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

[tres borrachos]

Well, at least some of them do:

• UCLA Admission Requirements
• Yale

Stanford doesn't seem to provide as detailed information, but, IMO, the most important requirement for going there is willingness to risk the earth moving under one's feet and the roof falling on one's head.

Admission to any competitive college is completely subjective. They set thresholds for things like GPA and admissions tests, but the process is far more complex than that.

Things like essays, community service, athletics and other matters are always taken into account. You can score perfect admissions tests and have straight As for all 4 years of HS but that still will never guarantee your acceptance into a school.

 

[tres borrachos]

I spoke to you helping Russia sew discord by your bs replies.
That is about your replies, not Russia, and clearly you dislike that I am pointing it out. Go figure, huh?

---

:lamo And again you show you know not of what you speak even though I continually have pointed that out.
The underlying activity was legal. What do you not understand about that? Do you really not understand the difference between legal and illegal? Do you not understand what the legal activity the press was speaking about? That is not about illegal drug distribution.
That underlying legal activity (which was them looking out for their kids) is exactly why I hope the President pardons them for the mail fraud they were charged with.

You've embarrassed yourself completely in this thread. You're the only one who is defending the use of bribery, lying and cheating as a means to getting your child into school.

I hope Trump does pardon the parents. That will be the end of him forever.

 

[Xelor]

Admission to any competitive college is completely subjective. They set thresholds for things like GPA and admissions tests, but the process is far more complex than that.

Things like essays, community service, athletics and other matters are always taken into account. You can score perfect admissions tests and have straight As for all 4 years of HS but that still will never guarantee your acceptance into a school.

I get your key point, and I agree there's material subjectivity in most collegiate admissions deliberative processes and offer decisions. I don't, however, concur that one can "score perfect admissions tests and have straight As for all 4 years of HS but that still will never guarantee your acceptance into a school." I don't because all four of my kids did almost exactly that (4.5+ GPAs, 1550+ (SAT)/32-36 (ACT) and 4s and 5s on their AP exams is close enough to what you have in mind, wouldn't you say?), and they did it at some of the nation's most rigorous high schools. Each of them received admission offers; thus I think unfounded the notion that one can perform that ably and not be "[accepted] into a school."

On a slightly different note, one may not receive an offer, however, from one's first-choice school. That happened to one of my kids -- that was hardly his first nor last disappointment. He "got over it." And why wouldn't he? His goals were to obtain admission to...

1. a school that had a strong program in the discipline they thought, upon matriculating, he wanted to study, and to
2. as good such a school as he could afford (given what I was willing to pay + whatever scholarships he earned) without assuming a debilitating debt load and without compromising his available discretionary spending. (He and I recognized college is about so much more than academics, and that "more" costs money, sometimes a lot of it, but we both knew I wasn't willing to be an everblooming "money tree.")

And that's really all that matters. Some might say it's more than what matters. In any case, so long as one gains admission to a decent school, it really doesn't matter to what school(s) one didn't obtain admission.

Lastly, each of my kids had the prudence to form a backup plan, even as they had laudable academic and extracurricular performance records. Part of that means applying only to schools at which one is willing to enroll. That way, no matter where one goes, one'll be fine with it.

 

[tres borrachos]

I get your key point, and I agree there's material subjectivity in most collegiate admissions deliberative processes and offer decisions. I don't, however, concur that one can "score perfect admissions tests and have straight As for all 4 years of HS but that still will never guarantee your acceptance into a school." I don't because all four of my kids did almost exactly that (4.5+ GPAs, 1550+ (SAT)/32-36 (ACT) and 4s and 5s on their AP exams is close enough to what you have in mind, wouldn't you say?), and they did it at some of the nation's most rigorous high schools. Each of them received admission offers; thus I think unfounded the notion that one can perform that ably and not be "[accepted] into a school."

On a slightly different note, one may not receive an offer, however, from one's first-choice school. That happened to one of my kids -- that was hardly his first nor last disappointment. He "got over it." And why wouldn't he? His goals were to obtain admission to...

1. a school that had a strong program in the discipline they thought, upon matriculating, he wanted to study, and to
2. as good such a school as he could afford (given what I was willing to pay + whatever scholarships he earned) without assuming a debilitating debt load and without compromising his available discretionary spending. (He and I recognized college is about so much more than academics, and that "more" costs money, sometimes a lot of it, but we both knew I wasn't willing to be an everblooming "money tree.")

And that's really all that matters. Some might say it's more than what matters. In any case, so long as one gains admission to a decent school, it really doesn't matter to what school(s) one didn't obtain admission.

Lastly, each of my kids had the prudence to form a backup plan, even as they had laudable academic and extracurricular performance records. Part of that means applying only to schools at which one is willing to enroll. That way, no matter where one goes, one'll be fine with it.

The personal anecdote of your children doesn't change what I said. Admission to college is subjective. There are standards that each school expects or wants to maintain. Meeting those standards still doesn't guarantee you acceptance in every school of your choice. It merely makes it so that your application is considered instead of being ruled out right out of the gate. Harvard isn't going to consider the application of a student who has a rock solid 2.8 GPA and SAT scores of 1080. That's why students are instructed to have their schools ranked in "safe schools" versus "match" schools versus "reach" schools. No matter your academic profile, the best schools in the country will almost always be viewed as "reach" schools.

 

[nota bene]

The decisions aren't entirely subjective, but there are usually going to be subjective factors. To use Rick Singer's term, there will probably always be "side doors." I'd like to see only the "front door" available, the demonstrated ability to do the work. While a desire to "balance the scales" is coming from a place of good will and sense of fairness, or so I hope, what really hasn't been discussed in the pages of this thread that I've read are the consequences of this to others and to academia itself.

And here is one minor consequence: Professors are going to become even more cynical about learning disabilities and accommodations. This is already a real scam, in my opinion. Those students who have a genuine disability and truly need an accommodation will pay for this.

 

[Xelor]

Admission to any competitive college is completely subjective. They set thresholds for things like GPA and admissions tests, but the process is far more complex than that.

Things like essays, community service, athletics and other matters are always taken into account. You can score perfect admissions tests and have straight As for all 4 years of HS but that still will never guarantee your acceptance into a school.

I get your key point, and I agree there's material subjectivity in most collegiate admissions deliberative processes and offer decisions. I don't, however, concur that one can "score perfect admissions tests and have straight As for all 4 years of HS but that still will never guarantee your acceptance into a school." I don't because all four of my kids did almost exactly that (4.5+ GPAs, 1550+ (SAT)/32-36 (ACT) and 4s and 5s on their AP exams is close enough to what you have in mind, wouldn't you say?), and they did it at some of the nation's most rigorous high schools. Each of them received admission offers; thus I think unfounded the notion that one can perform that ably and not be "[accepted] into a school."

On a slightly different note, one may not receive an offer, however, from one's first-choice school. That happened to one of my kids -- that was hardly his first nor last disappointment. He "got over it." And why wouldn't he? His goals were to obtain admission to...

1. a school that had a strong program in the discipline they thought, upon matriculating, he wanted to study, and to
2. as good such a school as he could afford (given what I was willing to pay + whatever scholarships he earned) without assuming a debilitating debt load and without compromising his available discretionary spending. (He and I recognized college is about so much more than academics, and that "more" costs money, sometimes a lot of it, but we both knew I wasn't willing to be an everblooming "money tree.")

And that's really all that matters. Some might say it's more than what matters. In any case, so long as one gains admission to a decent school, it really doesn't matter to what school(s) one didn't obtain admission.

Lastly, each of my kids had the prudence to form a backup plan, even as they had laudable academic and extracurricular performance records. Part of that means applying only to schools at which one is willing to enroll. That way, no matter where one goes, one'll be fine with it.

The personal anecdote of your children doesn't change what I said. Admission to college is subjective. There are standards that each school expects or wants to maintain. Meeting those standards still doesn't guarantee you acceptance in every school of your choice. It merely makes it so that your application is considered instead of being ruled out right out of the gate. Harvard isn't going to consider the application of a student who has a rock solid 2.8 GPA and SAT scores of 1080. That's why students are instructed to have their schools ranked in "safe schools" versus "match" schools versus "reach" schools. No matter your academic profile, the best schools in the country will almost always be viewed as "reach" schools.

Red and Blue:

• Red sequence of remarks:
  I acknowledged the extant subjectivity of the admissions process. What is your point for making your last two "red" statements?
• Blue sequence of remarks:
  I think the notion of having the prudence to form a backup plan and the notion that, for the majority of college applicants, certain schools may be "reach" schools are substantively the same concepts. Thus, what is your point for penning your "blue" statement?

Pink:
I think debatable, and most likely dubitable to untrue, whether your pink assertion always, as you assert, holds true, be it in fact or normatively.

 

[RealityNow]

In a nut shell.... "These people.. shown us that Morality is only used as a pretense, but to them it means, "serve only ones self and those with like colored skin"... it also means, "do as one wants that is self servicing regardless of what damages it does to any others, as long as self gratification is pursued and if possible gained."

The matter is: to look at the "Type" of nut, the "Type" of shell.... and "what is the "Type" of substance the innards are made of'.... Then to Know what "Type" of Tree Produces it".... One will find... "its the "Tree of PLUTOCRACY".... !!!!

Thus you get "Plutocratic Nuts"!!!

These people have exposed the tip of the tree's top.... and soon all the branches and the trunk will be clearly defined, and it will evident what the roots look like and how they spread and seek to have depth to steep themselves in solid soil.

__________________________________________________________
For those who pretend and some simply don't know what Plutocracy is:

Plutocracy:

1 : government by the wealthy
2 : a controlling class of the wealthy

Plutocracy is a government controlled exclusively by the wealthy either directly or indirectly. A plutocracy allows, either openly or by circumstance, only the wealthy to rule. This can then result in policies exclusively designed to assist the wealthy.

A plutocracy is very different from a democracy, in which in person's vote counts equally.

A plutocracy doesn't have to be a purposeful, overt format for government. Instead, it can be created through the allowance of access to certain programs and educational resources only to the wealthy and making it so that the wealthy hold more sway. The concern of inadvertently creating a plutocracy is that the regulatory focus will be narrow and concentrated on the goals of the wealthy, creating even more income and asset-based inequality.

Be of no mistake, its not expected that many will understand this, as we've already seen the lack of, demonstrated in numerous comments. Thus so... it is likely suitable for those who do understand Democracy, and know that Democracy is not a system that support nor promote Plutocracy, because it violates the principles Democracy is Built upon.

So... those who don't grasp that, need not come with their attack trying to diminish what's written, they can only further expose themselves for what they are... and demonstrate their ignorance... of not understanding the vile that Plutocracy is within and unto a system of Democracy.

....to such types... gloss on over this and go back to your spin.... you'd be much delighted with yourself, than trying to think of what challenges the whole of ones make up, to learn what is Democracy and its abhorrence of plutocracy. .

 

[smallvoice]

You apparently forgot what was being discussed here. You don't need "experience" to get into college. Obama was a community organizer after he graduated from Columbia, not before he matriculated there. Obama also never pretended to be a foreign student (although his residence was out of the country when he applied to college, and he was educated in another country), and he never pretended to be a minority that I'm aware of, but that's because he didn't have to. His father was black.

Why do you hide from what I said?

 

[RealityNow]

Understanding "Liberty" .... in terms of principles which established "The Declaration of Independence"....

 

[tres borrachos]

Why do you hide from what I said?

Hide from what you said? This is about college admissions. You don't need experience to go to college. And Obama is a minority, or are you saying he only pretended to be one?

Your community organizer comment was off topic. But it is a peek into your brain if you think community organizing was all Obama did before he ran for the office of POTUS, which is not the subject of this thread anyway.

 

[JasperL]

The purpose of college is higher learning. Using football as an example, I love college athletics...but these have nothing to do with academic education, which is the purpose. Yes, they produce significant revenue, but I don't think that students should be accepted into a school unless they have academic merit, meaning that they are able to do the work. Many are not, even though at large schools, they're provided with literally around-the-clock free tutoring. I don't wish to get into the weeds about how student-athletes are exploited and should be paid or any of that but do think that those who aren't academically able should go pro if they have the talent and stop wasting their time and their professors' too.

OK, but you're using "merit" in a different reality than our own. In this one, schools recruit good athletes, and 100s of thousands of them (NCAA says there are 460,000 student athletes) are NOT in the power schools in the two big sports - football and basketball - without functioning minor leagues, and that serve as minor leagues for the pros. It's only there where schools admit kids who cannot do the work. For all the rest of the sports and the non-power conferences, the athletes are able to handle the academics, they just get preferences based on athletic merit.

FWIW, outside FB and BB, the few student athletes I taught were actually better than average students, two out of maybe 6 or 7 were outstanding. Some of it perhaps was the coaches required instructors (at this school anyway) to report absences and missed assignments and they didn't do that. The other was the kids seemed well organized, better than most, which perhaps isn't surprising since the ones succeeding in college had been juggling long hours participating in athletics in and out of 'season' and academics through HS and then college. I haven't done formal polling of other professors and instructors, but the only problems I ever heard were in the big two - football and men's basketball.

 

[nota bene]

OK, but you're using "merit" in a different reality than our own. In this one, schools recruit good athletes, and 100s of thousands of them (NCAA says there are 460,000 student athletes) are NOT in the power schools in the two big sports - football and basketball - without functioning minor leagues, and that serve as minor leagues for the pros. It's only there where schools admit kids who cannot do the work. For all the rest of the sports and the non-power conferences, the athletes are able to handle the academics, they just get preferences based on athletic merit.

FWIW, outside FB and BB, the few student athletes I taught were actually better than average students, two out of maybe 6 or 7 were outstanding. Some of it perhaps was the coaches required instructors (at this school anyway) to report absences and missed assignments and they didn't do that. The other was the kids seemed well organized, better than most, which perhaps isn't surprising since the ones succeeding in college had been juggling long hours participating in athletics in and out of 'season' and academics through HS and then college. I haven't done formal polling of other professors and instructors, but the only problems I ever heard were in the big two - football and men's basketball.

There are rarely problems with female athletes academically either.

 

[ralphcdp]

... but in this case the "rule of law" has been pissed on for as long as there has been an USA...so the practice has been accepted by society.

Oh so true. There is outright adulation for all the genocidal/war criminal/terrorist presidents.

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh so true. There is outright adulation for all the genocidal/war criminal/terrorist presidents.

You keep saying that ...

So, how are these supposed "genocidal/war criminal/terrorist presidents"?

 

[Xelor]

OK, but you're using "merit" in a different reality than our own. In this one, schools recruit good athletes, and 100s of thousands of them (NCAA says there are 460,000 student athletes) are NOT in the power schools in the two big sports - football and basketball - without functioning minor leagues, and that serve as minor leagues for the pros. It's only there where schools admit kids who cannot do the work. For all the rest of the sports and the non-power conferences, the athletes are able to handle the academics, they just get preferences based on athletic merit.

FWIW, outside FB and BB, the few student athletes I taught were actually better than average students, two out of maybe 6 or 7 were outstanding. Some of it perhaps was the coaches required instructors (at this school anyway) to report absences and missed assignments and they didn't do that. The other was the kids seemed well organized, better than most, which perhaps isn't surprising since the ones succeeding in college had been juggling long hours participating in athletics in and out of 'season' and academics through HS and then college. I haven't done formal polling of other professors and instructors, but the only problems I ever heard were in the big two - football and men's basketball.

Red:
Well, I haven't much to add in this regard. Football and basketball players didn't come near my classes, which were "weeders" for econ majors. I taught a handful of students who participated in individual sports -- gymnastics, swimming, golf and tennis -- and their performance was adequate (B- to B+).

I think that's because econ has a reputation of being hard. I understand that to a point because until one disabuses oneself of one's preconceived notions of what one may think econ theory says and simply takes it for what it in fact does say, it's likely hard. For instance, countless were the students who construed "demand" as things people want rather than as things people actually buy, not realizing that purchasing implies wanting or that economics doesn't care what one wants because is merely a thought and that can't be measured. I don't know how college age folks finish high school without knowing that, but I know they sure do show up in econ classes not already understanding it.

I suspect you can relate to that. Accounting is much the same. I cannot tell you how many folks just can't accept for what it the statement "debit means 'on the left.'" Folks, for some reason, want it to mean more than that, and so they "force" it to do do in their minds, and in doing so goof somewhere.

Athletes, due the heavy demands on their time, may have a tougher time with course that have a prerequisite on one's arrive to the class as a clear thinking sort of person. Exhaustion makes it harder to read/listen carefully.

 

[Xelor]

...but in this case the "rule of law" has been pissed on for as long as there has been an USA...so the practice has been accepted by society.

Oh so true. There is outright adulation for all the genocidal/war criminal/terrorist presidents.

Red:
You don't supposed people's predilection for making inflammatory remarks has something to with it, do you?

 

[Xelor]

"It" didn't work anything like this for any of them. But if you're going to make a dumb comparison, don't forget Trump, Jared, and Ivanka.

FWIW, the indictment is pretty fascinating reading. I'm pretty shocked at how open the fraud was, and that it involved head coaches at some pretty elite schools. Seems likely a few people in the upper reaches of the athletic departments would have to also be involved as well.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download

Red:
Some of the had to have been involved.

Universities are large and complex organizations where the "left hand" often enough has no idea what the "right hand" is doing. (A quick look at UCLA's org chart alludes to how siloed schools are.) Thus I understand how someone in Admissions, the Dean of Students or another purely administrative office may not notice the irregularities or patterns pertaining to student athletes enrolling and then dropping out of the sports program. Such students are likely even less likely to show up "on the radar" if they don't receive scholarships or other financial aid.
I suspect the same dollar-driven focus applies to some extent to athletics directors. A water polo player, for instance, who leaves the team, and who wasn't by the school being funded, likely, if at all, registers more than a "meh, she quit the team." At large schools like USC and UCLA, such students are likely nothing more than a statistic on a report.

That said, I'd think insofar as the scheme had been running for almost a decade, someone "higher up" in the school athletics department must have noticed a pattern....or been part of the pattern, so to speak.

 

[Xelor]

One of the Desperate Housewives cast member has now weight in about the "Varsity Blues" happenings.

We don't know the facts, but we can be extremely disturbed by the entitlement, the power and money that can take away from less privileged and that, to me, is disgraceful. I think there are ways to remedy a system that isn't working, and I think it has been broken for a long time. I don't want to get into how to fix it, but it's troublesome. It's troublesome because it can change the life path of a child that is deserving.
-- Nicollette Sheridan​

I suppose we'll soon hear from Angela Bassett, who is among the talent in the upcoming film, Otherhood.

Of Sheridan's remarks:

• What "we" don't know the facts? The only we who don't know the facts is the "we" who have not read the complaint and indictment documents.
  
  I mean, really. What does she think? The DoJ and FBI are going to say all that stuff -- particularly quoted/transcribed phone conversations, captured emails and hard copy documents -- and then not have the actual recorded conversations, documents, etc?
• I'm disturbed by the way in which folks used their extant entitlement than I'm by the fact that they feel entitled.
• One way to fix it is to ensure that

Some folks may find "You’re not going to get accepted into a top university on merit alone" interesting. Along with original prose, it references a Harvard Dean of Admissions' response to the following compound question:

Let me assume that 80 to 90 percent of the students who apply to Harvard are qualified and could reasonably be expected to do well there. They have good GPA scores and SATs.​

• 
  [*=1]How does Harvard decide whom to admit?
  [*=1]Are there objective criteria? If so can you describe them?
  [*=1]Do you have requirements internally about the number of students you admit who want to major in a given subject area?

As the parent of three children my observation is that the process, as viewed by a student, is more a crapshoot than a rational, predictable process.​

 

[Excon]

You maintain the acts were "legal" and yet they've been indicted on and no doubt many will plead guilty to what you're calling "legal" acts, that include outright bribery of public employees, and for violating the mail and related wire fraud statute that's been on the books for around 150 years.

And again you show you have not paid attention.

Pay attention this time.
I spoke only to the parents charged with mail fraud. Nothing else.
You have not shown any other crime on their part.

---

:laughat:

Red:

https://i.gifer.com/7mPP.gif[IMG][/CENTER][/QUOTE]


[HR][/HR]

[QUOTE="dcsports, post: 1069823254, member: 31636"]Not sure what you hope to gain being fixated on this. [/QUOTE]Not sure what you hope to gain by being fixated on my post.

[QUOTE="dcsports, post: 1069823254, member: 31636"]You are confusing the crime with the underlying motive.[/QUOTE]Wrong.
I am speaking to the underlying activity on their part which is not a crime, not the mail fraud they are accused of.


[QUOTE="dcsports, post: 1069823254, member: 31636"]The underlying activity is fraud. The parents are paying someone to commit fraud, falsify documents, submit bribes, etc.. The fact the parents aren't doing it themselves doesn't somehow remove their responsibility. They are a party to the crime just as as much as a person who pays another to commit theft, hack a secure system, burn down a business, send a threatening letter, or harm someone. [/QUOTE]iLOL Interesting.
The parents I spoke about were charged with mail fraud, nothign else.
Try again.


[QUOTE="dcsports, post: 1069823254, member: 31636"]Sure, they want to help their kids - but that's not an excuse, any more than it would be if they robbed a store to by groceries.[/QUOTE]
Oy vey! Robbery is a crime.​