Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

1183184186188189278

Replies to: Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

  • makemesmartmakemesmart Registered User Posts: 1,038 Senior Member
    @observer12
    Thank you! Can’t be stated better!

    @lookingforward
    I sincerely hope that I am too cynical and you are not too naive.
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    @privatebanker "Hey 5 8 players can be good. Spud webb and mugsy Bowes were"

    You are right, I should have left his height out. The fact that the dad paid the U Penn basketball coach to designate his kid as a recruit so he could get a place at Wharton instead of being treated like all the applicants to Wharton would have been just as illegal if the player was 6'11" and still not a good enough player to deserve that spot.
  • privatebankerprivatebanker Registered User Posts: 3,773 Senior Member
    @observer12 I was just joking. You made a good point in that post.
  • lookingforwardlookingforward Registered User Posts: 31,358 Senior Member
    How can I assume it's QPQ when I do not see it in the U environment? Their kids are vetted. In ways, I'm calling your bluff (and a few others) who insist how it is, but from the outside. Again, my complaint is about the pull coaches can have.

    Once people understand admission is not simply merited only based on stats and some hs titles or awards, there are a host of ways kids qualify. Their drives and how they put them into action, the quality of their thinking and striving, their perspective and maturity. Their engagement in ways that matter more than serving themselves, their own nrrow interests. Not just the bare bones of a hs resume.
  • GourmetmomGourmetmom Registered User Posts: 2,809 Senior Member
    @observer12 I think your view is unsophisticated. That it's common for big legacy donors to shoehorn in their unqualified children is fairly unlikely, despite what you may read or see in movies. My experience is that most parents are pretty thoughtful and care about their children, thus they want the right college fit, and if it's not their alma mater, they're okay. Smart people want to see their kids thrive and are not looking to sacrifice fit and happiness simply for some dumb perceived prestige.
  • makemesmartmakemesmart Registered User Posts: 1,038 Senior Member
    Apparently USC administration didn’t see the corruption of their employees from inside either. @lookingforward
  • 1NJParent1NJParent Registered User Posts: 872 Member
    edited March 17
    These people did give willingly and for the good of the U and its students, sometimes, quite touchingly. Nothing guarantees their kids get in. Don't assume they don't give from charitable intentions (as well as the need to unload some wealth) or that it's only about quid pro quo. (Those the big donors do get lunches and dinners and get to stay in special campus accommodations, if needed. Maybe the lapel pin or the other cheap thank yous.)
    So why do they need to be offered a special incentive, a quid pro quo? The donors who donated to MIT and Caltech didn't seem to care about this special incentive. Are they a different breed?
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    edited March 17
    @Gourmetmom "That it's common for big legacy donors to shoehorn in their unqualified children is fairly unlikely, despite what you may read or see in movies. My experience is that most parents are pretty thoughtful and care about their children, thus they want the right college fit, and if it's not their alma mater, they're okay."

    I agree with you which is why we should BOTH agree that the children of big legacy donors should be treated just like every applicant and obviously the ones who are worthy of being admitted will be admitted on their own merits.

    How is that view "unsophisticated"? I am saying that I don't think many of those children -- despite being "qualified" -- would be admitted without the parents' donation and the reason I think that is because the colleges refuse to just put them in the same pile.

    Actually, I believe that MIT doesn't give alumni or big donors' children preference and I don't believe it has hurt their donations and if it has, then they are absolutely able to function as a university and have a much higher number of low-income students than the already incredibly rich universities that are afraid to do what MIT does.

    So if MIT can do it and still have lots of low-income students, can you explain why other even richer universities cannot?

    Maybe MIT really does believe that their donors donate for the good of the university and not to get something in return.
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    @1NJParent

    We had the very same thought!
  • privatebankerprivatebanker Registered User Posts: 3,773 Senior Member
    @1NJParent

    Yes the typical MIT and Caltech student is a “different breed”. It’s a small subset of a subset.
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    @privatebanker

    Do you mean that the typical MIT alumnus is a "different breed" and actually donates for charitable purpose and is not expecting their kid to be treated like everyone else?
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    @lookingforward "Once people understand admission is not simply merited only based on stats and some hs titles or awards, there are a host of ways kids qualify. Their drives and how they put them into action, the quality of their thinking and striving, their perspective and maturity. Their engagement in ways that matter more than serving themselves, their own nrrow interests. Not just the bare bones of a hs resume."

    Again, nowhere did I see the bank account of his parents in there. Middle class students with excellent academic records and test scores are judged by all of those things you mentioned. I am asking why anyone believes that the children of rich donors (whether alums or not) should be considered any differently.

    I assume many would be admitted anyway since their stellar credentials would stand out. If there was no need to give them special preference to make sure they were admitted as long as they were "qualified", then there would be no need to give them special preference period. Right?

    You seem to be implying that donors would not donate if their kids were just in the pile with everyone else. Why would you assume that and why would it matter?
  • MommyCoquiMommyCoqui Registered User Posts: 98 Junior Member
    Forgive me if someone else pointed this out...I am trying to keep up. However the test prep mania is not only about elite schools, but it is also about merit money. Maybe even primarily about merit money. Look at the Miami University page about merit money. https://miamioh.edu/admission/merit-guarantee/
    It has a minimum GPA + a minimum SAT score. The year my D applied she was awarded enough that we would only pay room and board. A fantastic deal.
    She received fantastic merit money from all of the big publics she applied to.

    This is why the College Board has to tighten up security around the test.


Sign In or Register to comment.