I wonder if you can help me understand this better. Why does a specific private university need let in the smartest or most capable students? What does that have to be their goal or they are unjust? Why can't they have different reasons and goals when building their student body? I understand things like racism and other forms of bigotry. But what's wrong with adding some students that will bring in the perspective of the super wealthy? Not to mention the significant additional funds it will provide for everyone else?

It feels like having a purely merit based population of students would create a very stagnant and dull environment.

Well, they don't - but then they'll eventually get the reputation of being a party school rather than the prestige that goes with outstanding academics.

It feels like having a purely merit based population of students would create a very stagnant and dull environment.

'This university sucks! Everyone here is a nerd.'

OK, you probably did not mean it that way but I can't resist having a little fun with this. If all you want to do is shake things up, why not just draft random working class people via lottery? For extra amusement, make them go even if they don't want to. True, we would not learn anything about the perspective of the super wealthy, but they already have billboards and TV stations to inform us of their opinions.

Why is this any more corrupt than any other exchange of services for money?

Yes, there's a system available to the masses that the super-rich are bypassing using their wealth. The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"? What's different here?

If there's no dishonesty and nobody is harmed, what's the moral issue? Why are universities, unique among all society's institutions, required to operate as perfect meritocracies?

>> The same is true of anyone who flies by private jet, or anyone with private health insurance in a country where the vast majority of the population uses the public health system. Are these things "corrupt"?

Short answer: The difference lies in the transfer of wealth to the next generation and our meritocratic values.

As a society, we have a value system that we implicitly adhere to. At least in the US, meritocracy is big part of our value system.

We believe that if you work just as hard and contribute just as much as your neighbor, you deserve to enjoy the same quality of life.

So, let's look at some examples:

Example A) Person A works his/her ass off and becomes rich off the fruits of his labor. He then spends his riches on private jets and private health insurance.

Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? No. He deserves a higher quality of life because he worked his ass off.

Example B) Person A then purchases access to an elite university for his child, who as a direct result, enjoys a better life than his poorer peer who works just as hard.

Does this conflict with our meritocratic values? Yes. His child didn't deserve their higher quality of life because they didn't work their ass for it.

You don't have to agree with meritocratic values, but it explains the difference.

I'm happy to concede that it's a violation of the ideal of meritocracy, and already did. But so, for that matter, is buying your child a private jet or buying your child health insurance that others can't afford. It's the fact that money is being spent by a parent on a child who hasn't earned it that makes it unmeritocratic. The case of this being done for a university place is still not special, and it's still not corrupt.

They're private clubs, not public charities.

One of the reasons people want to go to these schools is because they have lots of resources. If you ban wealthy parents and alumni from donating, the school wont be outstanding, so the University has good reason to accept these.

Technically, they are public charities.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Is...

Your link does not support your claim:

"charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational"

Obviously a university is scientific and literary, and a college is educational.

> They're private clubs, not public charities.

Actually, they are publicly subsidized (by tax deductibility of donations made to them) because they are private charities.

Plus it may not be against the interest of the other students to get a chance to network with rich kids (and the related future business/investment opportunities).

Pragmatically defensible corruption is still corruption.

The FBI can only enforce based on the law.

While this is technically true, it's irrelevant to the comment of mine you're replying to, which had nothing to do with legality in the first place.

Legality aside, "corruption" implies fraud. Fraud implies personal gain by dishonest means. The allocation of spots at a private university to the children of wealthy donors would only be corruption if it were dishonest, but it's not.

It may be unfair, but it's not corrupt.

The purpose of a research institution is to do research, not provide degrees to some selection of particularly smart young people. They will act in ways to increase the research they can do. People don’t deserve to be let in just because they are clever, they also should have some probability of furthering the research aims through their studying/paying fees. Why is it more unfair to let in someone who can pay for a great deal of research to be done than to reduce student numbers to pay for research to be done?

Your first two statements I agree with but they don't really apply to this article which is about undergraduates.

Undergrads are pretty much irrelevant to major research institutions (e.g. my undergraduate alma mater MIT spends only about 16% of its budget on undergrads who are actually subsidized -- tuition is about 14% of revenue). Grad students are what matter and apart from the B school they are mostly paid (barely) to attend.

Research students are paid to intend. professional students (business, law, government, medical, dental, etc) are not. And some scientific/art students are not research students (often these are students who enter as Masters candidates, not PhD candidates)

I was replying to a comment specifically about research universities, which are indeed a small subset of all institutes of higher learning.

Research, including scientific research, does happen at institutions that aren't "research universities."