No student and no parent would ever be able to “prove” the term “more qualified,” because in order to do that , a couple of things would have to happen.
The college would have to violate HIPA and turn over all student files for inspection to outsiders. A family's personal outrage about being denied does not rise to the standard of violation of privacy laws.
The college, or the federal government, or some private attorney, would have to be assigned equal or greater value for their evaluation of students than the college's evaluation of students. Put bluntly, outsiders utterly lack qualifications to make determinations about students from around the world that you will never know. Ditto for 18 year olds.
Plenty of people are outraged that other job seekers get jobs that they subjectively believe they are more qualified for; that similar outrage – even if apparently true – also does not entitle those who were rejected to examine the files of their competitors, after the fact or before the fact. Reasons why some qualified people get hired and other equally or “better” qualified people do not is often more subjective than could ever be articulated. Just as a workplace needs a well-working team of people with diverse skills in harmony with that workplace culture, so does a college campus need a heterogeneous student body, all of whom nevertheless harmonize with the campus culture.
Finally, you have zero evidence that students who did not lie, cheat, and steal during or before the application process were not given a holistic review.
@epiphany you’re correct except it would be violating FERPA not HIPAA laws.
I don’t see how anyone can think that any of this scandal has proven that other applicants were not given a holistic review. These cases likely have little to no bearing on our own kids acceptance and rejections.
Do the kid and her parents deserve this severe punishment? Her resume was indeed partially untrue or exaggerated but how many kids at Stanford can withstand such scrutiny? If so, should they all be kicked out?
IMO, yes. If you lie on a college app and get caught, you give up your right to be there.
There’s a difference between saying “I was a team captain” and not mentioning that there were 6 captains (an exaggeration, maybe), and saying you were one when you were not (a lie). For example.
This one apparently falsified a lot of competitive sailing credentials, or they were falsified on her behalf. In the second case, that’s sad, if it came to Stanford not on the common app and thus through no channel she signed off on…
Just found out from S1 that a couple of kids that I know had extended time on their ACT. Neither had any learning challenges that I am aware of…both are athletes, and I would say that one in particular simply didn’t put much effort into studies. The other one got a 35, is wealthy, and went to a private boarding school with all that advantages that entail.
Both sets have parents had the money to make the extra time happen.
@57special I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. Just beachside they don’t have learning disabilities you’re aware of dosnt mean they don’t have them. I think it’s safe to say that we don’t know everything about other people’s children.
After reading the WSJ article and the Stanford Daily article about the Stanford student, and giving the student’s family the benefit of the doubt, I do feel for the girl and her family. Yes, there was at least one lie on her application about her sailing, whether she was aware of it or not, and that cannot be excused. But it seems she got in without the sports recruit angle, and she got into multiple colleges too.
It is credible that her family thought they were giving to Stanford ultimately, but Singer kept the money. The student’s family had so much money they didn’t care where it was going and didn’t care to channel it properly. The whole thing smacks of rich people doing crazy things (things that look crazy to us ordinary people.) The student’s father apparently had engaged in bribery before and was connected with a bribery case where a government official was executed for accepting bribes.
See, it may be credible to some that they “thought” they were giving to a tippy top.
The issue is: they didn’t, not directly, not officially or legally.
The isn’t your grandma being phone scammed because she thought it was the IRS calling. There were several active layers of effort involved. None that we know of involved the U fundraising folks/development directing these families to an alternate channel.
I think these schools would be better off just having auction slots sold to the highest bidder; figuring out how to go the jared kushner route seems more opaque than just have an auction for the slots.
It’s amazing to me to think that anyone would think a Stanford education is worth 6.5 million over the regular full freight sticker price of any number of other great schools she would have gotten into. Same line of thought goes for most of these parents, whether it was 500K for USC or 1.2 million for Yale.
@Nrdsb4 It’s people with too much money. 6.5 million is what some billionaires make in a day in China or elsewhere.
@anon145 I agree with the auction to the highest bidder approach. Puts a real value to the seat and not what a Singer or a Kushner can get for it (or what they can get it for). I have little doubt that bids start at well over $100m at some schools and there would be bidders each year.
@lookingforward Not at all. These colleges can actually give fewer spots away to the wealthy by auctioning just a few spots to the really wealthy. They generate same money for their endowment or whatever needs from the fewer highest bidders and give more access to real kids.
I am conflicted here … I feel very bad for the girl but like @OHMomof2 writes I am also of the opinion that Stanford did the only thing they could do. Like it or not, the reality is that they have to reject most qualified applicants so the most important factor for them is the intangible/holistic one. For many reasons (including legal ones) they have to take that seriously so they really have no choice IMO.
On the other hand I am as upset and outraged as others here and a part of me wants severe legal consequences at least for the parents. But then I reflect that something very wrong is not necessarily illegal and pause not because I feel bad for the parents (on the contrary!) but because the alternative of legal overreach worries me more. Historically and in the long-term the ones that suffer the most from draconian applications of the law are not those that can afford multi million-dollar bribes and lawyers but marginalized people that can’t. As ridiculous as it sounds something inside of me sees an investigative report years from now on how they are imprisoning poor black people because overeager prosecutors are using exaggerated extracurriculars on applications as a legal weapon…
I’m still curious how many cases this will turn out to be. How much, in the grand scheme. Remember, if your only source is media, it can mislead.
Bronze2, folks can just follow the legit process as it is.
While an auction sounds like a great way to make money, no one knows what it would raise. The amounts to have legit admissions attention are freaking huge, well over 6.5mil. Or some paltry 100/500k. Legit mega donors don’t just show up with a check. A relationship with the U is forged over a time. And don’t forget, the U wants kids who can succeed, in and out if the classroom. Contrary to CC opinion, not just warm, wealthy bodies to fill seats.