Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

NFT: Admissions cheating scandal question

NoPeanutz : 3/14/2019 10:20 am
Why did these guys pay thousands, or millions, to a consultant to cheat for them to fool the admissions committees?
Why wouldn't they have just donated the money directly to the universities? That would have been 1000% above board and legal (although sleazy).

Is it really true that a $500,000 tax-deductable donation wouldn't get my kid into USC? Disclaimer, I do not have $500k, or any college-age children, so I honestly have no idea.

One friend of mine pointed out that one of the accused, I think, paid $6M. Endowing a chair at Yale costs $3M. You can't tell me that putting your name on a chair wouldn't send his kid's application to the top of the pile. Am I missing something here?
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Not all of us are dishonest fucks  
Moondawg : 3/14/2019 11:20 am : link
.
RE: Not all of us are dishonest fucks  
fanofthejets : 3/14/2019 11:21 am : link
In comment 14336276 Moondawg said:
Quote:
.


Ok then. You're an honest bad parent then
RE: Not all of us are dishonest fucks  
jvm52106 : 3/14/2019 11:24 am : link
In comment 14336276 Moondawg said:
Quote:
.


Yeah, I have to agree with this one. The comment previous sure seems like we would all just pay money to have our kids go to a school under false pretenses. I sure wouldn't. How the hell do you learn a fucking thing if you basically do something dishonest to start the learning process. No wonder we are where we are at in this Country right now. Too many people see nothing wrong with being shitty, sneaky and lazy. Work hard and actually achieve something.
The girl said she didn't even care about school. She just wanted to  
Anakim : 3/14/2019 11:27 am : link
attend for the "partying."

Fake outrage, my ass. Why should someone undeserving and apathetic get a slot over someone who is more qualified? It's one thing if the kid really tries hard, but just doesn't have the grades or the boards to get in. That I can see. But this girl clearly was interested in going to college for all the wrong reasons.
RE: The girl said she didn't even care about school. She just wanted to  
Ivan15 : 3/14/2019 12:03 pm : link
In comment 14336300 Anakim said:
Quote:
attend for the "partying."

Fake outrage, my ass. Why should someone undeserving and apathetic get a slot over someone who is more qualified? It's one thing if the kid really tries hard, but just doesn't have the grades or the boards to get in. That I can see. But this girl clearly was interested in going to college for all the wrong reasons.


Agreed. Many schools would welcome a borderline qualified candidate who didnít need financial aid. Look at the number of celebrity kids in Ivy League schools and Stanford. These parents could have afforded to send their kids to prep schools or have tutors to get them qualified to the best schools. USC being an exception. Really Lori?

The problem was the kids didnít care enough to try to qualify or try to pursue a degree. It would have benefitted the kids more to go to a small local private college or a community college to sink or swim.
I find this odd  
Anakim : 3/14/2019 12:07 pm : link
Look at the link below. One of the kids who cheated on the SATs and only got a 1900 out of 2400, which was 320 points higher than she would've gotten with no help.

1900 is a very solid score, but I would think Georgetown had higher standards, especially when you consider that she may not have been the best student in high school.


I mean I did better than 1900, probably had a better GPA than this girl did and I didn't even get into NYU the first time around. And I would think that Georgetown is way more selective than NYU is.
Link - ( New Window )
RE: I find this odd  
Mike in NY : 3/14/2019 12:10 pm : link
In comment 14336438 Anakim said:
Quote:
Look at the link below. One of the kids who cheated on the SATs and only got a 1900 out of 2400, which was 320 points higher than she would've gotten with no help.

1900 is a very solid score, but I would think Georgetown had higher standards, especially when you consider that she may not have been the best student in high school.


I mean I did better than 1900, probably had a better GPA than this girl did and I didn't even get into NYU the first time around. And I would think that Georgetown is way more selective than NYU is. Link - ( New Window )


In order for the cheating to work, the increase had to be low enough that it would not get flagged by the Admissions Committee
RE: RE: I find this odd  
Anakim : 3/14/2019 12:11 pm : link
In comment 14336446 Mike in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 14336438 Anakim said:


Quote:


Look at the link below. One of the kids who cheated on the SATs and only got a 1900 out of 2400, which was 320 points higher than she would've gotten with no help.

1900 is a very solid score, but I would think Georgetown had higher standards, especially when you consider that she may not have been the best student in high school.


I mean I did better than 1900, probably had a better GPA than this girl did and I didn't even get into NYU the first time around. And I would think that Georgetown is way more selective than NYU is. Link - ( New Window )



In order for the cheating to work, the increase had to be low enough that it would not get flagged by the Admissions Committee


Right, I get that, but 1900 is enough to get into Georgetown?
Because you cant just buy a spot for your kid with a donation  
Gary from The East End : Admin : 3/14/2019 12:13 pm : link
If your an alumni and your kid is marginal, maybe a check will bump him or her to front of the line. If you're an alumni and a huge donor, maybe they might slip your unqualified kid through the back door.

But if you're someone with no connection to the university, you can't buy your moron child a seat at any sort of respected university.
RE: RE: RE: I find this odd  
Mad Mike : 3/14/2019 12:19 pm : link
In comment 14336448 Anakim said:
Quote:
Right, I get that, but 1900 is enough to get into Georgetown?

They also bribed the tennis coach to get her listed as a recruited athlete.
RE: Because you cant just buy a spot for your kid with a donation  
NoPeanutz : 3/14/2019 12:46 pm : link
In comment 14336454 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
If your an alumni and your kid is marginal, maybe a check will bump him or her to front of the line. If you're an alumni and a huge donor, maybe they might slip your unqualified kid through the back door.

But if you're someone with no connection to the university, you can't buy your moron child a seat at any sort of respected university.

Charlie Kushner had no connection to Harvard. He gave some money, and Jared got in.
.  
threeofakind33 : 3/14/2019 1:01 pm : link
I donít mean to beat a dead horse here, but the idea that someone on this thread implied that making a massive donation (see: legal bribe) to get an ill-deserving child into the school of his or her choice made them Ďgoodí parents is genuinely appalling. Frankly anyone who believes this really needs to look in the mirror and see what kind of example youíre setting for your precious progeny.
Did Loughlin have to post $1 million bond?  
Boy Cord : 3/14/2019 1:02 pm : link
Thatís a fucking joke if she did.
The guy behind the scam, Rick Singer, addressed this.  
81_Great_Dane : 3/14/2019 1:06 pm : link
He said his customers were buying certainty. His pitch was: Your big donation gets you a second look but no guarantee. With me, you get a guaranteed spot.

He also said there's a front door -- work hard, get good grades, go through the regular admissions process -- and a back door -- make a big donation. I'm creating a side door.

Another answer to the question, by the way, is that some of these families aren't wealthy enough to give multiple millions to a school, but they can afford to pay a few hundred thousand. That's not enough for the "back door" but enough for Singer's "side door."

My daughter got into Yale and we couldn't afford to pay anyone anything. We had plenty of privilege in the process but we are squarely middle-class. She worked like a demon from 6th grade onward. We couldn't afford private school, so she went through the Los Angeles public schools. (Do you know how hard it is to get into an Ivy from Venice High School?) We could afford some test-prep books but not classes. I drove her to school every day so she'd have a little extra sleep and time to do her homework; that's a kind of privilege, too. Not everyone can do that. But she took a city bus home every day.

Three AP courses as a sophomore, four as a junior, four as a senior. When I went to high school I think I took three as a senior and that was considered a huge workload.

She's a "self-starter" so we never had to push her, but she worked her butt off. This scandal turns my stomach.
RE: RE: Not all of us are dishonest fucks  
John in Loudoun : 3/14/2019 1:07 pm : link
In comment 14336281 fanofthejets said:
Quote:
In comment 14336276 Moondawg said:


Quote:

Ok then. You're an honest bad parent then


Teaching your kids the value of hard work and fair play = bad parenting

Cheating the system = good parenting

Got it. Interesting lessons are you passing on to your kids.
RE: Did Loughlin have to post $1 million bond?  
section125 : 3/14/2019 1:09 pm : link
In comment 14336603 Boy Cord said:
Quote:
Thatís a fucking joke if she did.


Yes seems pretty excessive, but I'm thinking flight risk and she had multiple mail fraud charges.

But yeah $1 mill is same as R Kelly....
You don't think this has been going on for years?  
AnnapolisMike : 3/14/2019 1:13 pm : link
Rich/famous folks buy there way into prestigious schools all the time and have been doing so for years. What you see here are modestly rich folks cheating the system in a situation where the school could care less about having your kid there.

You don't think kids from a super famous family...Bush, Trump, Clinton, Obama have a open invitation?
I donít  
threeofakind33 : 3/14/2019 1:15 pm : link
Think a single person has expressed incredulity about the fact that it happens. Folks have been reacting to someone saying those who donít model such morally and ethically dubious behaviors are bad parents.
USC  
Motley Two : 3/14/2019 1:18 pm : link
has been referred to as "University of Spoiled Children" for decades for a reason.
RE: You don't think this has been going on for years?  
bluepepper : 3/14/2019 1:19 pm : link
In comment 14336661 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
Rich/famous folks buy there way into prestigious schools all the time and have been doing so for years. What you see here are modestly rich folks cheating the system in a situation where the school could care less about having your kid there.

You don't think kids from a super famous family...Bush, Trump, Clinton, Obama have a open invitation?

The innovations here are actually cheating on the SAT's and paying coaches to say your kid is needed for whatever sports team even though s/he ain't an athlete.

Again I think the folks doing this are just a notch down from the truly rich and truly famous who get their kids in other ways. Out of envy and frustration they resort to stuff like this. T
Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
Knineteen : 3/14/2019 1:22 pm : link
The FBI wanted to make a distinction between the accused and those who donate a building to the school.

Like, realistically....WTF is the difference?! Both are clearly done to get an unqualified kid into the university.
RE: You don't think this has been going on for years?  
section125 : 3/14/2019 1:24 pm : link
In comment 14336661 AnnapolisMike said:
Quote:
Rich/famous folks buy there way into prestigious schools all the time and have been doing so for years. What you see here are modestly rich folks cheating the system in a situation where the school could care less about having your kid there.

You don't think kids from a super famous family...Bush, Trump, Clinton, Obama have a open invitation?


That is not illegal. Don't conflate the two. Those kids of Presidents and corporate giants got in on name. Schools have a right to chose their students. Their families did not cheat by bribing sports coaches to "pick" the child as an athlete to the extent of photoshopping faces on to bodies of actual athletes.
RE: Because you cant just buy a spot for your kid with a donation  
widmerseyebrow : 3/14/2019 1:25 pm : link
In comment 14336454 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
If your an alumni and your kid is marginal, maybe a check will bump him or her to front of the line. If you're an alumni and a huge donor, maybe they might slip your unqualified kid through the back door.

But if you're someone with no connection to the university, you can't buy your moron child a seat at any sort of respected university.


This is correct. I went to one of these universities and I met a couple girls who were pretty open about the fact that they cheated to get in. Nice girls, but incredibly stupid with stupid money to match.
RE: USC  
NoPeanutz : 3/14/2019 1:29 pm : link
In comment 14336679 Motley Two said:
Quote:
has been referred to as "University of Spoiled Children" for decades for a reason.

Which is maybe why USC is a special case. 1st, maybe the acting or drama program that the kids wanted to go to is extremely selective...
2nd, We are not talking about a "normally" competitive school. Like... Michigan for example. If your parent is a famous, wealthy celebrity, and they can make a donation, I am guessing that UM will find a spot for you.
But at USC, an expensive private school in LA, the applications are probably lousy with children of famous and wealthy Hollywood celebs, actors, producers, KOLs. It might be much harder to get in as progeny of a celebrity, since that crowd could be dime/dozen over there. Additionally, universities like to accept kids from wealthy families, since those kids end up running the company one day, and sending their own children to the university and funding it anew. However, Hollywood families and children are not really interested in business careers or academia. They just want to grow up to be Instagram influencers or celebrities themselves... so accepting the scion of a wealthy family will not necessarily yield generational dividends.
THIS could explain why these USC parents tried to get their kid in on (fraudulent) academic or athletic merits, and were willing to pay for it. A $500k donation to study acting at USC may not go as far as elsewhere in the country.
I have always  
Big Al : 3/14/2019 1:31 pm : link
wondered how the legacies and and other such compete for grades with the 4.0GPA 1600 SAT types that get in on merit.

I realize things have changed since I went to a third rate school a hundred years ago (where you actually had to earn your grades) but legacies have been around forever.
RE: I have always  
section125 : 3/14/2019 1:35 pm : link
In comment 14336737 Big Al said:
Quote:
wondered how the legacies and and other such compete for grades with the 4.0GPA 1600 SAT types that get in on merit.

I realize things have changed since I went to a third rate school a hundred years ago (where you actually had to earn your grades) but legacies have been around forever.


They really don't compete head up. But the legacies families have donated large amount for years and the schools can claim that they have educated former Presidents (Yale and Bushes, etc).
RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
NoPeanutz : 3/14/2019 1:37 pm : link
In comment 14336691 Knineteen said:
Quote:
The FBI wanted to make a distinction between the accused and those who donate a building to the school.

Like, realistically....WTF is the difference?! Both are clearly done to get an unqualified kid into the university.

The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.

This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.
Sure, but it's bribery either way  
Bill L : 3/14/2019 1:41 pm : link
maybe not in a legal sense but in reality
So standards to get in on merit  
Big Al : 3/14/2019 1:41 pm : link
are ridiculously tough but standards for grades are mediocre. Something seems wrong to me.

I would really be curious to see statistics of grades for merit entry students versus others.
RE: RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
Knineteen : 3/14/2019 1:45 pm : link
In comment 14336753 NoPeanutz said:
Quote:
The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.

This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.

Seriously?! There is a bit of willful ignorance in your response.

Yes, I understand that one is illegal and the other isn't. But the end result is exactly the same!
And the only reason one is legal is because the government hasn't deemed it illegal. It's essentially a legal bribe.
Both are scummy actions and take away from normal students.
RE: Sure, but it's bribery either way  
giants#1 : 3/14/2019 1:48 pm : link
In comment 14336768 Bill L said:
Quote:
maybe not in a legal sense but in reality


Donating to school = plausible deniability that it was a "bribe", especially if you have a years long history of (large) donations not just a one time lump sum when your kid(s) applies.

That's really the only difference.

RE: RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
81_Great_Dane : 3/14/2019 1:49 pm : link
In comment 14336753 NoPeanutz said:
Quote:
In comment 14336691 Knineteen said:


Quote:


The FBI wanted to make a distinction between the accused and those who donate a building to the school.

Like, realistically....WTF is the difference?! Both are clearly done to get an unqualified kid into the university.


The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.

This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.
It isn't the same thing, but it does raise the question: Why is the one thing okay and the other isn't? Obviously bribing a coach, who pockets the money, isn't the same as donating to the school, which is an educational institution. But why is it ok to get the school to lower their standards for your kid because you have money?

These schools are mostly private, they can do whatever they want, but they aren't isolated from society We in the public get to call bullshit.
RE: Sure, but it's bribery either way  
NoPeanutz : 3/14/2019 1:50 pm : link
In comment 14336768 Bill L said:
Quote:
maybe not in a legal sense but in reality

It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$. Of course, there is a cost to admitting rich kids at the expense of smarter kids, and that cost is that the quality of the scholarship and innovation produced by the graduating class will decline.

If it were a public university, which has a specific mandate to serve and benefit the public, this conversation might take a different turn.

Of course, the one thing we know about rich private schools is that they take kids just because theyre rich in addition to kids who are smart. Employers (and prospective students) beware. Harvard only has cache because the rest of us give it cache.
It's the Canada Goose of colleges. Conspicuous consumerism. Doesn't mean it isn't an excellently made coat, and wearing it out in public won't impress strangers.
RE: RE: RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
bigbluehoya : 3/14/2019 1:55 pm : link
In comment 14336783 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 14336753 NoPeanutz said:


Quote:


The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.

This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.


Seriously?! There is a bit of willful ignorance in your response.

Yes, I understand that one is illegal and the other isn't. But the end result is exactly the same!
And the only reason one is legal is because the government hasn't deemed it illegal. It's essentially a legal bribe.
Both are scummy actions and take away from normal students.


The end result is not exactly the same. When the $ goes into the school, above-board, the funds (in theory) are going to the betterment of the institution, for the benefit of current and future students. (Now, I won't argue about the endowments/politics/ethics of the way these institutions are managed in reality).

In these cases presently making news, the funds are used for the personal enrichment of unscrupulous individuals. It's a whole different barrel of monkeys.

Tangentially, there's a legitimate ethical question behind it all -- if a system could exist where a small percentage of rich, less-than-qualified students were admitted to universities above-board at exhorbitant pricetags, and that money could reliably be used to reduce the cost for existing students or pay the tuitions of some uber-qualified students who could not otherwise afford to attend....is that arrangement ethical or unethical?

Surely it could be argued both ways. I don't know that I have a strong opinion.
please pardon my spelling of  
bigbluehoya : 3/14/2019 1:59 pm : link
exorbitant.
Like someone said above  
family progtitioner : 3/14/2019 2:01 pm : link
It's the merely rich's chance to be like the mega-rich. It's their form of "donation" except it wasn't to the school, it was to greedy coaches, test cheaters and the head of this scam. Hideous behavior no matter what.
Maybe it's like booking a flight.  
NoPeanutz : 3/14/2019 2:02 pm : link
If you book at the right time, several weeks in advance, you'll get a reasonable fare on the most convenient flight (qualified students admitted to elite universities for the sticker price). But if you wait until the last second to book, when it is most convenient for the passenger, then you will pay a premium (rich kids paying more to get on convenient flights).

The example of the scandal currently in the news is akin to someone lying about a death in the family so that they can get on a convenient flight without getting gouged.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
Knineteen : 3/14/2019 2:05 pm : link
In comment 14336812 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
The end result is not exactly the same. When the $ goes into the school, above-board, the funds (in theory) are going to the betterment of the institution, for the benefit of current and future students. (Now, I won't argue about the endowments/politics/ethics of the way these institutions are managed in reality).

But I could easily argue against this. The entire student body becomes weaker when schools admit less-qualified students. That effects the overall reputation of the school along with all current students and alumni.

I could also argue that schools still charge the same tuition rate regardless of donations. It's like found money to them.
Given the absurd cost of tuition today, money is far more important to students than having a new dorm.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
bigbluehoya : 3/14/2019 2:09 pm : link
In comment 14336834 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 14336812 bigbluehoya said:


Quote:


The end result is not exactly the same. When the $ goes into the school, above-board, the funds (in theory) are going to the betterment of the institution, for the benefit of current and future students. (Now, I won't argue about the endowments/politics/ethics of the way these institutions are managed in reality).


But I could easily argue against this. The entire student body becomes weaker when schools admit less-qualified students. That effects the overall reputation of the school along with all current students and alumni.

I could also argue that schools still charge the same tuition rate regardless of donations. It's like found money to them.
Given the absurd cost of tuition today, money is far more important to students than having a new dorm.


I guess I don't disagree. My angle was admittedly thoeretical. The reality of the situation is that the cesspool of higher ed endowment and lack of cost structure makes the money going into the school basically indistinguishable from the money going into the shady individual's pocket.
RE: RE: Sure, but it's bribery either way  
Knineteen : 3/14/2019 2:11 pm : link
In comment 14336797 NoPeanutz said:
Quote:
It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$.

Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?
RE: RE: RE: Sure, but it's bribery either way  
family progtitioner : 3/14/2019 2:14 pm : link
In comment 14336851 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 14336797 NoPeanutz said:


Quote:


It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$.


Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?


It's beyond applications, though. I believe they also cheated on the SAT and ACT.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Mike Francesser mentioned this the other day  
Knineteen : 3/14/2019 2:15 pm : link
In comment 14336844 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
I guess I don't disagree. My angle was admittedly thoeretical. The reality of the situation is that the cesspool of higher ed endowment and lack of cost structure makes the money going into the school basically indistinguishable from the money going into the shady individual's pocket.

Truthfully, I think the entire industry is one big fucking scam. Even my cable bill doesn't have such irresponsible annual increases in cost.

$1.56 trillion in student loan debt and it's only going to get worse.
RE: RE: RE: Sure, but it's bribery either way  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/14/2019 2:20 pm : link
In comment 14336851 Knineteen said:
Quote:

Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?

Because it wasnít just application fraud. Their ACT/SAT scores were fraudulent; in some cases a test taker was paid to take the test in the studentĒs name. Additionally, coaches were bribed to give students athletic placement in sports they had never played.
RE: RE: RE: Sure, but it's bribery either way  
Vanzetti : 3/14/2019 2:22 pm : link
In comment 14336851 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 14336797 NoPeanutz said:


Quote:


It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$.


Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?


They take tons of federal money in the form of financial and various grants.That gives the government the authority to the ntervene. Itís the same reason Title IX can be enforced, along with Department of Education policy.


Who is to judge what constitutes a qualified candidate?  
BurberryManning : 3/14/2019 2:26 pm : link
Quantifiable metrics? Intangibles? And why should a private school care about how anyone else perceives their admission practices? If their admission practices lead to a poor student experience, weak student body, etc then the market will ultimately dictate a decline in prestige, placement, etc. If a private school decides to supplement a relatively homogenous admittance of +4.0/1600s with some athletes, legacies, deep pockets, etc then I don't expect to see much of an issue and I didn't see an issue as a student.

I'll also be happy to raise my hand as someone who graduated from one of the schools mentioned, donates (albeit on a vastly smaller scale), and assists in recruitment capacities with an absolute intention on looking to leverage any bit of advantage to have my children gain admittance when their times come. I paid my way, full boat, and earned every bit of my degree and look to prosper during my lifetime for the express purpose of giving my children the privileges that I didn't enjoy. I'd prefer to put my children in a position to succeed at a more advanced stage than I began, and with less obstacles. Isn't that one of the purposes of life universal to most? Of course, there is a difference between cheating and using the accepted channels to advance those interests.

Is it fair to leverage wealth and social capital to help your children gain an edge? I won't debate the morality but it's a part of life and its part of the goal seek for many, whether it be via monetary inheritance or a business or real estate or whatever it may be. If you don't want your children to be left behind then compete and win today so that they are set up for tomorrow.
RE: Who is to judge what constitutes a qualified candidate?  
family progtitioner : 3/14/2019 2:45 pm : link
In comment 14336895 BurberryManning said:
Quote:
Quantifiable metrics? Intangibles? And why should a private school care about how anyone else perceives their admission practices? If their admission practices lead to a poor student experience, weak student body, etc then the market will ultimately dictate a decline in prestige, placement, etc. If a private school decides to supplement a relatively homogenous admittance of +4.0/1600s with some athletes, legacies, deep pockets, etc then I don't expect to see much of an issue and I didn't see an issue as a student.

I'll also be happy to raise my hand as someone who graduated from one of the schools mentioned, donates (albeit on a vastly smaller scale), and assists in recruitment capacities with an absolute intention on looking to leverage any bit of advantage to have my children gain admittance when their times come. I paid my way, full boat, and earned every bit of my degree and look to prosper during my lifetime for the express purpose of giving my children the privileges that I didn't enjoy. I'd prefer to put my children in a position to succeed at a more advanced stage than I began, and with less obstacles. Isn't that one of the purposes of life universal to most? Of course, there is a difference between cheating and using the accepted channels to advance those interests.

Is it fair to leverage wealth and social capital to help your children gain an edge? I won't debate the morality but it's a part of life and its part of the goal seek for many, whether it be via monetary inheritance or a business or real estate or whatever it may be. If you don't want your children to be left behind then compete and win today so that they are set up for tomorrow.


That's all fine and trying to help your kids succeed is a universal truth that exists in all societies except some mythical utopia. However, what these parents did for their kids, whom already had all of the advantages in life as kids of wealthy parents, was outright fraud and cheating. They deserve all of the scorn and any legal punishment coming.
RE: RE: Who is to judge what constitutes a qualified candidate?  
Jim in Fairfax : 3/14/2019 2:53 pm : link
In comment 14336956 family progtitioner said:
Quote:
In comment 14336895 BurberryManning said:


Quote:


Quantifiable metrics? Intangibles? And why should a private school care about how anyone else perceives their admission practices? If their admission practices lead to a poor student experience, weak student body, etc then the market will ultimately dictate a decline in prestige, placement, etc. If a private school decides to supplement a relatively homogenous admittance of +4.0/1600s with some athletes, legacies, deep pockets, etc then I don't expect to see much of an issue and I didn't see an issue as a student.

I'll also be happy to raise my hand as someone who graduated from one of the schools mentioned, donates (albeit on a vastly smaller scale), and assists in recruitment capacities with an absolute intention on looking to leverage any bit of advantage to have my children gain admittance when their times come. I paid my way, full boat, and earned every bit of my degree and look to prosper during my lifetime for the express purpose of giving my children the privileges that I didn't enjoy. I'd prefer to put my children in a position to succeed at a more advanced stage than I began, and with less obstacles. Isn't that one of the purposes of life universal to most? Of course, there is a difference between cheating and using the accepted channels to advance those interests.

Is it fair to leverage wealth and social capital to help your children gain an edge? I won't debate the morality but it's a part of life and its part of the goal seek for many, whether it be via monetary inheritance or a business or real estate or whatever it may be. If you don't want your children to be left behind then compete and win today so that they are set up for tomorrow.



That's all fine and trying to help your kids succeed is a universal truth that exists in all societies except some mythical utopia. However, what these parents did for their kids, whom already had all of the advantages in life as kids of wealthy parents, was outright fraud and cheating. They deserve all of the scorn and any legal punishment coming.

And since theyíve been brought up on federal charges, the answer on who will judge them: a federal court.
yep  
giantfan2000 : 3/14/2019 2:55 pm : link
Quote:
.Which is maybe why USC is a special case. 1st, maybe the acting or drama program that the kids wanted to go to is extremely selective...
2nd


also the USC School of Cinematic Arts is one of the hardest schools to get in country to get into

it has an acceptance rate lower than Ivy League schools between 2-5% acceptance. Depending on the track -- the screenwriting section has only accepts 30 students per year from 1500 applicants
GW Bush graduated from Harvard & Yale ! ...  
Manny in CA : 3/14/2019 5:20 pm : link

180 IQ ?

Hmm. Don't think so, but family has plenty of money (earning VIP student status). That's how you do it the "honest" way. Here's the link ...

https://www.quora.com/As-George-W-Bush-managed-to-graduate-from-both-Yale-and-Harvard-does-this-mean-these-universities-have-much-lower-standards-than-is-generally-claimed-Or-did-he-just-get-a-lot-of-help

My daughter, who is super-motivated, is going to Yale.  
81_Great_Dane : 3/14/2019 11:08 pm : link
I went to SUNY Albany (hence my handle, I'm an '81 Great Dane). She has levels of help available to her I couldn't even imagine. For example, each student is assigned a personal librarian, who will be with that student throughout their time at Yale to help with research. It's not 1:1, each librarian has lots of students, but the student has the same librarian all the time so there's someone who understands what they're working on and what they're looking for.

We've had deaths in the family, she's had a concussion, she had a stalker, and at every stage there have been people she could call to help accommodate her problems. In my time at SUNYA, as far as I could tell I was pretty much on my own.

Basically, once you're into Yale they will go to great lengths to help you get through it. I think part of that is because they figure that during admissions they identified you as someone they want in their community now and for the rest of your life, and it's bad for them if they turn out to be wrong about that. Once you're in, they want to keep you in.

Students do transfer, drop out and flunk out but if you want to finish, they go to great lengths to help you, even if it's just with a "Gentleman's C."
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner