This story reminds me of the stories that were common on my country of origin in South America. We had free high level education, but there was a system rigged to preserve nepotism. I was in Russia for the World Cup in 2018 and heard the same crap.
The US has evolved a similar rigging for our privileged. We supply various obscure sports accolades that can be purchased for the children of wealthy families to obtain admission to our leading universities. Unfortunately our schemes have also been exposed and a number of people are being prosecuted. So for the moment one must resort to investing in rather costly facility construction or similar expansion projects while we develop low cost alternatives to replace the now compromised schemes.
IMHO the situation of the USA is worlds apart from what I experienced as a kid in South America. The systemic corruption is normalized in Latin America. I remember when my dad bought a car that looked nice and we considered trading it because transit cops would stop us every now and then to get a tip from us. If we didn't agree to tip, we could potentially be arrested and paying your way out of the commissary was more expensive. The privileged had government printed plates that stopped cops messing with the occupants of the car.
I came to the USA to have the future I couldn't have back there, and I call bullshit on your comparison. I didn't go to an ivy league school, I went to a public school, and today I make hiring decisions over engineering candidates with Ivy League school backgrounds. That type of social mobility is a fantasy in South America and the other countries you are trying to compare with the USA.
100% the US is better than the more corrupt countries in the world, even if it does seem we tend to have more problems than the other first world countries. But on nepotism, I wonder if it’s not just that we are somewhat more against nepotism, and more that there’s wealth of opportunity here such that parents can help their children in potentially dubious ways while still leaving plenty of positions and money to go around for everyone else. There’s always a bit of a back and forth pull between culture creating a countries conditions and conditions creating a countries culture after all.
It's even simpler than that, the US has a codified system of nepotism in place called legacy admissions, which has been in place for several decades [1].
> In a deposition, Rakesh Khurana, dean of the college, said a legacy preference can foster another kind of diversity: placing people with deep Harvard experience alongside those without it.
They refer to nepotism as "deep Harvard experience", that's the only difference.
Technically nepotism means giving favors to your own family, not granting membership to your exclusive school to people of the same family. Your real issue is that this private school is still seen as exclusive despite doing this, and that the legacy admits gain unearned reputation due to their admission. But this is not Harvard's doing, they do not control what others think of their students. This is the rest of society being ignorant.
A better example of nepotism in college admissions has occurred in the past where Governors or other politicians had the ability to give scholarships at major universities in their state, and they customarily gave these to their own children or those of friends. For that matter many school overtly give benefits to their faculty and staff such as free tuition for immediate family members. Perhaps even an easier chance at admission for some.
Hmmm, there probably is actually a benefit to the other students there, but not “Harvard Experience.” Assuming the child of a previous Harvard grad is more likely to have important social connections than the average applicant, them being at the school gives other people potential opportunity to make connections through them. And connections do of course matter a lot.
Regardless, the reason colleges actually do legacy admissions both seems obvious and isn’t something they’re likely to say. It makes Alumni happy, and keeping Alumni happy is how you get those fat $donations$.
I view the legacy stuff as a but more nuanced. Universities want to admit people that really want to go there, and that will increase their prestige later through some combination of espousing the benefits of that school, becoming famous, or becoming successful. It's not hard to see how the legacy systems tick a few of these boxes automatically, making those candidates seem slightly better than others (if nothing else, the candidate probably really wants this as their college over any other choices, and will likely have more pressure from self and family to complete college and do well).
The problem then, as I see it, is not legacy consideration helping people get admitted, but legacy considerations overriding the other criteria. If legacy considerations where only a 15-20% in applicant suitability, I think most people wouldn't be that upset about it. When it leads to wholly and obviously unsuitable people going, that's probably when the legacy system has gone out of control.
More nuanced nepotism is...nepotism. You're basically saying that whether or not your parents went to some school should positively influence as much as one-fifth of the consideration of whether you could go to a school or not.
That is, if you scored this in a rubric, some kid whose parents went to Harvard would score 20 and I would score 0. That is wrong on a fundamental level. It's a bit like anti-affirmative action.
I am fine with this system as it stands. However, it is wildly inconsistent with the pearl-clutching top comment (I know, not you) spewing stuff about the "Western sense of morality".
> That is, if you scored this in a rubric, some kid whose parents went to Harvard would score 20 and I would score 0. That is wrong on a fundamental level.
Is it? Why?
I think it depends on the amount of government funding they get. For a completely private university, is it wrong? I think it's wrong for a university that gets a majority of its funding from the state to act this way, but for universities that have giant billion dollar endowments? Sure, let them manage at least some of the admissions somewhat as they would as if private.
> It's a bit like anti-affirmative action.
It's exactly like affirmative action, except to benefit the university. I think being able to apply this on some small percentage of the students, maybe five percent, is acceptable.
It's going to happen, why not account for it and control it rather than make everyone involved act like it isn't happening and then we just have a vague sense that it happens but little info and control over it?
Not the author, but it could be either. For donations 10-40x as large as those in the recent fraud I think you're referencing the Universities are absolutely fine letting students in.
While I’m not so sure all of the universities were as blissfully ignorant as they claim, what does it matter? The system was still rigged in favor of wealthier applicants with or without the schools’ knowledge and awareness of the scheme.
Suppose you’re the president or another executive at a major university. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you are entirely amoral. You find out that one of your employees is taking bribes, falsifying athletic recruit records, and personally pocketing the money. Do you:
(a) look the other way because you like rigging the system, or
(b) fire them and call the FBI.
I think (b) is the clear answer. Even if you want the children of the rich and powerful in your university, you want to
know who they are, you want to collect any money that comes with it into the university’s coffers, and you do not want your employees enriching themselves at your university’s expense.
Add in the fact that most universities’ presidents are unlikely to be entirely amoral, and I think it’s pretty hard to conclude that this particular incident indicates corruption at the top levels.
(Sure, one might argue that the fact that athletic recruiting requests are considered at all for admissions is a problem, but the case in question wasn’t really about this.)
If it was corruption because employees lied, violated their employment contracts, etc. in return for bribes, then the system is not "rigged". Important distinction, because in one case the system actually is striving to be better, even if humans break rules now and then.
"We supply various obscure sports accolades that can be purchased for the children of wealthy families to obtain admission to our leading universities."
? I don't really think this is the mechanism.
When major donors, who are alumni and part of the institution, ask for a favour to have a slot for their kid ... to me that may seem 'unfair' but it's also above bar if the school wants to do that and I have no problem with it so long as it doesn't take up a huge share of any particular intake.
Polo, sailing, rowing, football, basketball, baseball... You name it; for a few hundred thousand you can have fake sports credentials fabricated -- complete with photoshopped team memberships -- and get yourself pencil-whipped into UoT, Yale, UCLA, USD, Georgetown, etc.
