The recent college admissions scandal has received a lot of attention. Unfortunately, there’s a great deal of confused thinking on this issue. Here’s the NYT, discussing the criticism received by parents who bribed college officials:
The playwright David Mamet, the couple’s friend and collaborator of many decades, sprang to their defense in an open letter urging people to hate the game of corrupt college admissions rather than hate these players, whose parental instincts were understandable.
That’s doubly wrong. David Mamet’s friends (and others like them) are a big part of the “game of corrupt college admissions”. And his friends should be stigmatized (and perhaps jailed) despite the fact that their actions are understandable.
The following survey may not be accurate, but it suggests the problem may be more than just a few bad apples:
If you had the money, would you bribe a college official to get your child admitted?
Fifteen percent of all American adults would answer yes, according to a new poll. And that number rises to 25 percent for adults who actually have children ages 18 and under. . . .
Even more parents — 34 percent — said they would be willing to pay someone to take an entrance exam on behalf of their child to get him or her into a good college. Of the general public, 20 percent said they would do so.
This is certainly understandable, as most parents have an instinct to help their child. But cheating is still wrong.
One purpose of culture is to discourage anti-social instincts, and some cultures do so more effectively than others. Thus Denmark is probably ahead of the US in this area, and the US is probably ahead of many other countries where one’s obligations to the family are especially strong. Think of cultures where nepotism is the norm.
Cultures don’t just differ geographically, they also change over time. Singapore is a good example, becoming less corrupt in recent decades. Ironically, David Mamet is a particularly effective “cultural engineer”. Plays such as Glengarry Glen Ross expose the corrosive effects of corruption (in the real estate industry.) This sort of narrative art makes corruption less socially acceptable. Jail time for corrupt parents would also tend to stigmatize the activity, and thus deter other parents who have an “understandable” urge to give their kids an unfair advantage.
Now you might argue that Mamet said we shouldn’t hate these people, and that’s certainly true. But in context, I suspect he was also arguing against stigmatizing them and giving them jail time. While I have great respect for Mamet’s artistic skills, I believe in this case he’s letting his personal feelings for his friends bias his judgment. (Again, that’s “understandable”.) But the fact that an activity is “understandable” is not a reason to punish it less severely. If anything, the opposite is often true. It’s precisely because I understand these parents’ behavior that I believe deterrence would work. If a madman does something randomly, something I don’t understand, I’m less confident that deterrence would work.
Punishing anti-social behavior is a good way to improve a culture. Unfortunately, we also punish lots of behavior that is not anti-social, but is viewed that way. But that’s the subject for another post.
READER COMMENTS
Michael Sandifer
Mar 24 2019 at 12:30am
Scott,
Why jail time for bribing people in private organizations? I could come closer to agreeing for those bribing their way into public colleges, which are more directly and heavily subsidized and would involve bribing government employees. But, why should the otherwise non-criminal conduct of parents and students be a government concern at private schools?
By the way, it already seems that much of what elite private schools claim to stand for are shams. One look at the Harvard and Yale endowments tells you they could afford to grestly expand the student body,. and lower tuition.
Is it merely a coincidence that Harvard and Yale have endowments about an order of magnitude larger than those of average state universities, and with administrators paid an order of magnitude more in salary?
Robert EV
Mar 27 2019 at 12:05am
People pay money to take these various tests, and also generally pay money to be considered for admission at a particular university.
Course selections from fraudulently admitted students can alter what courses are available to other students. Fraudulently admitted students can also use up resources that non-fraudulently admitted students might have used instead.
The act of bribing causes legal harm to the uncountable many of other students and applicants.
Dustin
Mar 27 2019 at 1:23pm
What do you mean by “bribing people in private organizations”?
These parents are committing fraud against universities and their admissions processes and are doing so in conspiracy with a third party (the “admissions consultant” they pay large sums to). Conspiring to commit fraud and actually committing fraud are both illegal acts.
Doing criminal things to help your child get a leg up doesn’t make those things not criminal.
Mark Brophy
Mar 28 2019 at 10:02pm
Incarcerating people for fraudulent college application is absurd. What’s next, jailing people for lying on their resume? What’s the difference between a resume and a college application? Isn’t a resume an application to a job?
Nick
Mar 24 2019 at 12:56am
(Repeating this on the main thread.)
I don’t really know the specifics of the incident here but, as long as the college is private and the contracts are written down, I don’t see why a college cannot pick arbitrarily the people who chosen to enter its gates.
Again, this is nothing uncommon. Plenty of technology firms organise events, conferences and probably even interviews exclusively to minorities (off the top of my head I can name at least 3 such major conferences). Even as someone who has been lifelong been excluded from such attractions, I do not express a desire to bring the state into activities which are essentially non-criminal. And as such, out of consistency, I do not think I can declare the former as a criminal event.
Does this result in a socially suboptimal outcome? Perhaps, markets result in suboptimal outcomes all the time. Is this an excuse to pretend that the state needs to get involved? Of course not.
I’m no Rothbardian, I do not subscribe to optimality of market outcomes. But I do not think using emotions to decide policy sets a good precedent.
Dustin
Mar 27 2019 at 1:28pm
Your opening line “I don’t really know the specifics of the incident here” is central to the remainder of your post being off the mark.
The universities are knowingly accepting unqualified students in exchange for payoffs (sure, private universities can accept who they like). They are accepting students under the false pretense of qualification due to fraudulent admissions applications.
Dustin
Mar 27 2019 at 1:29pm
Sorry! Meant to say .. “the universities *aren’t* knowingly accepting…”
Nick
Mar 29 2019 at 12:33am
Well, if they’re committing a fraud I don’t see why this is news enough to warrant a National discussion. At least, I don’t see why this deserves more discussion than the common thuggery, theft, violation of contractual obligation occurring everyday that makes not its way beyond local news. We clearly have laws in place and any incidents violating justice should be dealt as such. I don’t see anything that warrants a discussion calling for a ‘change of culture’ as Dr Sumner here prefers.
To me it is clear that this is simply an excuse to pretend that voluntary transactions are somehow more sinful than involuntary “meritocratic” ones. I can certainly get behind the idea, perhaps it is even in my “class interest” to do so. But I do not find it entertaining to pretend that government should take up the mantle of ensuring “meritocracy”.
Again, I’d personally love it, strictly speaking, I’m usually deserving than most people in the “meritocratic” sense but my interest in anti-statism has warped my sense of morality, I strongly advocate voluntary transactions to involuntary ones.
Niko Davor
Mar 24 2019 at 12:31pm
Here, Sumner advocates the sanctity of government university borders, and advocates shaming + punishment for those that pay smugglers to get them through the university border rules so that they can have normal student membership and purchase classes for credit on prestigious university soil.
Yet this site advocates against national admissions, and celebrates foreigners bribing and cheating through the national admission process, so that foreigners can have full membership privileges that they have no legal claim to under status quo laws and traditions. This site advocates cheating around rules that one considers immoral.
Mark
Mar 24 2019 at 8:54pm
Hypothetically, suppose 20% of the world’s economy was legally reserved for Harvard alumni, and Harvard automatically admitted all children of its alumni while subjecting everyone else to arbitrary standards primarily based on family connections with strict national origin quotas. That seems pretty unfair, doesn’t it? So unfair that cheating wouldn’t be so bad?
Scott Sumner
Mar 24 2019 at 12:49pm
Michael, So are you saying it’s not illegal? BTW, the scandal also includes paying others to take an SAT test, which is fraud.
Niko, You said:
“Here, Sumner advocates the sanctity of government university borders”
Yup, and also the sanctity of my house, my backyard, a movie theatre, a private parking lot, and lots of other pieces of property.
Niko Davor
Mar 24 2019 at 8:06pm
ok, but your house and a movie theater are privately owned. The public university system is government owned.
Next, you say “cheating is still wrong”, yet on the national immigration issue, this site quite aggressively advocates cheating on rules you don’t like.
Scott Sumner
Mar 24 2019 at 11:16pm
Niko, I’m not aware of that advocacy. In any case, people don’t much care if someone trespasses on a publicly owned university. The complaint is using fraud to get a diploma, which has market value.
Niko Davor
Mar 25 2019 at 12:35pm
Sumner, come on. Of course you are aware of Caplan’s advocacy to cheat, and break laws, to immigrate illegally. Caplan has shouted that from the roof tops.
Trespassing is overlooked on universities only due to strict e-verify processes to stop trespassers from enrolling in courses for credit or obtaining degrees or having the privileges of other students who study on the university soil.
Nick
Mar 29 2019 at 12:46am
Niko,
Dr Caplan has argued that immigration laws are unjust and immoral and as such must be torn down. The current incident at discussion is a case of contractual obligation violation.
A parallel to the current issue at hand, if it indeed is a violation of justice, is a thief breaking into a house, which is considered “private property”. Violation of immigration laws do not, in a strict legal sense, constitute violation/trespassing of private property, unless you consider the entire country your private property, which it isn’t.
If you really consider the entire country to be your private property, please let the rest of the world know. Otherwise, from a legal standpoint, your assertions are baseless. You could put forth your arguments about the negative effects of immigration and advocate a stricter policy, but the fact remains that no rights per se are violated by immigration alone and therefore, your insinuations are not grounded in reality.
Perhaps you should consult the theoretician, Dr Walter Block, who argues for open borders under the natural rights theory.
Mark Brady
Mar 24 2019 at 2:00pm
There’s fraud and fraud. If I were to offer a product for sale and make unsubstantiated claims for its performance, you might say that I am practicing a deception on the public at large, and that it should be treated as a crime. However, if I bribe an employee or cheat on a test in order to get my child admitted to a private college, you might say that I am engaged in deceiving only the college admissions office, and that it should be handled as a tort, which would make me liable for damages, perhaps punitive damages, payable to the college. And if the college so chose, those damages could be used to finance scholarships for deserving student applicants.
Mark Brady
Mar 24 2019 at 2:25pm
As I think about the matter further, I suggest that there is an analogy here with whether insider trading should be treated as a crime or as a potential breach of trust by those who engage in insider trading. Readers may be interested to learn that insider trading (what the Brits call insider dealing) was not illegal in the United Kingdom until 1980 when Mrs. Thatcher’s government first made this activity illegal. (Companies Act 1980, Section V.)
Michael Sandifer
Mar 24 2019 at 4:39pm
Scott,
Apparently, this bribery and fraud is illegal, but that doesn’t mean it should be. I don’t think street drugs should be illegal either. On this issue, perhaps you’re more statist than I am, and I’m a Democrat.
Okay, so some kids cheated on SATs. If they’re only trying to defraud private institutions, should it be a concern of government?
Mark Z
Mar 24 2019 at 6:09pm
Should it only be illegal to defraud the state? That certainly doesn’t seem like the standard Democratic position.
Michael Sandifer
Mar 24 2019 at 7:15pm
I could say I’m not a typical Democrat, but then there are many types of Democrats. We’re not just the fringe and center-left.
Michael Sandifer
Mar 24 2019 at 7:31pm
I’m more libertarian than most, but not due to ideology. It just so happens that free markets usually produce better outcomes than government.
Scott Sumner
Mar 24 2019 at 11:20pm
All sorts of types of fraud are illegal. Perhaps it should be legal, but that’s not just about colleges, it includes tax fraud, accounting fraud, pyramid schemes, email fraud by Nigerian princes, etc. etc. I’d have to be convinced that fraud should be legal; it’s not obvious to me.
Michael Sandifer
Mar 25 2019 at 8:08pm
Scott,
I rather think the burden of proof rests on those wanting to make an act illegal. Why should the government expend resources to defend the admissions standards at private universities? It is not even degrees being stolen here. All who get into universities still have to earn their degrees.
Also, it’s not as if the admissions requirements areentirely based on acadmic merit. Aren’t legacy, athletic talent, ability to pay, and coming from well-connected families all factors? Have big donors never gotten legal legs up for their children?
And when it comes to elite private schools, isn’t exposure to the social network really what people are paying for? The classes I took at state U. had the same material as is studied at Harvard. Calculus is calclus. The Mankiw econ. texts are used at many state U’s too.
I certainly don’t like what the accused did in this case and think it should be discouraged, but at public expense? True, it’s not quite so cut and dry, as private universities also get direct and indirect subsidies, but not nearly to the degree state universities do.
I’m not sure the benefits of expending public resources to enforce admissions standards at private universities are worth the costs.
Michael Sandifer
Mar 25 2019 at 8:32pm
And perhaps it’s too obvious, but I think it’s especially troublesome that some income tax dollars from lower-earning Americans are going to enforce admissions standards at expensive private universities.
We don’t punish all forms of fraud, nor should we. It’s perfectly legal, for example, to pretend to love someone who bestows gifts in return. It’s an awful thing to do, but shouldn’t be criminal.
I feel similarly about the Elon Musk tweets that are getting him in trouble. Sure, his tweet about taking the company private meets a strict definition of fraud, but is it best to have an SEC to try to enforce regulations, the enforcement of which may do more harm to Tesla shareholders than good? If Musk is forced to step down, is that good for the world, on net?
Or, should we just have this be a civil matter and let people sue Musk and Tesla for their demonstrable losses and court costs? I favor the latter.
Tom DeMeo
Mar 27 2019 at 10:08am
I can take your point about single level fraud. If someone misrepresents athletic accomplishments to get a slot on the water polo team, or cheats on SAT’s, that’s direct fraud.
Where I part company is when you are caught paying others to commit fraud in order to orchestrate a more complex result. That can have almost unlimited social consequence and can be far more dangerous.
Mark
Mar 24 2019 at 9:06pm
I am actually reassured that some of these parents cared so much to spend huge sums of money to get their kids into elite universities. When I grew up, the rich families for the most part didn’t care a whit about their kids going to elite universities. Mostly their kids went to a state school to party for four years then take a position in the family business or live off family money. I went to an elite college and when we had our pre-summer meetups for the admitted students from my area, it was a mix of nerds and middle-class strivers (many with foreign-born parents despite my area having few immigrants), no real rich kids. In some ways, it is a good sign that our culture is becoming more appropriately intolerant of nepotism that rich families are trying to credential their kids just like everyone else.
I also agree with the comments that this seems to be government overreach. I don’t think the government should enforce the rules of private institutions such as ETS or FIFA. If a private organization can’t enforce its own corruption rules, it will lose credibility in the market.
That said, I totally support shaming the parents and the universities. If the universities start paying a higher reputational price for these sorts of matters, they will make their admissions systems more fair.
BC
Mar 24 2019 at 11:44pm
Regarding legality, participants seemed to have been charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud and conspiracy to commit racketeering.
I think employees commit honest services fraud when they breach their fiduciary duties to (even private) employers. The courts apply a “reasonably foreseeable economic harm” test and a “materiality” test in these cases. They essentially are depriving their employers of honest services, not much different from a business defrauding its customers. So, the universities and testing companies were being defrauded by their employees. The conspiracy part probably applies when one isn’t the breaching employee oneself but is participating with the employee to defraud the employee’s employer.
Racketeering refers to running an illegal business. Perhaps, the illegal business is bribing employees to defraud their employers.
I’m not a lawyer, and the comments above reflect a cursory internet search, so take with a grain of salt.
Trent McBride
Mar 25 2019 at 7:02pm
I take the “hate the game” side here. I have no love for cheaters, but if the rules inspire cheating, maybe take a real hard look at the rules. (I’m referring more to paying bribes for artificially limited spots; the cheating on tests cannot be remotely justified). It’s like the NCAA: the model artificially and arbitrarily enforces amateurism at every turn (can’t even profit off your own likeness); the rule makers are begging for cheating, but the rules are just ridiculous, and they can’t really complain when that’s what we get. I mean after 70+ years of various and evolving scandals, maybe look in the mirror.
And really, let’s not forge the REAL villains here: those who asked for and took bribes. They have no argument for mitigation. They are out-and-out corrupt, and deserve severe punishment.
Lorenzo from Oz
Mar 25 2019 at 9:22pm
Mamet seems to be mounting the “but they are responding to incentives” defence. Which is precisely why we punish and stigmatise, to change the incentives. Unfortunately, as you imply, we can punish and stigmatise for bad reasons as well as good ones. This is not that sort of case, though.
We are, however, entitled to say that what generated such incentives is up for examination. For example, as Tyler Cowen pointed out, it is partly a result of grade inflation–once you’re in, the marking structure won’t weed you out much, so getting in is the bigger prize.
Hazel Meade
Mar 26 2019 at 12:34pm
Another possibility is that people smart enough to make it Harvard aren’t really that rare. Harvard is merely far more selective than necessary and the selections are largely arbitrary. Or maybe the real value of the degree is not the signaling value, but its use as a way to get accepted into elite circles. Lots and lots of people are smart enough to make it Harvard, but only a few have the door held open for them.
Floccina
Mar 26 2019 at 12:12pm
If you had the money, would you bribe a college official to get your child admitted?
I would not partly because I’ve read this.
But let me ask do you consider it corruption if someone votes to restrict building in their town to keep home prices up. I do.
Or to vote for a congressman who brings defense contracts to the district that you live in even if that’s not the best place for them?
Hazel Meade
Mar 26 2019 at 12:45pm
I think a good thing to know in this case is how much Harvard admission us determinative of future earnings, independent of intelligence (say, as measured by SAT scores). If just getting into Harvard commands a huge premium, independent of ability, that would justify going to great lengths to gain admission. If not, then publicizing that fact would make it less likely that people would try to cheat their way in.
If getting into Harvard does make a large difference then we have to ask why. Is it just signalling or is there something else going on, like the networking value of being at Harvard, and what can we do to open up those networks to other equally intelligent people.
Mark Z
Mar 29 2019 at 8:55am
Well, the studies by Dale and Krueger (Floccina links to an article discussing them just above) suggest that there isn’t much monetary benefit to going to a very prestigious school.
My suspicion is that, even though there’s very little benefit on average in terms of income, the ‘super elite’ of government and academia (but less so in industry) come very much disproportionately from the handful of very prestigious universities. I think there are very entrenched relationships – both formal and informal – between public and academic institutions of this caliber. These institutions and their faculty and administrators have the resources and institutional reputation to place their graduates (and former faculty) in positions of great influence, even at the expense of equally qualified people from other less prestigious universities, and these well-placed people can then use that influence to grant special privileges to other members of the elite university community. Institutional clout is self-replicating, in other words. It would be very difficult for an elite university that’s nonetheless less prestigious than Harvard and Yale to get access for their graduates to quite the same opportunities Harvard and Yale graduates have access to.
So, I guess this means, getting into Harvard doesn’t necessarily get you a significant increase in income; what it gets you is a much higher (by which I mean, .0001% instead of .00001%) chance of becoming a senator or a Nobel laureate some day. This is speculation of course.
Dustin
Mar 27 2019 at 1:40pm
I’d prefer to reinforce in my children the values of honesty and integrity than teach them it’s OK to cheat and lie in pursuit of individual gain. Where does the cheating and lying end?
Is it acceptable to cause harm to others just because that scale or incident of that harm isn’t immediately obvious? Hell, just rob a bank?
I’m squarely in the “hate both the game and the players” camp. It’s not as if lying to Harvard is the only path to a successful, fulfilling, and purposeful life.
God > country/society/civilization > self, in that order.
Mark Bahner
Mar 28 2019 at 12:02pm
Scott’s reply:
Yes, absolutely. I’m currently unemployed. If I saw an open armored truck parked by the side of the road with its back open, no one around, and stacks of $100 bills inside, it would be “understandable” if I took small stack for myself. (Not a lot…just a small stack! 😉 ).
But it’s still theft. Or grand theft, depending on the size of the small stack. 🙂
Comments are closed.