<p>tothemax33: YOU MAKE ME SICK!</p>
<p>I couldn't care less whether you lead a modest lifestyle or not. Fact is you have no values, no morals or for that matter any sense of what is right or wrong. You are cheating your way through the system. So what if others do the same thing, that doesn't mean you have to do it as well. I also can't believe that your son is OK with all this. You are the epitome of everything that is wrong with a capitalist society.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I say to classirockerdad, you are really over the top, how do you know what type of people I despise?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've parsed your question several times and still don't understand it, but I'm glad you read my post, but thanks for noticing.</p>
<p>Why is it immoral to buy your son's way in? I imagine your argument goes something like this: it's wrong to take spots away from those who are much more deserving of them. But the whole notion of merit is fundamentally flawed. I would suggest that you read Jerome Karabel's The Chosen which explores the history of Big Three admissions and attacks the concept of meritocracy. Is tothemax cheating the system? Not really, he's just taking advantage of a part of the system that you don't like. If you're going to blame someone for this, blame the development office. But if something is "for sale", as is de facto the case in this situation, I would have no moral qualms buying it, provided that doing so is not illegal.</p>
<p>I agree that the OP is a troll: A dad who can contribute enough money to a college to buy his kid's way in doesn't ask "how much" on CC. </p>
<p>And the answer to the question "how much" is: Colleges aren't advertising the precise sum needed to qualify as a developmental admit. Contact them and find out.</p>
<p>I understand that the practice is distasteful to many, but here is the justification for developmental admits. The money their families contribute supports academic and facilities initiatives and yes, scholarship programs. So admitting a few students who would not otherwise be admissible can pave the way to admitting other worthy students who need financial aid.</p>
<p>Well everyone, I don't think any of us can change his mind. It will be his loss, anyway, when his son goes to a college he is not academically qualified for, flunks out, then ends up costing "tothemax" a hefty donation and tuition bill gone to waste.</p>
<p>Weasel8488: Is it fair that someone is admitted only because they can buy that admission? I thought these educational institutions were founded on the idea that those who DESERVE to be there should go there regardless of their financial abilities. Students should be selected on the basis of their intellectual abilities and curiosity. Now, the method with which these qualities are evaluated in candidates is a whole different question and I agree that this evaluation may be seriously flawed.</p>
<p>Regarding the moral aspect of the issue I would recommend you watch Scent of a Woman and pay close attention to the speech of Al Pacino towards the end of the movie.</p>
<p>Would it still be immoral if the guy's son didn't take anyone else's place?</p>
<p>To those who think it's moral, would it still be if the admissions process evaluated merit flawlessly in all other cases?</p>
<p>You can never say merit is flawlessly evaluated. We all have differing definitions of merit. Also, I agree with Weasel here, it is certainly moral-this guy's donations will help financial aid for many, maybe near 50-60 kids finaid. Anyway, colleges have spots "earmarked" for development admits so it's not taking the spots from other admits. So, as to some of the people on this board who got angry, don't, it's not detrimental to your student's chances.</p>
<p>From IRS Pub 526
"If you receive a benefit as a result of making a contribution to a qualified organization, you can deduct only the amount of your contribution that is more than the value of the benefit received."</p>
<p>"Fair Market Value (FMV) is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither having to buy or sell, and both having reasonable knowledge of all of the relevant facts". </p>
<p>The product for sale is the right to matriculate at an Ivy with lower qualifications than other applicants. </p>
<p>Presumably, the OP and the university will negotiate a price (higher than what the OP is taking about now LOL!). If the OP doesn't pay enough, his son won't get admitted. Presumable, the OP wants to pay the minimum price (he does sound like a cheapskate) that he can get away with and won't pay more. That sounds like the FMV to me.</p>
<p>I will concede that if they negotiate 1M and he pays 2M, than the extra million would be deductible. </p>
<p>If the OP deducts the FMV, than the American taxpayer will end up paying around 35% of the price. I have several yes or no questions I'd like people's opinion on. Assume the OP only pays the agreed upon price. </p>
<p>1) Is it a sale or a donation taking place? </p>
<p>2) If you say a donation, does it meet the test for a tax deductible donation? </p>
<p>3) If he deducts it anyway is the deduction fraudulent?</p>
<p>4) Should he go to jail?</p>
<p>5) If the university provides him a letter saying that nothing of value is provided in exchange for the donation, it the university a party to the fraud?</p>
<p>6) Should the American taxpayer be concerned about this fraud?</p>
<p>I agree with wjb.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no guarantee that the donor's kid will get admitted. There is no price because there is no promise made by the University to favor the donor's child in admissions. The University does not negotiate with the benefactor. If negotiations did take place, then yes, writing off the donation as a charitable contribution would be fraudulent. But as it stands, there is no buyer or seller, and FMV does not apply. </p>
<p>To the poster who asked whether buying your kid's way in would be fair if merit could be evaluated flawlessly, I say that the premise of your question is flawed. There is no universal definition of merit. The conviction that the most intelligent, engaging, and hard-working students should be the ones who are admitted to Princeton is completely arbitrary. Why not devote Princeton's resources toward educating some other group? We as a society value furthering the advantages (through admission to elite schools) of those who, due to their natural talents, are already well suited to be successful. Who is to say that this is what we should value? My point is that because merit in an objective sense does not exist, we are in no position to object to someone buying his son's way into Princeton.</p>
<p>I would also like to reemphasize the point made by other posters that developmental admits benefit everyone because they increase the University endowment. Many of the donations made by wealthy benefactors are used to increase the financial aid budget and make it possible for low income students to attend Princeton.</p>
<p>While the question about using money to entice admissions is despicable, it does happen for those who are extremely wealthy. Extremely wealthy meaning $100+ million net worth with $5-10 million donations as the bare minimum. My best advice would be that if you are an alumni, to give a large donation that year, talk to admissions about the fact that your son is going, and hopefully, they will give him a full read on his application. That is the most your money will do "UNLESS" you built a library or building for the college. The admissions office at an Ivy and any qualified institution of higher learning will not care as much for money unless it is enormous. You are talking about insitutitons with billions in endowement. Your best hope would be to have your son apply and contribute to where he goes to school. The back door in the college application will be difficult if not impossible to utilize truly successfully. If there are mis-steps, you ruin your reputation and the future of your children. A college counseling site with former Ivy admissions once said that alumni legacy and donation can cure the sick but no raise the dead. If your son isn't qualified, don't stress yourself out. It is more important that your son likes the school and can get in than force him through a nightmare so he can go to a good college but then be stress out with the competitiveness and difficult curriculum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that because merit in an objective sense does not exist, we are in no position to object to someone buying his son's way into Princeton
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who is we? </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is absolutely no guarantee that the donor's kid will get admitted
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you actually know of cases where a large donor actually consummated a large donation with the intention of getting their child admitted and their child wasn't admitted and the donor lost the money?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The "price," for lack of a better word
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no better word because you have the correct word, just remove the quotes. If the price is "known" then it is a sale. When I go the gas station, I don't negotiate with the pump. The price is "known". If I want the gas, I plug in my credit card and it allows me to pump gasoline into my car. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Many of the donations made by wealthy benefactors are used to increase the financial aid budget and make it possible for low income students to attend Princeton
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many donors are outstanding individuals who donate regardless of the quid pro quo and are exemplars of the outstanding altruism possible by man. This is not the case with the OP. To justify the fraud on the grounds that others benefit is as bogus as arguing that they should sell drugs to their students to raise money for scholarships.</p>
<p>Princeton is a highly reputed university. To them, I would hope that their reputation matters more than a 500k-2million donation. If his son is near qualified, he can get in with a donation. If not, it is a waste of his money. Just to remind everyone. Even though a student applying to Princeton may not have alumni legacy, they may be chosen for some hidden characteristic or talent that the admissions sees in them which will allow them to be successful and give back to Princeton in the future. Sometimes the poor immigrant's son may turn into the next "Warren Buffet" or "Donard Trump". It doesn't always have to be the rich. That is something I would think admissions take into consideration. Or else, why don't they just take all alumni legacies and have a constant stream of donations flowing in. =) Best luck to all who are applying the old-fashion merit base way!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who is we?
[/quote]
Society</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you actually know of cases where a large donor actually consummated a large donation with the intention of getting their child admitted and their child wasn't admitted and the donor lost the money?
[/quote]
No, but I don't need a personal anecdote to advance my argument. You are correct that, for all intents and purposes, a transaction is taking place; however, there is no contract or verbal agreement, so all that you can prove is correlation, not causation. In the legal sense, nothing is being bought or sold. Hence, it is not fraud to write the donation off on your tax return. </p>
<p>
[quote]
To justify the fraud on the grounds that others benefit is as bogus as arguing that they should sell drugs to their students to raise money for scholarships.
[/quote]
You may find it morally repugnant, but it's not fraud.</p>
<p>
Weasel8488: Is it fair that someone is admitted only because they can buy that admission? I thought these educational institutions were founded on the idea that those who DESERVE to be there should go there regardless of their financial abilities. Students should be selected on the basis of their intellectual abilities and curiosity. Now, the method with which these qualities are evaluated in candidates is a whole different question and I agree that this evaluation may be seriously flawed.
</p>
<p>Uh huh. Did you ever stop to wonder where the ability to admit students who cannot afford the tuition comes from? You think the endowment just keeps donating to itself or something?</p>
<p>I don't particularly like all the kids that get in based on parental donations. But if there were no development admits, Princeton's programs (including financial aid) would be significantly worse than they are now.</p>
<p>If you think that outcome would be better, you're either insane or are basing your judgment of the morality of the situation on emotion and not reason.</p>
<p>I'm thankful every time I hear about a development admit; for the small price of about .00075 of the possible student spots gone, we get a great deal of money; potentially enough to support another large number of students with financial aid. That cannot be a bad tradeoff, and I cannot think anyone would seriously argue that it is, except those people that have neglected the economics of the situation and are merely arguing from selfish emotional positions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are correct that, for all intents and purposes, a transaction is taking place; however, there is no contract or verbal agreement, so all that you can prove is correlation, not causation. In the legal sense, nothing is being bought or sold. Hence, it is not fraud to write the donation off on your tax return.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the tax code is that "intents and purposes" are the key tests. If the staff of the development office and admissions office were called in by subpoena to the IRS to testify one by one under oath and were personally threatened with a charge of perjury and being an accessory to tax fraud but were offered immunity to tell the truth, do you think that they would ALL perjure themselves and say that no transaction took place and that there was no quid pro quo? I think they could prove causation.</p>
<p>They would probably deny that there was a quid pro quo, and the IRS would be hard pressed to present evidence to the contrary. Immunity is not enough to guarantee cooperation. The University would be dragged through the mud by people like you even if the development office cooperated with an investigation.</p>
<p>You think that people who work for universities have to fortitude to go to jail for their employer! Prisoner's Dilemma suggests otherwise. </p>
<p>I really think that the university would just tell their employees to come clean and they will try to justify what they do just like you do. A similar situation happened when the Ivys were accused of colluding on financial aid. I think that they would fail to convince the IRS that the donation was not a quid pro quo under the law and would lose in tax court. The university would have to pay a big fine, perhaps lose their tax-exempt status for a year and then clean up their act. The only one who would really be in big trouble was the donor who deducted the seven-figure purchase as a legitimate donation knowing that it was purely a purchase with no altruistic component. I doubt he'd serve more than a year or two. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The University would be dragged through the mud
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, that's what all the rich and powerful say on tv and the movies when they get investigated for wrongdoing. Boo hoo. </p>
<p>Seriously though, I don't expect the university to play ball with the OP on his terms for all of the reasons I've outlined. There are plenty of legitimate donors with a lot more than $2M. I'm sure the development office places children of people of serious means who regularly make large philanthropic contributions not just to the university but in general and are already proven "heavy hitters" on the development list without actually even having a conversation so as not to even appear to be selling an admission.</p>