• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ill-gotten and legitimate gains...Where normatively do we draw the line?

Of the various resources people may have, which are fitting to use to avail themselves/their kids?

  • Total voters
    8

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,163
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Who doesn't use the advantages they've developed for their own and their family members benefit? I dare say everyone uses whatever resources they've obtained to help themselves and their family, especially their kids, thrive. I wouldn't expect people to do otherwise.

Of the various resources people have, which should they use, provided it's lawful to do so, to avail their kids?
  • Education/Intellect --> Should parents (or close friends and relatives) not avail their educations to abet their kids academic success? For example, but not limited to:
    • Proofread their kid's papers and offer correction ideas regarding form, content or structure
    • Teach their kid "tips and tricks" for how to study or how to perform certain operations more efficiently (E.g., perhaps how to do complicated arithmetic as fast as a calculator)
It's neither the kid's nor parents' fault that the parent has a wealth of education they can share with their kids to help their kids thrive. Of course, the parent shouldn't do the kid's homework and projects, but is there something foul about the parent "opening doors" by using their education to help their kids perform better and get an edge in comparison to their classmates?
​

  • Professional/Social Position --> Should parents (or close friends and relatives) not avail their social, career and professional associations to abet their kids success? For example, but not limited to:
    • Use the fact that they work at, say, a research lab to undertake a "super duper" science project that other kids can't because they lack the contacts needed to obtain an opportunity do it
    • Give their kid an "inside track" to an internship or summer job with the parent's or an associate's employer (self-employed parents doing so seems to me a different matter)
    • Share with their kids, perhaps for a history paper, "this or that" otherwise unknown details about moment in history because the parent was part of it, thus allowing the kid to cite the parent as a source
    • Take a job with a university/college so their kid can enroll there
    • Ask an influential friend to "put in a good word"
  • Financial Wealth --> Should parents not avail their financial wealth to their kid's benefit? For example, but not limited to:
    • Hire private tutors and/or counselors
    • Donate generously to a school
    • Send their kid to a private school having an outstanding track record
If financial wealth is among the resources at one's disposal, is it any less fitting a resource to use than the others one can bring to bear?

People have different resources and it's normal to use them to one's advantage. Doing so is what capitalism is a all about. It's at the core of competition. Yet when the resource someone has at their disposal others take umbrage. Money is a resource just as are land, labor, intellect, and associations. Isn't one a fool not to lawfully use it to one's advantage?

Think about the "Varsity Blues" case. Even though "everyone's" in a furor over the parent's use of their money, their crimes have nothing to do with money. One needn't be wealthy to commit mail fraud.​

Some key questions then are:

  • So where and how do we draw the line and stop/attenuate the exploitation of privilege? Should we even bother trying to do so?
  • And what kinds of privilege do we forbear and what kinds do we not?
  • Do we content ourselves with public excoriation?
  • Do we expressly criminalize private sector corruption, making it unlawful to be reprobate? Do we lower the bar of personal probity or raise it? How do we handle appearances of ethical impropriety in both the public and private sectors?
 

Short answer: Opportunity yes; outcome no.
Proofreading an essay and making suggestions is fine, since it spurs development of the child. Fixing their grammar and spelling to get them a better grade is not fine.
Same goes for making available auto dealerships/tech libraries/clinical trial equipment versus handing them a finished science experiment.
One is an opportunity for developing their skills, the other is not.
 

Red:
When I wrote the OP, I certainly had in mind the opportunity dimension. I just assumed everyone thinks it unjust for parents to apply any resources to force the realization of a specific performance outcome such as handing the kid a finished assignment or portion thereof.


Blue:
I understand your stated stance. I wonder, however, whether most or many parents think, for instance, that specific proofreading comments like...
-- "this" is misspelled
-- you comma-spliced "this" sentence; fix it
-- subject-verb agreement is off there
-- "this" sentence needs to be in the subjunctive mood
-- "this" paragraph doesn't follow coherently from the one that precedes it, so you should fix the organizational structure of your essay
-- your conclusion is weak because it doesn't follow from the premises you've included in your argument
-- the tone of the paper is impersonal, yet your assignment calls for you to tell an impassioned narrative
...is going too far. Perhaps you'd draw the line at remarks such as "you really need to review the paper?"

Note: Mind, I'm not suggesting that any approach is more or less appropriate on account of the quantity of parents who'd use it.
 
The issue is not which resources are used to enhance our children's and grandchildren's lives and futures, but how they are used. Every sane parent and grandparent wants their children and grandchildren to live the best lives possible, and should use every resource possible to help them achieve the best possible lives within a framework of self discipline and reasonable socially accepted and individually selected moral guidelines, understanding that morality is subjective. i.e. We teach our children social morals such as not to steal, rape and murder, and we should teach our children individual morals such as work for what, work hard for what you want, the world owes you nothing. Respect yourself and earn respect, respect is not due anyone who doesn't earn it.
 

I essentially agree with you, particularly regarding the emboldened black passage.


Red:
I fully agree with you in this regard. Based on the recent recriminations I've read wherein folks have expressed disapprobation with things like endowing a university chair and thereby securing their kid's admission to the corresponding institution, not everyone feels that fairly traditional resource deployment means -- legal ones no less -- are apropos.

Accordingly, some sort of demarcation between what's legal and what's ethical is extant. How do we, as a society draw/define that line so that it's relatively universally applied?
 

That is the purpose of laws and juries.
 

Replace "everyone" with "reasonable individuals" and I completely agree, but making the distinction between opportunity and outcome provides useful contrast for the discussion.

Xelor said:
Blue:
I understand your stated stance. I wonder, however, whether most or many parents think, for instance, that specific proofreading comments like...
Click to expand...

What do they provide?
I have never provided spelling corrections for my kids, but I have asked them if they thought the spelling was good enough. And if they started perceiving a pattern to my questions, I would change them. I appreciate their ability to perceive patterns, but that was not the lesson they needed to learn in the specific context.

Opinions will differ, but as long as one keeps the objective of schooling in focus, it is a simple enough thing to arrive at the objective, even though the means may vary wildly.
While that can make codification difficult, it easily answers the question of what should be permittable; that which provides opportunity rather than outcome.
 
Last edited:
OldFatGuy said:
That is the purpose of laws and juries.
Click to expand...

And therein is the dilemma:

At some point, at least in the US given our Constitution, codifying morality/ethicality becomes intrusive, be it codes enacted in forbearance of apolitical behavior such the specific example the OP note or to dissuade/encourage behaviors I didn't introduce but that are familiar to us all. The instant an electorate jurisprudentially proscribes conduct, it becomes a political matter whereof folks peel to opposing corners.​

For instance, if we pass a law that says, in essence, schools cannot grant admission to the children, nieces/nephews and grandchildren of donors providing more than $X, there'll be outcry from all sorts of folks, yet others will think that's prudent policy that helps ensure a fairer admissions process. Others still will disregard any such enacted law and find some way to skirt or corrupt the law's intent, and then ply their case in court.
 
OldFatGuy said:
That is the purpose of laws and juries.
Click to expand...

BTW, the first thing that came to my mind upon reading the above was jury nullification. I'm sure you somewhat understand why, but if not:
Even as jurors can, with their verdict, effectively nullify a law, no prospective juror would be seated were s/he to vaguely hint at even being aware of jury nullification.


​
 

That is where the various arguments become diffuse.
Sure, it may be an unfair advantage for the one individual who did not deserve admission, but what is the impact of admitting that student for a large contribution, if that contribution helps hundreds of other student get better educations than they would otherwise have received.
Again the objective is simple enough to understand, while codification becomes difficult and prone to abuse.
 
You've been generous in sharing your thoughts and solution approaches. I appreciate that.

Please don't take the following as my refuting or disputing your thoughts, and I'm not trying to "pin" you into an untenable position. I'm just being discursive.


Red:
<chuckle> Well, yes, I doubt anyone has difficulty applying their own code of ethics. <chuckle>


Blue:
I'm all for public policy that abets even apportionments of opportunity, or at least as even as it can be. I think, however and particularly with regard to education, that's harder to achieve than it looks.

For example:

Mark went to Deerfield Academy; he was a legacy there. His father is a corporate executive and his mother a "white shoe" attorney. Mark also traveled extensively before he was 18. His family's professional, social and financial position afforded an abundance of opportunities that no matter what laws pass, most other kids simply cannot access, let alone experience if they do obtain access to them. Mark's bright and a high performer, but no more so than some other kids who, though exceptional, simply cannot match Mark's breadth of experience come junior and senior years when it's time to apply for college.​

So how do we as a society, particularly admissions boards but also perhaps prospective employers, manage the clear imbalance in opportunity when considering Mark and other well qualified applicants to, say, Williams College, where nearly all the applicants/admittees are, minimally, academic "superstars?" (SAT score percentiles)
  • Admit Mark and others like him who simply and through no "fault" of their own, objectively are simply better able to bring more (experientially speaking) to their classrooms?
  • Deny some of the kids like Mark and admit the other kids who, though they bring less (experientially), have, up to that point, had no alternative but to function with a "shorter stick," so to speak?
  • Develop tuition structure whereby the acceptance profile is one whereby X-many rich kids like Mark who'll pay out of pocket effectively subsidize X-many less advantaged and less experienced/prepared kids, again as a matter of according opportunity?
    • Currently, schools overwhelmingly don't do this; admissions are blind to applicants' financial position.
  • Disregard objective measures and implement wholly (or predominantly) subjective admissions criteria? If so, based on what subjective criteria?
  • Disregard subjective criteria and implement wholly (or predominantly) objective admissions criteria? If so, based on what objective criteria?
I certainly agree that opportunity should be equitably apportioned, but I don't have any comprehensive and coherent solution proposal for effecting that outcome. Hell, the mere fact that one may graduate from Williams and someone else graduates from "XYZ U." can, in and of itself represent disparity in opportunity.

For instance, my former firms recruit at certain schools and doesn't at others. That we don't necessarily results in disparity of opportunity. I recall thinking about that when I ran my own firm and later when I joined a "top 10" firm. Wearing my recruiter's hat, when I went to schools, I wanted to create for myself the greatest number of chances to interview outstanding students, so I chose to recruit at top schools. That need, one shared by my competitors, is yet another thing that precludes even opportunity distribution.

So, while I cotton to the idea and practice of equitable apportionment of resources in according opportunity, overcoming the practical challenges of doing so vexes me.
 

Red:
Indeed. Yet isn't codification, something "cut and dried" that obviates one's need to actually have an ethical compass, to be of fine character, what our society seems these days to crave? Personal ethical responsibility is tough to have and routinely exhibit.


Aside:
Acknowledging folks proclivity for abusing codified paradigms is what led me to divest myself of notions of libertarianism. It struck that libertarianism works fine when folks of comprehensively fine character apply it. When pride, avarice, covetousness, sloth and other failings pervade one's being/psyche, however, the laudable notions of libertarianism stop being equitable.
 

I worked for a multi-Millionaire in an alternative power structure. He had a teen age son that broke everything, wrecked everytdhing, smoked everything, drank everything and more or less seemed to be hell bent on making a career of being a wastrel. He graduated high school and his Daddy (a good guy and a shyster) sends him to Wharton. I ask the guy, "why not wait until the lad settles down a bit before wasting so much bread?" Answer, "I don't expect him to pass or get a degree, but I expect him to make friends with the sons and daughters of the hoi polloi, the rich and famous, and those will be his business partners for the rest of his life." He was moving the son into the "power structure" that would lead to success. It's who you know or who you blow, and starts in the Educational Institutions. Just a comment that seemed relevant.
/
 

The impact is that another individual who did deserve admission is denied that opportunity. Was the motive really to help hundreds if the contribution is conditional upon 'bending' the admission requirements for only one person?
 

Yep, the network is a key reason for attending an elite school, be it a college or high school, at least prior to grad school. There's no way round the fact that "who you know" matters in the most remunerative career paths.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The impact is that another individual who did deserve admission is denied that opportunity. Was the motive really to help hundreds if the contribution is conditional upon 'bending' the admission requirements for only one person?
Click to expand...

I think HK knows that. Unless I'm mistaken, he was proffering a utilitarianist line.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The impact is that another individual who did deserve admission is denied that opportunity. Was the motive really to help hundreds if the contribution is conditional upon 'bending' the admission requirements for only one person?
Click to expand...

That particular issue is solved easily enough. If you admit them both and deduct the cost of the extra student from the contribution made on behalf of the not-so gifted student, the gifted student does not lose their place.

But then there is a question of whether the gifted students eventually lose out because the not so gifted students diminish the reputation of the educational institution, or if they gain because of the extra funds poured in via parental donations for their dumbass kids increase the quality of their education? And how do we weigh outcomes and establish results?

Well we can't really, but we can observe trends and adjust our behaviour accordingly.
In this case it comes down to whether we sacrifice the individual for the group, the group for the individual, or if we go for something in between? What do we want to achieve as a society, and how do we get there without wrecking everything? That is an example of dynamic tension between opposites, in this case between collectivism and individualism, in which game education is but a minor stake.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The impact is that another individual who did deserve admission is denied that opportunity. Was the motive really to help hundreds if the contribution is conditional upon 'bending' the admission requirements for only one person?
Click to expand...
Affirmative action displaces deserving students in the same way.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
None taken or intended, but then they are idiots.
Applying ethical principles without screwing up is really hard.




  • What imbalance?
    Is your goal the good of society as a whole, for various subgroups within it, or for individuals?
    Note that improving the lot of society as a whole through improving the lot of a subgroup or individuals is by no means an impossibility, but you must keep an eye on the desired end result if you choose this path. If you just select an underdog and favor it, you will end up diminishing others, and you will have to start over and rebalance everything. It is a losing proposition (unless you're really a horrible supremacist who just want to play the game until you're on top and then kill off or enslave everybody else, or if you're a highly paid rebalancing consultant). The worst part being that this is how you can end up without ever having intended to, simply by having embraced Tribalism in the first place. Dividing and conquering is something we're supposed to use against our enemies, not ourselves.
 

Do you expect perfection?

The current college admissions "scandal" is not all that surprising or unusual. It makes for good media slurpees. Low hanging fruit for photo op prosecutors intent on political or later private practice advancement.

When I teach my dog to perform anything, I bribe him with a treat for a job well done, eventually replacing the treat with a compliment and a petting. When I want young children to eat their broccoli, I bribe them with the dessert that they will enjoy at the end of the meal. Bribery, whatever we title it, is part and parcel of how we get what we want from others. You want sex from your wife, you do the dishes.

Colleges, universities, research hospitals and so forth are dependent upon endowments. Of course there is a quid pro quo for the donors. No one is truly altruistic. In one form or another there is a payback, even if it is only a quality seat at a fundraiser. And at the fundraiser people meet people for the purpose of doing business. Over the years I donated substantial funds to a teaching hospital. Now that I'm older with physical issues that require hospitalization, when I check into this same hospital I am treated better than the average patient. I'd be a fool not to enjoy the better quality treatment that I receive. The nurses are a bit more attentive, I'm given a private room with a view without asking, the resident doctors make themselves more available to me, and I get visit from food management to make sure I'm satisfied with the meals. I don't ask or demand these additional amenities, yet I don't deny myself the benefits thereof. Were I in a different hospital, I would still receive and expect quality care, however the differences would be palpable. Maybe a nutritionist doesn't visit me, nor a social worker for the geriatric that I am, making sure I have care once I return home and an escort to take me home. Small things, but they make a difference.

It is idealistic to expect a completely level working field. There will always be those, whether by intention or not, who receive more than others in return for largess. The question this current scandal raises is the corruption of purposefully selling what those who sell are not in a position to grant. They have been selling what isn't theirs to sell, regardless of those who may have purposefully corrupted them for their own advantage, another unacceptable behavior in the eyes of many. Who said life is fair? By what criteria do we have right to demand fairness? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Everyone wants an edge. The only question is when does the balance swing too far and for whom? The Gates Foundation was not created to serve those who have not. It was created to keep the funds out of government hands, and insure the employment of the Gates heirs. That it does some good is merely a byproduct. It can barely spend a small portion of the interest and gains on the money placed in the foundation. Who is fooling who? Take a look at the Rockefeller's. Same thing. The now many heirs, some in private industry, many in public service, are all beneficiaries of positions in the various Rockefeller foundations. When Governor Rockefeller of NYS was in office, he was also on the boards of 18 different philanthropic Rockefeller foundation supported philanthropies, receiving annual stipends bringing him more tha $6mil annually. Not bad for a guy in a $150k per year full time job. His children went to the best universities and hospitals, and one took research trips up the Amazon to get eaten by cannibals. So it goes. Advantages only take you so far.

One of the daughters of the key scandal real housewives stars was who benefitted from this corrupted admissions scandal, was found to be on the yacht of one of the university CEO's of the same school when her mother was indicted. Uh huh, pretty young thing on an old man's yacht. Need I say more. :lamo
 
Use whatever legal advantages you can to help your kids. May or may not make a difference in the end.

Smart people are getting a lot smarter, and dumb people are getting a little bit smarter, but the gap is widening. Overall, IQ test results are creeping up, even at the low end. But young people no longer marry right out of high school (at least not the smart ones) but wait until careers are established. Then the smart, successful people search out other smart successful people. And breed one or two VERY smart kids. And these kids have ALL the advantages you talk about. They will be part of the elite ruling class. As are their parents.
 

Red:
All three. It's just that the tools for effecting "the good" vary.
  • Society as a whole and major segments of it --> Laws and public policy can be effective at orchestrating/balancing "the good" -- in this thread's context, "the good" being equitable distributions of opportunity -- on these two levels.
  • Individuals --> Laws and public policy are less effective at orchestrating/balancing "the good" -- in this thread's context, "the good" being equitable distributions of opportunity -- on this level because it's inevitable that an individual "here and there" will be adversely affected to the extent that "adversely affected" means "so and so" didn't get exactly what s/he wanted.

    It that sounds to you like I haven't much patience/compassion for folks -- particularly college applicants, griping and getting on their "entitlement high horse" and ragging on "the system" and other individuals -- having fits because they didn't get admitted to "this" good school, yet they did get admitted to "that" good school, you'd be right in thinking so.

    (Obviously, the size of the US population can result in "here and there" sized percentages still be "a lot" of individuals even though it's not a lot in the overall scheme of things.)
 
All of the above, are fitting.

Of course the Poll did not makes concessions for morally and or legally fitting.
 
Red:
As an outcome, no, but I expect folks to strive earnestly and consistently to achieve it. And I expect increasingly closer-to-perfect outcomes with each subsequent attempt.
 

FWIW,

  • The "old man," Rick Caruso, is the chairman of the board of trustee, not the CEO. His job is as a real estate developer and investor.
  • The girl and Mr. Caruso's daughter have long been friends.
  • AFAIK, Mr. Caruso wasn't on the boat at the time.
  • It's astounding to me that Lori Loughlin undertook the approach she did to get her kid admitted to USC. If my kid was besties with a school's trustee, I'd tell my kid to ask his/her friend's father about gaining admittance..suggesting something like asking the man/woman if s/he would mind putting in a good word to the admissions committee, maybe by writing a recommendation letter or something. What I wouldn't do is make some sort of "on the DL" payment as part of a "side door" or "backdoor" scheme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…