Can someone really bribe admission officers/University for admittance?
<p>Your parents can donate millions of dollars to the university and, provided you have halfway decent stats for the school, you should be guaranteed admission. I do consider this bribery to an extent.</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>They're called "development cases". A necessary evil.</p>
<p>Unfortunate. Corruption, the spoils system. Unfortunate.</p>
<p>If you send the adcom a nice basket of cookies and muffins, then... :P</p>
<p>Yeah, my dad bought Yale an international airport. </p>
<p>Wait, is Yale spelled with a 6?</p>
<p>Dusk2k- I don't get it.</p>
<p>Granted, it's 11:30 PM, and my eyes are aching to close.</p>
<p>no, I don't get it either, and I'm wide awake. Please explain.</p>
<p>"Wait, is Yale spelled with a 6?"</p>
<p>Huh? =p I don't get it.</p>
<p>Okay, I guess no one watches the Simpsons.</p>
<p>Someone I know paid someone $1000 to write the essay for her and she got into Stanford. ......... although its not really bribery but cheating =/</p>
<p>I heard a story about a girl who sent a basket of cookies to the admissions officers at Harvard. They ate the cookies... then rejected her. Don't try it.</p>
<p>RasberrySmoothie,</p>
<p>ROFLMAO!</p>
<p>heh nice one dusk, that was an awesome episode.... "Yale really could use an international airport..."</p>
<p>Yea people who donate a lot of money to the school would be the closest thing to bribery in my opinion.</p>
<p>if you're the daughter/son of someone famous you could always bribe, but then again, I guess you don't need to</p>
<p>rofl @ RaspberrySmoothie's post</p>
<p>that was such a good post raspberrySmoothie</p>
<p>what does rofl mean?</p>
<p>rolling on floor laughing</p>
<p>The issue of donor money affecting admissions is one of those things that have two sides. I think it's too simplistic to say that it's all bad. I know the word 'bribery' has a strong negative connotation to it, and one could equate donor admissions to bribery. </p>
<p>But look at it the other way. A lot of these schools are able to provide a wide swath of programs and resources to its students precisely because of alumni donations. I know one person who went to Stanford who said it best. She's sure that the descendents of Leland Stanford probably do get an admissions boost, and she could see that as unfair because she had to work harder than they did to get into the school. On the other hand, were it not for Leland Stanford's donation that started the school a century ago, then she wouldn't even have the option of going to Stanford because Stanford wouldn't even exist in the first place. Furthermore, Stanford has become such a strong school - strong enough to make her want to go - precisely because of later alumni donations that allowed the school to build out excellent programs. Part of the reason why Stanford is so highly regarded is because of the strong programs they built out, which was only possible for the school to do because the school had a lot of money coming from donors. So if putting up with admissions preference for descendents of rich donors is the price she has to pay to be able to enjoy the resources available at a school like Stanford, then she's willing to pay that price. Maybe that might seem dirty or unethical, but how else was Stanford supposed to be able to build out such strong programs?</p>