• 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!

Actresses, prominent business owners charged in nationwide college admissions cheating scandal

Technically, this would just be fraud to get them into the school. If they got the degree, they still earned it (assuming they didn't find other ways to cheat).

Sure, if they got their degree, they 'earned' it, and I don't suggest that they get stripped of the degree. All I'm suggesting is their permanent record indicate their degree, and the fraud they committed to gain entry into that high-profile, desirable school. They earned BOTH, and their permanent record should reflect both, same as some sorry teenager caught selling a little pot has that to hang around his neck for the rest of his life.

I agree that it's most appropriate to go after the parents.... but it's also interesting that they purposely didn't charge any of the 'children'. There's surely evidence to charge many. The fact they aren't (and made it clear that they weren't... for now) indicates the threat is likely going to be used for leverage.

That makes sense, and I don't know the details of any of the cases, what the kids did. I just don't believe cheating should be rewarded with a degree and nothing to note the cheating. The kids were old enough to know better, and if their parents tried to teach them that using money to cheat and lie and defraud others are acceptable, the law exists to disabuse them of that notion, and should do so.
 
Sure, if they got their degree, they 'earned' it, and I don't suggest that they get stripped of the degree. All I'm suggesting is their permanent record indicate their degree, and the fraud they committed to gain entry into that high-profile, desirable school. They earned BOTH, and their permanent record should reflect both, same as some sorry teenager caught selling a little pot has that to hang around his neck for the rest of his life.



That makes sense, and I don't know the details of any of the cases, what the kids did. I just don't believe cheating should be rewarded with a degree and nothing to note the cheating. The kids were old enough to know better, and if their parents tried to teach them that using money to cheat and lie and defraud others are acceptable, the law exists to disabuse them of that notion, and should do so.

Well, "Nathaniel," as much as I concur thematically, I don't see any way in this day and age for the "Scarlet Letter's" existence to be publicly knowable.
 
Well, "Nathaniel," as much as I concur thematically, I don't see any way in this day and age for the "Scarlet Letter's" existence to be publicly knowable.

Have them plead to a crime, a misdemeanor or a felony, no jail time, 100 hours of volunteer service, give some speeches to HS kids, whatever. There are several ways to get it in the record short of jail.
 
Have them plead to a crime, a misdemeanor or a felony, no jail time, 100 hours of volunteer service, give some speeches to HS kids, whatever. There are several ways to get it in the record short of jail.

Well, yes, if the proposal is to have the mark be part of the criminal justice system's records, it would be public. I was thinking more about a notation on a college transcript.
 
Well, yes, if the proposal is to have the mark be part of the criminal justice system's records, it would be public. I was thinking more about a notation on a college transcript.

I wasn't clear at all, but I definitely had in mind something official from the justice system, something that would show up in any background check, or a security clearance application for example, so when "Yale" shows up, so does the conviction DIRECTLY related to that prestigious degree.
 
I wasn't clear at all, but I definitely had in mind something official from the justice system, something that would show up in any background check, or a security clearance application for example, so when "Yale" shows up, so does the conviction DIRECTLY related to that prestigious degree.
TY for the clarification...I should have thanked you in my earlier reply. Pardon my tardiness, please.

FWIW, for security clearances, a notation on a transcript would be exposed to the investigators. If one authorizes it for private sector background checking, so too would such a mark become known to the investigator and whomever s/he reports to. It's the general public who, absent a public record, one such as the criminal justice approach you suggest, would "never" officially discover the instance of one's chicanery.
 
Just getting to the thread... anyone using this opportunity to derail/bitch about affirmative action yet?

Fine, then call them out.

"Why does whoever "they" are (obviously rich people with 6 or 7 figures to waste to get their kid into the right school) implicate 'liberals' versus just the assholes who engaged in the act. I'm not a hypocrite because I didn't do it or approve of it. I imagine I'm in the 99% or so of liberals who also don't approve of bribery and fraud to get spoiled rich kids into the school of their choice."



But do you approve of the myriad of other practices that get woefully unqualified minorities into schools ahead of kids that actually have the grades?

In the early period of this thread's existence you folks broached the affirmative action aspect of college admissions and I asked you to refrain from going down that road. I requested that because I wanted the thread to address the actual substance of the "Varsity Blues" case itself and not a tangential aspect borne of its implications. I prefer the "early days" of a thread, as much as possible, be directly on topic, must as is the case with business meetings, symposia, lectures and other occasions where folks gather to discuss a specific matter.

Kindly, you each honored my request. Thanks.


The thread has now got some 250+ posts and I doubt there'll be much more, other than jurisprudential theory (or lack thereof) associated with the specific charges filed against the parents, Singer and the school employees who were part of the "Varsity Blues" conspiracy. I haven't seen folks show much interest in the legal theory and practice aspect of the discussion, so I think the direct ethical aspect of the matter's details have been covered as much as they can or are going to be.

Accordingly, if you still care to embark on the tangentially correlated line of affirmative action, I no longer have any objection to your doing so. If you don't, you don't, and too is fine. I'm not expressly entreating for you to do so. I'm simply stating that the key discussion topic has been adequately enough covered that "derailing" lines, as PowerRob called them, won't have an annoyingly derailing effect. The AA connection wasn't earlier lost on me; it just wasn't part of the central topic and it didn't appear to play an active role in the "Varsity Blues" actors' conduct or intents; thus I wasn't keen to have the thread "go there" before the core matter had been covered.

Cheers,
Xelor
 
Technically, this would just be fraud to get them into the school. If they got the degree, they still earned it (assuming they didn't find other ways to cheat).

I agree that it's most appropriate to go after the parents.... but it's also interesting that they purposely didn't charge any of the 'children'. There's surely evidence to charge many. The fact they aren't (and made it clear that they weren't... for now) indicates the threat is likely going to be used for leverage.

Red:
Therein lies part of the "problem" with the "mythology" we forbear, cotton to even, regarding colleges (and K-12 schools too), the quality of the education any given one provides relative to another, and the capabilities of the students enrolled at or graduating from "this or that" institution.
  • If I legitimately gained admission to and/or graduated from "Posh U.," people presume I'm bright, hardworking, talented, etc.; however, if I enrolled/finished elsewhere, they don't necessarily and out of hand think that. Even if they discover I graduated with honors, they may yet think more capable somehow my peers having "Posh U." credentials.
  • If I, through "hook or crook," gained admission to "Posh U.," yet I perform ably enough to earn my degree, how true is it that I didn't really belong there?

    Per pedagogical theory, if the students in a given class are at a supposedly higher level scholastically, the instructor can teach and test at a higher level and at a more rapid pace. Alternatively, the instructor can supplement his/her lectures with more contextual enrichment and less "baseline" coverage. Thus a less prepared student appears in a core class with otherwise more prepared classmates, the former will either struggle (i.e., have more to learn from his/her mistakes) or have to work harder to keep up. Either way, provided the less prepared student did the work necessary, by the time s/hes in upper level classes, s/he should be on par with the rest of the class.

    Do all less prepared students treat their circumstances in accordance with the pedagogical theory? No, and the nature and extent to which they do/don't appears in the change in their non-major classes' GPA vs. their major classes' GPA. Recruiters of recent undergrads know to look for that difference (if any), but the general public has no visibility to it and may often enough not even consider the implications of it.
  • Once I have my "Posh U." degree, on the superficial level that such things are typically/culturally judged -- the degree is from "such and such" a school -- I'm seen as no differently able than anyone else who graduated from there and didn't do so with honors. How capable, motivated or intelligent I am, in fact, can only be discerned by folks who have occasion to actually observe and measure (qualitatively or quantitatively) in detail my post-graduation performance, remarks, etc. The same dynamic applies, albeit differently, to "non-Posh U." grads.
Then there's the other side of the coin, and it's not phantasmal.

  • The core curriculum course content -- the survey courses for natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, along with college math (precalculus) and perhaps calculus -- for a bachelor's degree is the same no matter where one studies those topics. Colleges know this. It's why they allow one to transfer those credits from whatever institution one earned them, and it's why high schoolers get college credit if they score well enough on AP exam(s). Accordingly, it doesn't much matter whether one learns and masters that content at ABC community college, in high school via an AP class or at "Posh U."
  • Though the notion of "Posh U." being, in fact, a better school is, aside from the facilities it provides, is mostly mythical, the consequences of an entire culture cleaving to the chimera are very real. Those consequences manifest themselves not so much directly in terms of the education one receives, but intangibly via the multidimensional benefit of the doubt others grant owing to one's "Posh U." credentials.
So what is one, what are we as a society to do? Do we disabuse ourselves of the specter of status? If so, how? Do we grin and bear it and its effects as we for centuries have? What is the pathway to a more perfect union?
 
OK, so if one of the actresses speaks for all liberals, then the other one speaks for you since you're a conservative, which makes you a hypocrite by your own standard. That's fine I guess if you want to go down that road, but I don't agree.

Many conservatives lose their careers in Hollywood (or at least get a huge beatdown over it), give me a break.
 
[/LIST]
Then there's the other side of the coin, and it's not phantasmal.

  • The core curriculum course content -- the survey courses for natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, along with college math (precalculus) and perhaps calculus -- for a bachelor's degree is the same no matter where one studies those topics. Colleges know this. It's why they allow one to transfer those credits from whatever institution one earned them, and it's why high schoolers get college credit if they score well enough on AP exam(s). Accordingly, it doesn't much matter whether one learns and masters that content at ABC community college, in high school via an AP class or at "Posh U."
  • Though the notion of "Posh U." being, in fact, a better school is, aside from the facilities it provides, is mostly mythical, the consequences of an entire culture cleaving to the chimera are very real. Those consequences manifest themselves not so much directly in terms of the education one receives, but intangibly via the multidimensional benefit of the doubt others grant owing to one's "Posh U." credentials.
So what is one, what are we as a society to do? Do we disabuse ourselves of the specter of status? If so, how? Do we grin and bear it and its effects as we for centuries have? What is the pathway to a more perfect union?

I agree.... as this is what I made reference to earlier - A Label/Level of Degree Should be A Label/Level of Degree.... "Regardless of where it was obtained!!! It the Label/Level of Degree is to be what it claims it is.

"So what is one, what are we as a society to do? Do we disabuse ourselves of the specter of status? If so, how? Do we grin and bear it and its effects as we for centuries have? What is the pathway to a more perfect union?"

Are we to degradate one.. while willingly praising the others as better than..... !!! if so... we then promote class division even of the student in our systems of education, based on... the same status and money based concepts... that create and promote the 'inequity" in society that we claim to stand against.

Post 170 It's our time to break the cycle of the class divisiveness that has been so in-groomed into the concepts of people about people, based on "money".
 
Last edited:
Many conservatives lose their careers in Hollywood (or at least get a huge beatdown over it), give me a break.
Do they?
It may be that Hollywood folks whose names one might recognize suffer eventual ignominy. From my exposure to Hollywood execs and personnel who manage the operations of studios, the folks who don't work on the creative side but who control over things like studio budgets, operating models, content distribution, and other "boring" stuff, the "corporate" stuff as "front of the house" folks used to refer to me, there're plenty of conservatives.


Aside:
I used to get a kick out of going to events in L.A. I'd get invited as a courtesy/"perq" due to my role leading a couple corporate projects, and at those events I'd meet plenty of the creative folks. I stopped counting how often they said to me, "Oh, you're corporate." The whole tenor of the conversation changed. The talent and creative folks aren't "in love" with corporate types, but they have a very healthy respect for them. There I was thinking the actors, directors, writers, etc. were "big deals," and I was being "graced" with their attention. Until they figured out was an outside consultant, they were thinking the opposite. LOL Talk about epiphanies.
 
It isn't 'people'. It's American. Singular, maybe 2 other posters who are part of his clique. Everyone else realized there are 48 other names on that list that are not given and whose political affiliation are unknown as of this post.

I think what's funny is that he thinks left wing America was looking at Felicity Huffman as some beacon of leftwing ideology. Does he think there are millions of leftists just waiting to hear what she has to say or something and going to her for policy decisions?

Lol, goofy goofy.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

I didn't know who she was. I knew Lori Loughlin because I have every season of Full House. Still not sure what Huffman was in.
 
I was thinking about this case, and considering that colleges set their own admission requirements,
and can wave their own admission requirements, anytime they choose.
The problem here is not the admission requirements, but individuals bribing others to bypass the requirements.
It doesn't really hurt a University to let a low performing student in, as they will likely drop out quickly.
From the schools perspective, if rich parents want their child to get accepted, and are willing to endow a $500,000 chair position, or scholarship,
that is ok, they are not promising a degree, simply the opportunity to pass or fail.
Does accepting a low performing student take up a slot that some other student could have used, maybe,
but this game has been being played for so long that those slots could be planned for.
Everyone of us who has gone to college, knows that there are freshmen classes designed to weed out people.
The students ether raise to the challenge, or get weeded out.
 
Many conservatives lose their careers in Hollywood (or at least get a huge beatdown over it), give me a break.

So what? Conservatives are such as yourself are hypocrites because some conservatives committed fraud to get their kids in college. That's the standard. Now you're trying to explain why your rules don't apply to you. SAD!
 
Red:
Therein lies part of the "problem" with the "mythology" we forbear, cotton to even, regarding colleges (and K-12 schools too), the quality of the education any given one provides relative to another, and the capabilities of the students enrolled at or graduating from "this or that" institution.
  • If I legitimately gained admission to and/or graduated from "Posh U.," people presume I'm bright, hardworking, talented, etc.; however, if I enrolled/finished elsewhere, they don't necessarily and out of hand think that. Even if they discover I graduated with honors, they may yet think more capable somehow my peers having "Posh U." credentials.
  • If I, through "hook or crook," gained admission to "Posh U.," yet I perform ably enough to earn my degree, how true is it that I didn't really belong there?

    Per pedagogical theory, if the students in a given class are at a supposedly higher level scholastically, the instructor can teach and test at a higher level and at a more rapid pace. Alternatively, the instructor can supplement his/her lectures with more contextual enrichment and less "baseline" coverage. Thus a less prepared student appears in a core class with otherwise more prepared classmates, the former will either struggle (i.e., have more to learn from his/her mistakes) or have to work harder to keep up. Either way, provided the less prepared student did the work necessary, by the time s/hes in upper level classes, s/he should be on par with the rest of the class.

    Do all less prepared students treat their circumstances in accordance with the pedagogical theory? No, and the nature and extent to which they do/don't appears in the change in their non-major classes' GPA vs. their major classes' GPA. Recruiters of recent undergrads know to look for that difference (if any), but the general public has no visibility to it and may often enough not even consider the implications of it.
  • Once I have my "Posh U." degree, on the superficial level that such things are typically/culturally judged -- the degree is from "such and such" a school -- I'm seen as no differently able than anyone else who graduated from there and didn't do so with honors. How capable, motivated or intelligent I am, in fact, can only be discerned by folks who have occasion to actually observe and measure (qualitatively or quantitatively) in detail my post-graduation performance, remarks, etc. The same dynamic applies, albeit differently, to "non-Posh U." grads.
Then there's the other side of the coin, and it's not phantasmal.

  • The core curriculum course content -- the survey courses for natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, along with college math (precalculus) and perhaps calculus -- for a bachelor's degree is the same no matter where one studies those topics. Colleges know this. It's why they allow one to transfer those credits from whatever institution one earned them, and it's why high schoolers get college credit if they score well enough on AP exam(s). Accordingly, it doesn't much matter whether one learns and masters that content at ABC community college, in high school via an AP class or at "Posh U."
  • Though the notion of "Posh U." being, in fact, a better school is, aside from the facilities it provides, is mostly mythical, the consequences of an entire culture cleaving to the chimera are very real. Those consequences manifest themselves not so much directly in terms of the education one receives, but intangibly via the multidimensional benefit of the doubt others grant owing to one's "Posh U." credentials.
So what is one, what are we as a society to do? Do we disabuse ourselves of the specter of status? If so, how? Do we grin and bear it and its effects as we for centuries have? What is the pathway to a more perfect union?

eh. People look at the degree, and not how you got in. Keep in mind that most of these students got in based on their 'athletic' abilities, not competitive spirit. If they got the degree (assuming other cheating wasn't involved) they earned it, and it's just as valued as any other. Any good employer will look beyond just the degree, likely to work experience, to determine work ethic.

I think people are starting to take a different look at the degrees from prestige schools. They don't have the same luster that they once did. They're still respected, but most employers realize there is much more there than just a name at the top of the diploma. A quality state school can provide as good an education as an ivy league school, especially on undergraduate degrees.

And one other interesting aspect... while some of the schools mentioned are 'posh' schools -- many were just quality state programs.
 
There's nothing new here. People try to get their kids in the best schools possible and will do anything they can to help. I personally don't have a problem with parents paying for their kids' tuition (or at least help pay part of it) or if they get some help with people who work at these universities, so long as they follow the law doing it. I won't lie when it comes to trying to get into college, both acceptance and paying for it. However, this takes helping way too far, and this kind of bribery has been going on for years. The only thing new is that these people got caught. These parents and coaches should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'll be curious as to how long these people will be in jail and to see if the justice system will actually do something against these people. Hitting them with a a fine is a slap on the wrist. They need to be treated like everyone else.

As bad as these people are, though, the universities are just as bad, if not worse. I understand being accepted into a school based on the academics and having to pay a little more for higher education. However, when it takes many people a few decades to pay off all their student loans and they're struggling to generate any sort of wealth because of it, there's a serious problem. The universities might say it's for the books and the facilities they provide or that it's for the research and the activities they do. Those might be part of it, but let's be real. It's so they can grow their own personal bank accounts. Not that I'm against making money because that's how we all make our living and if you're good at what you do, then more pay should head your way. But the way they go about it is ridiculous. Not that education isn't important, but it shouldn't have to cost 10s of thousands, in some cases 100s of thousands, of dollars just to get in. That's outrageous and many of these students coming out of college are not getting the education they needed.

In other words, they got ripped off. In addition, when universities give out scholarships for just being a minority, you know the system is rigged. And when they say you have to take bull$#!t courses like women's studies or other SJW courses just to get an undergrad for pre-med, you also know they're hitting you up for more money. My 2 brothers had to go another semester of college because of stupid courses like Introduction of the College Life and some sociology class. How is that not trying to pull more money off them and other students? I would contend that the real villains here are the heads of these colleges and universities. They, more than likely, knew about the bribery and wanted a piece of the pie. $6 million is a lot of money, and if they can build their prestige off of that, they will.

Given everything that we know about this scandal and these schools' reputation in overcharging and rigging the system (along with a lack of real education), is it worth going to college in today's world? Unless you're going in to be a doctor of some sorts or an engineer, I would almost say no. If rich people can cheat on getting their kids into college and universities can get away with charging way too much on tuition and making it extremely difficult for certain people to get in, you're throwing away money, time, and effort. If there are good trade schools, I would recommend going to them. Less money, to the point, and gets you the education you need. Even getting an education on your own and getting an apprenticeship under someone is a good way to go. So long as you get the information and education you need to have a successful future, you don't need college. Screw those institutes if they're going to continue their heinous practice.

This has nothing to do with parents' paying for their childrens' tuition. It also has nothing to do with the cost of college. Please read the OP so you know what this thread is about.
 
LOL hilarious... this has been going on for over a century and NOW they want to do something about it? For **** sake the guy in the White House got himself and his kids into "big" schools with bribes.....Bush Jr got in, and so on. It is common knowledge that the rich pay for their kids access to so called good schools regardless of test scores and in some cases actually pay said schools to give their kids good grades /wave Trump.

Funny that you only named Republicans. You don't think Democrats do this?
 
Rich people buying their way into private schools? Complete and total outrage. If only they gave it to politicians for preferential treatment instead and no one would care.

Everyone is up in arms about this but no one seems to care about the billions going to bribe politicians.
 
Not only.

The more concerning is that higher education, what was at one time to gain marketable skills, has now turned into a social networking venue with little to no education, especially not humanities, hence, those parents wanting to buy / bribe their way for their kids into the desirable schools. And the most disconcerting of all, at the tax payer's expense, given that the federal government has taken over the student loan business. Enjoy the way your tax dollars are being (miss)spent.

Higher education's being to "gain marketable skills"--i.e.teaching a trade--is a relatively new concept itself, and I have lamented this for many years because this focus is what has diminished respect for the humanities.
 
Technically, this would just be fraud to get them into the school. If they got the degree, they still earned it (assuming they didn't find other ways to cheat).

I agree that it's most appropriate to go after the parents.... but it's also interesting that they purposely didn't charge any of the 'children'. There's surely evidence to charge many. The fact they aren't (and made it clear that they weren't... for now) indicates the threat is likely going to be used for leverage.

I've read in several articles that some of the parents were eager for their children not to know that they were greasing the skids for them.
 
Whether the kids will be kicked out is an interesting question for sure -- as well as what will happen with those who have already received their degrees. I imagine much will depend on the individual school and circumstances.

It also makes you wonder if other cheating was involved during the child's education. If they cheated to get in, what would stop the students (and their parents) from paying for term papers, or substitute exam takers?

Also interesting that none of the students were charged... intentionally. While some may be clueless (if, for example, their fake SAT score was submitted instead of their own), I can't imagine those faking sports were in the dark. I suspect the children are being used as leverage to get plea bargains and/or information on other conspirators. I think this is going to grow bigger.

I bet if you polled students that made it on their own merits, you would get close to 100% saying every one of these cheaters should be kicked out and if any had received a diploma, that is be rescinded.
 
Technically, this would just be fraud to get them into the school. If they got the degree, they still earned it (assuming they didn't find other ways to cheat).

I agree that it's most appropriate to go after the parents.... but it's also interesting that they purposely didn't charge any of the 'children'. There's surely evidence to charge many. The fact they aren't (and made it clear that they weren't... for now) indicates the threat is likely going to be used for leverage.

It would be hard to believe that a student that couldn't get in on their own could then magically become smart and a good student to get the grades to get the diploma honestly.
 
I didn't know who she was. I knew Lori Loughlin because I have every season of Full House. Still not sure what Huffman was in.

You have never seen Desperate Housewives?

Her husband William H. Macy has been in many more project than she has and is right in there with her on this.
 
I've read in several articles that some of the parents were eager for their children not to know that they were greasing the skids for them.

I've seen that as well, and the emphasis is always on 'some'. However, I can only see that happening in the cases where testing scores were swapped out. Most of the students were admitted based on athletics. A student admitted to a school for their tennis or rowing skills, who never picked up a racket or oar, would have had to of known.
 
I bet if you polled students that made it on their own merits, you would get close to 100% saying every one of these cheaters should be kicked out and if any had received a diploma, that is be rescinded.

I'm sure they would.
 
Back
Top Bottom