[TimTheTinker]

Not at all!! Not sure where you got that. I think this business of improper admission and bribes violates rule of law terribly.

That's the point -- rule of law means everyone is subject to the same rules, without partiality.

[sudosysgen]

Well no, that's not really what rule of law means. It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions. If this wasn't a public institution, it would be perfectly legal, and I'm not even sure it's illegal here.

Rule of law is not sufficient, power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes.

[TimTheTinker]

> It would be perfectly within the rule of law to allow people to pay for admissions

Not if a law exists to the contrary. And that was the point I was agreeing with -- the solution should be to write a law if one doesn't already exist; or to enforce it if it does.

> power also needs to be distributed correctly for rule of law to lead to good outcomes

Agreed, though distribution isn't the word I'd use, as it implies the existence of another human authority to determine how it should be distributed (thus granting that person or group of people improper power).

But if the placement of power is determined by duly enacted law, that's acceptable.