[Hank 91]

I remember reading someplace that almost all private universities put applications in two piles -- those from families who will likely donate $10M+ and everyone else. That's what this is really about, I think. You've got families of means who live on Wisteria Lane, but aren't in position to write eight-figure checks. So what are they to do? Sadly, this became an option for some. And if we're talking about families who CAN write checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems clear they aren't doing this for the betterment of their children, who already have tons of advantages. This is about prestige and bragging rights. Aunt Becky's daughters could go to Cal State Northridge and live happily ever after, but how would that play on TMZ? How would that look on the family Christmas card? Much better if they go to USC, right?

None of this is going to go away very soon. Like Winflop said above, I won't take any pleasure from any scandal that touches another school, but I truly hope we see no evidence of deeper involvement at Stanford.

---

Dershowitz's article is one of his better ones. He's curious how the kids admitted fraudulently actually performed against the 'real' matriculates. That is an interesting question.

This is an interesting question. If we're just talking about Stanford, and if I'm only talking about my own experience, I remember being very aware that there were students from my high school who hadn't been admitted but would have done at least as well as I did at Stanford. They had also done well in high school, but for whatever reason I had been admitted over them. Thirty years later, that's certainly still the case. My guess is that that's how people rationalize what they've done. If I pay half a million bucks to get my child in, and then my child does well, what's the harm? (I don't agree with that line of logic, but when you're breaking the law, I'd guess you only need a sliver of moral ground to help you sleep at night.)

[Hank 91]

I remember reading someplace that almost all private universities put applications in two piles -- those from families who will likely donate $10M+ and everyone else. That's what this is really about, I think. You've got families of means who live on Wisteria Lane, but aren't in position to write eight-figure checks. So what are they to do? Sadly, this became an option for some. And if we're talking about families who CAN write checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems clear they aren't doing this for the betterment of their children, who already have tons of advantages. This is about prestige and bragging rights. Aunt Becky's daughters could go to Cal State Northridge and live happily ever after, but how would that play on TMZ? How would that look on the family Christmas card? Much better if they go to USC, right?

None of this is going to go away very soon. Like Winflop said above, I won't take any pleasure from any scandal that touches another school, but I truly hope we see no evidence of deeper involvement at Stanford.

---

Dershowitz's article is one of his better ones. He's curious how the kids admitted fraudulently actually performed against the 'real' matriculates. That is an interesting question.

This is an interesting question. If we're just talking about Stanford, and if I'm only talking about my own experience, I remember being very aware that there were students from my high school who hadn't been admitted but would have done at least as well as I did at Stanford. They had also done well in high school, but for whatever reason I had been admitted over them. Thirty years later, that's certainly still the case. My guess is that that's how people rationalize what they've done. If I pay half a million bucks to get my child in, and then my child does well, what's the harm? (I don't agree with that line of logic, but when you're breaking the law, I'd guess you only need a sliver of moral ground to help you sleep at night.)