions process for any student associated with the donating individual. Require the admissions process to be independent from the school’s finance arm. At some private universities, it already is.


Funny, I was writing up something similar and deleted it. It wouldn’t surprise me if either the NCAA’s enforcement division or the ongoing FBI Addidas pay-to-play investigation were the first ones to sniff this scheme out, through basketball recruiting violation sleuthing.


Relative of Santa Claus?


Go big or go home. Yet another lawsuit.


A (former) teacher… and those misspellings. Maybe she meant $500,000.


Yes, also outside the norm.

I agree with you that the system here is fucked. The reason people are getting arrested in this case is because this is outside what’s become the norm (which is fucked). That’s a very different discussion than critiquing the norm (which, as someone who works in higher ed, for probably only a couple of more months) is a problem that needs correcting.


Or so she says. Wouldn’t be surprised if she was actually an aide at a preschool or something.


Thank you, Tucker Carlson.


I guess that the university will also be disciplining/firing all the staff who ensured that these kids got in on althletic admissions (without continuing to compete once in college) etc… I’m sure they’ll also be refunding all funds donated by the families as well…

Wait, that’s not what they’re talking about?

Then this all sounds like a lot of “we have to discipline you to make a point, but we have no intent on cleaning up the actual issue at hand.”. Just like other questionable transactions, you can slip it in the backdoor if you have enough $…