April 11, 2019--Yale for Sale

Tuesday, in Boston, federal prosecutors threw the book at more than a dozen parents who refused to cooperate or plead guilty to illegal activities they engaged in to assure their children were admitted undeservedly to some of America's most selective colleges.

By adding fraud and money laundering to the initial cluster of charges prosecutors significantly upped the ante so that, if convicted, the accused could spend 40 years in the slammer. Though 10 years for first-time offenders is more likely that's still a lot of hard time.

Among Tuesday's defendants was Hollywood actress, Lori Loughlin who must have mistaken the court appearance for a Red Carpet event as she appeared all glammed up, smiling as she shook hands with the prosecutors and worked the courtroom, posing while signing autographs for some of those observing the hearing.

Orange jumpsuits, then, may turn out to be the new black.

Thinking more about the admissions game, I have a few heretical thoughts--

Though I love lacrosse and field hockey I do not see why students who engage in these and other sports, when applying for admission, are given a leg up. Including, if they qualify for the varsity team, full scholarships. With tuition at many of these elite places totaling more than $50,000 a year, this is quite a deal. 

And, as we are learning, this arrangement presents opportunities for corrupt coaches with admission vouchers to make a fortune in bribes.

Rather than admission by coaches' prerogative (sport-by-sport they are given x number of dedicated places in each incoming freshman class) in addition to the old fashioned way of seeking admission (doing well on the SATs and in high school course work, evidence of a commitment to public service, writing a persuasive personal statement, and securing and submitting strong letters of recommendation), why not put a few dozen slots aside for the highest applicant cash bidders? Doing it unabashedly and with full transparency?

For example, a few million dollars contributed to the scholarship fund that focuses on low-income students, or to the development of a new major in, say, computer science, or to upgrade the library, or to build a new dorm "buys" your child a coveted place in the incoming class.

Additionally, the $500,000 of under-the-table payoffs Loughlin and her husband allegedly made available so their daughter (who incidentally on Facebook says she has no interest in going to college) would be admitted to USC, the beneficiary of the bribing is just their daughter and her parents who would have bragging rights about their child's "achievement." 

But, by my scheme, buying one's way into, say, Yale, would benefit many students and could be viewed as an act of generosity. It also would be tax deductible!

We might as well cynically but truthfully admit that the rich have many more lifelong advantages than people with fewer assets. Including all sorts of benefits they can afford to provide when it comes to their children preparing for and, one way or another, seeking admission to college.

My suggestion, which I am liking more-and-more as I think about it, at least goes some way to level the playing field. Pun intended.