However, tests which are divided into sections where the test taker can only work on the designated section (e.g. SAT) may be undesirable to have universal extra time for fast test takers.
For example, here is the SAT test schedule: How Long Does the SAT Take? - College Board Blog . If all times were doubled, fast test takers would be spending unneeded and useless (for them) extra time taking the SAT, probably leading to complaints.
I am not saying the current situation is ideal, but I am suggesting that extended time has an objective to make things more fair for people with disabilities. If extra time is given to all, a person without a disability will be able to check answers while a person with a disability will still be challenged to finish. Do you mean that you think all people should have as much time as they want? Lots of reasons why this will never happen - and still not ok because of fatigue. Agree on test optional. Note that there is definitely a time component to the test as well.
My kids never needed extra time on school tests or college tests as most aren’t designed as speed tests. They both would have done much better on the ACT with extra time as one is a really (really) slow reader and the other needs more time for math. However, neither got more time because, since they didn’t use it when they were in grade school (both had an IEP with almost automatically includes extra time since they really don’t know when a kid is 6 if extra time will be needed so they just put it in there), they lost is - use it or lose it!
I think the tests should be so dependent on time. Give plenty of time to finish to all kids. If some still need extra time, then have those kids get extra time. Does every single kid who gets extra time need 1.5x or 2x time? No. Does every kid who needs to take the exam over several days need the same arrangement? No. It should be rare, very rare, for a student to need several days to take the exam, or a room to themselves, or to be able to select their own proctor as Singer was able to arrange without much trouble.
Back in the day, when taking the Bar Exam, they had some special rooms, mainly for typers and smokers. Typing is now just part of the regular exam process and smokers have had to learn to adjust - they can go out to smoke, but don’t get extra time.
In my oldest son’s HS class, it wasn’t tens of millions to move the needle. For one Ivy league legacy, it was a $1mm scholarship donation by the father the year before admission. For the same Ivy, it was another mother’s $500k donation as one of her class’ “reunion year” fundraising chairs.
That’s what was so surprising to me about Varsity Blues - for the money they gave to Singer, they could have legitimately gone directly to the schools and likely got the same result.
I don’t think you got my sarcasm on the word “superior.” I am asking what should be the relevant criteria to deserve a university education. As things stand, it seems the education is reserved as a kind of random trophy for a “better overall human.” The Netflix video seems to raise this point from the beginning to the very end (and then drops, of course). What is (should be) the meaning of university education? This is the basic question everyone must ask but nobody wants to face.
This is the questions the OP asked, and should be the focus of this thread. The fact that a thread on test optional/validity of test scores was recently shut down does not mean those topics can now migrate here. We allow some leeway on meandering comments in the café, but not in cases where the topic has been declared dead elsewhere.
I watched this last night and felt very sorry for the sailing coach, I totally believe the presentation that Stanford expected fundraising & he was grateful for the weird guy who kept sending money his way.
I also ended with the feeling that the FBI sought all those parents because it would make a big PR splash, it is the opposite of what you see with drug dealers. I sincerely hope Rick Singer is slammed and gets very little benefit from his cooperation.
I can see how those parents, well maybe not all of them, but some of them, slid down that slippery slope. Especially having followed the desperation on the assorted college forums the last 20 years. I also think, yes, those people were caught, but we all know darned well that there is lots of that sort of thing going on, and Singer just found a little hack. I personally know kids who got a “second look” at admissions based on sports. Several were perfectly qualified for the school, but the second look helped them stand out from the crowd, another kid was an amazing athlete, for real, and probably had stats on the lower end of the spectrum, but I know graduated. I feel disgust for parents willing to create fake photos. That should have been the time when they realized that this was not a legit side door.
Singer seems like a greedy sociopath, no care for all those people whose lives he ruined, he probably saw them as stupid and deserving of the punishment. And yet, what was his gain? No family, not much of a life, money spent, maybe just the power trip?
This is what I’ve seen as well. Although I think legacies can get a bit more certainty about whether or not their donation will lead to an acceptance than someone unconnected. Not a sure thing, but more winks and nods.
A million dollar donation from a stranger might not be as well received and feel more like a bribe.
Perhaps a million dollar donation would be “minor development money” that gives a bump akin to legacy status (perhaps on top of existing legacy status), while it would take a much larger donation to be “major development money” that gives an almost sure thing for the kid’s admissions?
If so, then Singer was trying to turn “minor development money” into something more like “major development” results.
I feel sorry for the kids whose parents didn’t believe in them enough to let them lean on their own accomplishments. The scars from that are a much worse punishment than any jail sentence.
I feel sorry for parents (& students) who think that success cannot be achieved unless it’s at an Ivy League college.
I do think the sailing coach understood exactly what was going on but was in a bad position. He did seem uneasy about it until his superiors acknowledged knowing Rick.
I have no doubt that this scandal is just the tip of a massive iceberg that’s been getting bigger for decades. I don’t think the arrests or jail sentences will change much of anything (other than the fake sport participants and maybe more scrutiny over test-taking). The only action that could have an effect would be a mass-scale boycott by applicants of the schools that participated - but we know that will never happen (see paragraph 2 above).
This. I mentioned that ds2 knows one of the kids involved. It was beyond my son’s comprehension when I explained it to him. He said but they don’t play that sport, and I said that I know, that was the whole point. It was devastating, though ds said that it did explain some things. I think that meant this person wasn’t the most studious and took a pretty light load, but they did the work and ds was upset at the prospect that the school would yank their diploma. I don’t think that happened.
I went to grad school at USC When I first heard Lori Laughlin paid Singer $500K to get her daughters into the school, I remember thinking that if she gave the money directly to USC, not only would her kids have been admitted, but they probably would have honored her in a ceremony and named a parklet or something after her.
For me, the most telling point was when a high level educator comes on near the end of the documentary and says “the truth is you can procure a good education just about anywhere”…I know that isn’t popular on here but it is completely the truth.
I loved that part too. It’s true and would stop the madness if more folks understood that. There are well educated, super successful people from all levels of colleges and people living average lives despite attending elite universities.
Agree with this observation generally, but for the privileged parents caught up in the scandal, I think their prime motivation was as described at the beginning of the piece. It was not about giving their kids an educational advantage, it was more about giving the parents bragging rights, another bauble showing off their wealth and position.
The documentary doesn’t go into great detail about this, but the books about the case do: at schools with very low admit rates, $500,000 gets an applicant a second look (at best) during the normal committee review. Guarantees start at 8 figures.
What makes it even more galling is that a lot of these ultra-wealthy folks have business empires that their children will be working in. Like the Trump clan, for example. It literally doesn’t matter one bit where the kids go to school if Dad is the CEO of a privately held company that will be hiring them. Ivanka Trump, for example, would have had the identical future had she attended SUNY-Binghamton instead of Penn.
What is galling about this?
Did Ivanka take your kid’s admissions spot at Wharton, or screw her out of a position in the Trump organization?
Some very wealthy people have their own companies and often hire their own children, is there a problem with that?
As this is a thread about the varsity blues scandal, did I miss the news about Trump being indicted for his participation?
Perhaps you are conflating your personal frustrations and unhappiness with a movie about cheating on college admissions?
You miss my point entirely. I wasn’t suggesting that Ivanka Trump was an illegitimate admit to Warton. I was only suggesting that for someone from that level of wealth (daughter of a billionaire with a huge family business empire) the school she actually attends has zero influence on her future trajectory as an adult. I was just using her as an example of a wealthy Ivy League heiress who we are all familiar with. Not as an example of an illegitimate admit. My suggestion is that Wharton has very little if anything to do with Ivanka’s future life trajectory.
The point I was making is that the uber-wealthy parents portrayed in Varsity Blues are going to extraordinary and illegal lengths to get their students into specific schools when the schools that their children attend is likely to have nearly zero influence on their future life trajectory. When daddy has a spot waiting for you in his billion dollar business empire, it really doesn’t matter where you go to school. It’s really just about bragging rights and cocktail party chatter and nothing more. That is what I find galling. Honestly, if I was the patriarch of a multi-billion dollar family empire, I’d probably rather have my kids have some real life experiences amongst a less rarified group of peers before diving into a life of privilege. So I’d almost be more inclined to send them to a local state school than across the country to an Ivy. But they will be fine either way.
I agree 1000%. There are those, as the saying goes, were born on third base and think they got there by hitting a triple. The children of the uber-wealthy/powerful often get dreadful grades at these elite schools, and that doesn’t affect their future either.
The poster who reacted a bit harshly saw your post perhaps as a political attack—I did not see it as that at all.