People deal with learning disorders in a variety of ways. Families who have the financial resources leave the public school system. They ask for accommodations on standardized tests and some of them successfully target elite schools.
But none of this has anything to do with the federal charges facing the people in this case. Neither does extra time on exams, legacy admissions, or wealthy donors. The students in this case got in because parents paid someone else to take or correct exams and bribed coaches to add them to their roster.
This thread is about the bribing and corruptions of elite colleges, and the system obviously has problems, to call people who are upset about the status quo “angry” (“sour grapes”) just seem rather bizarre. I don’t mind mega donors donating to colleges, but if that mega donor were Sam Walton, maybe the money would be better spent for Wal-Mart to pay its employees better wages so that they would not need their boss’ largess to get FA for their children’s dream schools.
Rich people don’t get rich in a vacuum, their wealth comes from society.
I don’t know many alumni who continue donating to schools that reject their kids. I know many alumni who continue donating when their kids choose not to apply or when they have no children of their own. I know many alumni who continue donating long after their kids have graduated when further donations can’t “buy” them any more special consideration. So, no, these donations are not entirely self-serving. But the practical reality is that most people are angry and disappointed when a school they love rejects the children they love and those feelings do not engender an impulse to give.
@privatebanker “we are mad that some rich people can buy these”
I’m certainly not “mad” that rich people can buy whatever they want. That’s why I suggested that universities just put those seats up for auction so that any rich person with a kid who can meet some baseline score like 1400 or 32 can bid for his child to get a seat. The college gets the same benefit.
The only thing that bothers me is the idea that it is a charitable donation. If it is really a charitable donation, the donor will give whether or not his child is put in the same pool as other students and admitted if the application and student stand out so much that they get one of the coveted 5% admit seats. If the donor expects his child to be admitted as long as he meets some baseline, it isn’t “charitable” anymore, at least in my opinion.
I am far less cynical about the very rich than a lot of posters here who insist that we need to keep letting big donors children in through the back door because if they were admitted in the same pool as other students and didn’t get in because their application did not stand out over other students, those donors would not donate. I believe the ones who are TRULY donating for charitable purposes will continue to donate.
Therein lies the problem with this endless repetitive conversation. Understanding the entire story is very helpful to making informed conclusions.
If one cannot see the difference in a generous goodwill donor and the very teeny tiny amount of people that committed CRIMES and made donations to SINGER, who then made them to the schools or a COACH etc., disguised under different cloaks - then inappropriate blame and judgement will remain rampant by those that remain endlessly uniformed. The schools didn’t do this and a bunch of rich people didn’t do anything - but a handful of bad people with selfish motives did. And yes, the amount is so incredibly statistically insignificant any way this is looked at.
Most people have figured this out by now, as it makes its way down the news chain. Frankly, besides clinging to victim status, certain people are only hanging on to the story because of the Hollywood element - that has so much more intrigue (and a jealousy/envy component) than the CEO that gave a million bucks to get his kid in. Still challenge anyone to name any of the other families and their student involved in this, that don’t have Hollywood ties, without googling the name.
There really are not that many low SES students in elite private universities to being with. Only 10-22% of undergraduates there are on Pell grants.
Also, some are the “privileged poor” who managed to get into prep schools on scholarship or top quality public schools, rather than coming from the limited opportunity educational environments that are common in low SES areas.
I agree with many of your points. This probably would have been a one day story without the Hollywood ties. I’m shocked at how many people were unaware that years before these Hollywood people were caught, the U. Pennsylvania basketball coach got paid by a very rich Florida businessman to designate his 5’8" son as a recruit so he could get into Wharton. That coach – who left to go to the Celtics – even passed along the information to another Penn coach still there (who has since left) to make sure that the money paid by the dad in exchange for his son to go to Wharton was received correctly.
That happened many months ago and almost no one noticed.
Is anyone else sick of people who reason that this scandal justifies affirmative action policies? I’ve seen so many articles to that effect recently.
This ignores the fact that Singer allegedly misrepresented students’ ethnicities. And perhaps even more importantly, a second wrong doesn’t make a right just because it involves a different group.
The elite college legacy is most likely to have other college choices. Non legacies are more likely to be constrained by money or other issues limiting their other college choices. For example, how about a student from a low income family who has DACA status and lives in a state with poor in state public school FA and no provisions for DACA students?
20% pell grants seems pretty good. That means 1 in 5 students are very low income. Pell grant recipients are not the only students who benefit. Lots of families who don’t qualify for pell are still only able to attend these schools through their generous FA policies. What percentage of students at Harvard get some form of FA?
What does that matter? These kids managed to find a way to get a decent education. Good for them. The point is that their families would not be able to send them to college without the generosity of donors.
@observer12 Hey 5 8 players can be good. Spud webb and mugsy Bowes were
5 4. And they could dunk. Heck Steph Curry is 5 11 and the best player in the NBA. (Don’t believe his stats. I’ve stood next to him).
We could start a new thread saying the Basketball scholarships are unfair to anyone not really tall. Even if you shoot just as well. That is an unfair advantage you are born with like really rich grandparents. Probably a higher genetic probability of being 6 5+ than the numbers of Uber rich Harvard legacy grandparents.
:-?
@wyzragamer “Is anyone else sick of people who reason that this scandal justifies affirmative action policies?”
I haven’t seen anyone saying that this scandal “justifies” affirmative action policies. The scandal just points out the hypocrisy of those who oppose them.
Call me a socialist (I am not), but if anyone deserves affirmative action, it is a student who has been disadvantaged his entire life. There is something off about claiming those students must be in the same admissions pool, but kids given everything from birth should not be in the same admissions pool if their parents can buy their way into a special pool.
“This thread is about the bribing and corruptions of elite colleges”
No, it isn’t. It’s about the machinations of some parents willing to pay money to 3rd parties to get their kids in. I have issue with how recruting hooks work, but what the 50 indicted did was not in cahoots with the University, itself. It was certain staff who held a trump card.
Again, the donors cannot “(expect) his child to be admitted as long as he meets some baseline,” not if you are assuming that baseline is artificially lowered because of the donation. None of these kids is an auto admit or gets in with a handshake, without an application.
I worked on the project to ensure donor prefs were being met by the U I work for. Every single endowment all the way back in time was reviewed. 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.)
@lookingforward "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. "
YOU are the one who acts as if it is a quid pro quo, not me.
I said to put their children in the same pile as all the other applicants and if their kid is admitted, that’s great because we all know that the donor wasn’t donating with the understanding that his kid would get in.
I don’t see how you can have it both ways. I guess I’m calling the bluff of all the people who say those donations aren’t contingent on an admissions advantage for their kid. Since they aren’t contingent on that, why would you give that to them if there are more worthy students to choose?
“has anyone else here wondered if any of the people who were caught will kill themselves?”
“I think the speculation about suicide etc is in bad taste. Some of the students may have been completely ignorant of what their parents were doing and even if a few had some idea, they were minors who made a bad mistake.”
The speculation about suicide is, unfortunately, a valid concern that is very much on my mind. As far as mental health goes, it doesn’t matter whether the people charged are guilty or innocent. It doesn’t matter whether the kids involved knew or didn’t know. When people are publicly shamed and fear the permanent loss of their status or identity, they often contemplate suicide. Many of my expelled students come to me after a hospitalization following suicide attempts or ideation. I hope that the people close to these families, especially the kids, are keeping a close eye on them.
I believe no one meant to suggest that suicide is an appropriate or desirable reaction for anyone involved, even the cooperating witnesses who’ve already pleaded guilty. Accepting bribes doesn’t merit the death penalty. It’s just a real risk in the midst of a crisis like this.
@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.