Thanks for the link. I couldn’t open the Boston Globe article that someone else posted.
In the NYTimes article, the College Board states:
Perhaps they do not like any of the NCAA D2 or D3 schools (for other reasons)? State flagships are more likely to be in NCAA D1, while the state schools in the other divisions are more likely to be non-flagships.
@ucbalumnus and everyone, I am not being clear with my question, I think.
I’m simply wondering why existing resources currently used to fund female teams in crew or sailing or water polo or whatever cannot be transferred to lower level (let’s say JV, I’m aware of club sports) teams for sports that are more popular with girls in high school, like soccer or track or volleyball.
It’s really a fork from the main topic so no biggie, I just wondered.
Does NCAA allow for a “JV” level of intercollegiate sports along with the usual level within the NCAA division? If it does, how would that be seen in relation to Title IX?
https://www.ada.gov/regs2014/testing_accommodations.html
The above are the Obama administration guidelines for the application of ADA to standardized testing.
The guidelines emphasize that in the usual case, a student applying for standardized test accommodations will ALREADY be getting accommodations in school and in previous standardized testing. Thus awarding extra time for SAT/ACT for a student who has not previously had extra time should be considered an exception.
The guidelines give two examples of acceptable exceptions to the ALREADY has accommodations situation: a student who has been receiving accommodations on an informal basis; a student who has recently had an accident that caused learning difficulties.
As far as I can tell, CB and ACT Corp. are awarding extra time to lots of people who have never had it in school before PSAT time and who don’t have reasons for an exception of the kind outlined in the guidelines.
Yes this accommodation issue is frustrating. The article someone linked above states that College Board says that 5% of test takers receive accommodations. So WHY are they not questioning when a particular high school has 50% getting accommodations??? (That stat is mentioned upthread, I admit I don’t know if it’s true).
It seems that College Board could do better at granting accommodations. Also I think high schools should have to list their percentage of students receiving accommodations on their school profile (hoping that having to report it would cause schools to look deeper into fake accommodations as well). Not sure there is anything to be done about unethical doctors giving fake diagnoses to get the accommodations.
Sorry for the thread detour.
“Why can’t colleges expand the number of athletes in sports that many high school girls DO play?”
Colleges do that already, but that practice has been shot down multiple times in federal court. It is called “roster management.”
Let’s say you put 50 kids on the female soccer team while there’s only 25 kids (the typical number) on the male soccer team. That is BS legally since the requirement is to provide equivalent “athletic opportunities” between the genders. Overly padding the girls rosters doesn’t provide real equivalent opportunities. Having JV or club players isn’t the same “opportunity” as having varsity players.
Depending on how many big roster male team sports a school has (football, baseball, ice hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, soccer, etc.) it can be hard to come up with enough female roster spots to make the numbers work. Also, the numbers get even worse since most colleges are 55-60% female enrollment.
Hence the reaching for odd sports like female bowling teams, rifle teams, rowing teams and competitive cheer (which doesn’t work). Or double counting the same female athletes – indoor track as a separate team from outdoor track; beach volleyball separate from to indoor volleyball. Or having only womens teams in lacrosse, volleyball, swimming, soccer, softball/baseball, etc.
No. A Division ! school plays D1 for all its varsity sports. It can have a Club team, or a practice team, but it cannot have a JV team or play a team at a less competitive level for that one sport. If you are D1, that’s where you play.* * Club or practice squad teams do not count toward Title IX.
A varsity team in some sports can have a huge roster, but non-starters get little playing time. They cannot have a second NCAA team. There are also restrictions on how many games a team can schedule, so you can’t just have a huge squad and schedule double the games like spring MLB.
**Some D3 school ‘play up’ in one sport for men, one for women, like Hopkins in lacrosse and Colorado College in hockey/soccer. But they don’t have two teams, one in D1 and a second in D3
Hilarious SNL skit on the scandal:
@Scipio --so funny~
Thank you for the explanations @northwesty and @twoinanddone . I understand now.
Back on topic - some changes at SAT and ACT, sort of:
[quote] In the wake of the federal investigation, the college testing industry is now scrambling to fix weaknesses that the scheme has exposed, focusing on the special-needs arrangements that allowed Mr. Riddell to do his work.
Officials at the College Board said students who needed double the time or more to take the test would now be required to take it at their home schools, with rare exceptions.
[/quote]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-testing.html
Mr. Riddell will get less than four years in prison. I’m guessing these involved parents will see less than that.
I think the parents who plead guilty may get less. Charges have been added to the others.
Some students are now receiving target letters
https://www.law360.com/articles/1149746/exclusive-feds-threaten-varsity-blues-students-with-charges
Good.
Lori Loughlin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli have pleaded not guilty
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/us/lori-loughlin-not-guilty/index.html
Just on the evidence that has been revealed to the public (the transcripts), how can Gianulli and Loughlin think they will be found not guilty? Do they think the jurors will all feel they would do the same thing if they had $500000? Or that jurors will think they were duped and taken advantage of by Singer, or that because they never went to college they thought this is how everyone gets in?
Any lawyers here with comments on this doubling down strategy and going to trial rather than taking a deal?
Imo, they think the real guilty party is Singer and that they have a chance by pointing to being duped.
Not that I agree. I think a great part of the intentional publicity is to scare the bejesus out of future conspirators. I think maybe the Aunt Becky side is feeding into the Fed hands, a poor strategy.
“I think maybe the Aunt Becky side is feeding into the Fed hands, a poor strategy.”
Loughlin and her husband should check out the conviction rates in Federal Court. They are prohibitively high - to the point where, even if you were actually innocent, you would think twice before rolling the dice at trial. And it seems clear that Loughlin and her husband are far from innocent. At this point, avoiding prison is highly unlikely. She needs to focus on doing what she needs to do to get as short a sentence as possible. Doesn’t seem like she’s figured that out yet.