>I'd expect that somewhere in the US college system, someone, perhaps tenured, would have spoken up by now and shone the light on the school administration's role.

How do you know they didn't? Six months ago, would anyone have listened to them? The answer is no, because we all already knew about the sports and 'legacy' students.

Sports and legacies are different. They bring money, and lots of it. New buildings, better facilities, better equipment, etc. Thousands of other students benefit if I admit the daughter of a philanthropic billionaire.

These "lesser nobles" who just give some women's sports coach a bribe, or pay to get a higher SAT score are doing nothing for any of the other thousands of students. It literally ONLY gives THEIR kid a leg up.

For that matter, the "greater nobles" would just as soon bribe their way in over paying millions in "philanthropic" gifts. The only way you could ever get these incentivized donations would be if bribery is not an option or too risky of an option.

If colleges really want to, they can set tuition at three million a semester and offer price cuts to students that "get in." I don't see why this has to be a wink-wink thing, if they want to offer goods or services for a price so be it. There's no need to involve corruption or secret winks in the normal practice of exchanging a service for money.

> If colleges really want to, they can set tuition at three million a semester and offer price cuts to students that "get in." I don't see why this has to be a wink-wink thing, if they want to offer goods or services for a price so be it. There's no need to involve corruption or secret winks in the normal practice of exchanging a service for money.

As a European outsider, this has already happened. The fact that Americans aren't outraged about the ridiculously high price of a US university degree is mind boggling

Americans are outraged at student loans instead of tuition because you don't notice the price you paid until you have to start paying off the loan. In an ideally rational world student loans would not be a problem because students would only take them on rationally, but as it turns out extending credit is just asking them to make decisions they never would otherwise.

As an older Millennial (with no student loans) I don’t think that’s quite accurate.

I distinctly remember a student seminar at high school where they talked about college and how to pay for it. What was drilled into us, over and over, was “not to make a decision based on sticker shock” and that “student debt is the best debt; better than a mortgage even!” And that career earnings with a college degree would melt any debt away without much fuss.

I sure hope Gen-Z Americans aren’t getting fed the same misinformation.

>The only way you could ever get these incentivized donations would be if bribery is not an option or too risky of an option...

Precisely.

The entire reason we have to crush this practice is because it puts philanthropy at risk.

>If colleges really want to, they can set tuition at three million a semester and offer price cuts to students that "get in."...

The politicians won't let them. Especially not at the state schools.

As AdverseAffect pointed out, this is already happening to some extent with the scholarship plus extreme tuition system. If it went a little further in that direction, getting a scholarship would be the new "getting in."

It feels weird to agree with this, but it is really important that people understand the distinction between "bribing" a school with billions, and literally bribing an admissions official with 20K or whatever.

Everyone is a bit guilty for allowing the situation to get to the point where gate keepers are desirable.