Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

OK, as I started reading this article I thought, "well, OK, maybe he really did think everything was above board" until I got to the amount. $176,000 for a "college admissions consultant"? Bullshit, if he didn't explicitly know there was shady stuff going on I can't believe there wasn't at least a "see no evil/hear no evil" wink wink.

But Jesus, what's up with all these super-rich people who either (a) have totally incompetent kids or who (b) believe they have totally incompetent kids to the tune that they need all these hundreds of thousands of dollars to get into college. I always considered myself to have a privileged upbringing with relatively-upper-middle class parents, but I had to pay for my SAT prep books out of my own part-time job money.

View on HN

It's the modern aristocracy; this kind of behavior has existed since the beginning of humanity. And it likely won't ever end.

I found an interesting example of this reading through David McCullough's 1776[0]. One major weakness George Washington sought to exploit in the British military was the lack of talent and creativity among the British leadership.

Back then, British military officers were commissioned based on their wealth alone, not their talent. Washington leaned heavily into this throughout the revolution through his use of guerilla tactics and promoting officers, like Henry Knox, based on tactical aptitude. This gave way to successes like the Knox Expedition[1], many of which were consequential to winning the war.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_(book)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_train_of_artillery

Napoleon changed the French army with a similar focus on merit and skill over money or title.

Adversity is the rock against which you sharpen your knife. If that rock is always covered with silk pillows, you are going to grow up dull indeed.

You would think money would, while maybe not buying happiness, at least free you from the kind of sniveling, insecure, desperate worrying these parents seem to be engaged in. Apparently not. "We're just one Harvard rejection away from totally still having plenty of money OMG!!!" It's like their brains have been hijacked. It's like being in that movie "They Live" before finding the magic sunglasses.

I think one problem for these folks is there isn't much to upgrade to for themselves. But there is intergenerational social status that can be "attained" and peacocked at just the right moment.

Parents are naturally proud of the "accomplishments" of their children.

But I think in the case of the USC "students" and this school it was probably more about the desires of the children to be at a particular place among their peers.

I'm assuming it's another status symbol these parents feel they need to have in order to 'fit in'.

The article now says "Overall, Schaepe paid approximately $630,000 to Singer, via cash and stock donations to a nonprofit foundation Singer ran (which appears to have been a front)."

It's not remotely credible that someone who paid anything like that amount of money just thought there were introductions or whatever going on.

To your other point, all of the schools I've seen listed are decent enough but quite a few are certainly not the most selective of the most selective.

One question to ask this person would be, what other one-off non-investment expenses in cash and stock of $600k+ are you incurring that are completely legit and above the board?

When I see stuff like this, it just seem like something where "oh-my-gosh we made a terrible mistake" it is more likely part of a pattern of behavior its just in this instance they got caught.

Parents often try to buy the best chances they can afford for their children

This is totally separate from their child's existence or lack of competence, its about why join the rat race with the plebs when you have a resource they don't when the only reason everyone else is in the rat race is because they don't have an abundance of your specific resource

And as a deck hand on a super yacht told me "you'd be surprised what people spend in private", and I've come to realize this probably applies to you as well

>>but I had to pay for my SAT prep books out of my own part-time job money.

Serious question, why? Why would your parents not pay for something that is school related. I can see paying for my toys with my own money, but if you are middle class I would expect for your parents to pay for education related stuff.

If your kid's able and inclined to pay for their own test prep books it's probably better to let them do it. More likely to actually use it that way, I'd guess.

Giving a child responsibility is the opposite route of buying their way through life. Maybe the parents thought it would have a good effect.

I had a regular part-time job since I was a sophomore in high school. From that point I paid for all of my "incidental" expenses. In truth, I'm sure if I had begged for money for those books my parents would have given it to me, but I really liked the freedom and independence my part time job allowed me to have, and my parents liked instilling the sense of responsibility in me by having a budget, prioritizing my expenses, etc.

Not only that but they have the gall to virtue signal all day about equal opportunity... but when push comes to shove, obviously it doesn’t apply to them.

Yeah, with all the research about how well correlated legitimate academic achievement is with family wealth, what does it say about you when you have to pay extra for one of these "consultants"?

I think one of the sadder parts is that the parents of these kids know they’ve raised idiots.

It may not be that. These people live a lifestyle of status symbols over substance. It's important to be seen as having kids with a certain kind of success. They could feel pressured to buy success for their kids as insurance despite feeling their kids are smart.

It could also be that these people got the same sort of help from their own parents. And therefore to them this is just standard behavior divorced from any context of morality or the child's true development.

> These people live a lifestyle of status symbols over substance.

Do you mean everyone in the US? We don't have a student debt crisis because only the ultra-wealthy decided to live beyond their means.

I think being ultra-wealthy must 'pickle' people's brains somehow.

Studies have shown that wealth reduces your empathy.

>But Jesus, what's up with all these super-rich people who either (a) have totally incompetent kids

Regression to the mean. IQ is only .73 heritable, so it's a one in four chance that two above average people can produce a child of "just" average intelligence.

Why did you have to pay for your own books?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com