College Admissions: US scandal 2019, affordability, rights, socio-economics, crime, common sense
Golden Key
Shipmate
A huge scandal about a US college admissions scam came out this past week (CNN). There's lots of coverage, but ISTM that article is a pretty good summary.
Allegedly, a lot of very wealthy folks, some from Hollywood, paid big bucks to get their kids into college--not just the polite bribe of making a huge donation to the school in exchange for admission; not just having someone else take the kids' entrance exams; but even falsely portraying the kids as athletes, and creating pics showing their heads pasted on pics of actual athletes. Etc.
I haven't dug into this. I know college can be really important for career prospects, networking, personal growth, and as a rite of passage--oh, and for learning
. From some of the coverage, it seems that some of the kids weren't remotely interested in college. Someone was reported as saying they wanted their kid "to have the college experience". If the kid truly doesn't want to be there, is totally disinclined to do the coursework, and maybe simply doesn't have academic skills, interests, or talent, the kid will probably be really miserable at college, and will probably do very badly.
I could see taking extraordinary, even illegal risks if a kid has the desire/need for college, but can't afford it, and/or was stuck at substandard schools, etc. But why go through all that if the kid's not interested? Why risk prison? Why teach your kid, by example, that "by any means necessary" is ok? Why risk *your kid's* future by getting them into the midst of that mess?
ISTM, it would make much more sense to find out what the kid really wants. If that's college, then spend money on test prep tutoring instead of bribes. If they're not at all sure, community college plus a job might be a good step. Or travel. Or volunteering. Or starting a small business. Etc.
But, now, careers are wrecked, parents may well be going to prison, kids may be in trouble, etc.
Does it make sense to anyone?
I'm thinking of this thread as a place to discuss this current scandal, but maybe also whether college, uni, voc-tech is always necessary (even a good idea*) for everyone. And whether it must take place right after high school. And whether time off in between is better for some people.
What about the deserving, interested, talented kids who didn't get a chance at college because places were taken by scams and bribes?
Why is college so very expensive, anyway? If a kid gets loans, why do they take so long to pay off? And why can't everyone who really *wants* college, but can't afford it, get financial aid? Etc., etc.
What the heck is going on? And can the whole thing be improved?
*Anyone remember Caroline Byrd's book "The Case Against College"?
Allegedly, a lot of very wealthy folks, some from Hollywood, paid big bucks to get their kids into college--not just the polite bribe of making a huge donation to the school in exchange for admission; not just having someone else take the kids' entrance exams; but even falsely portraying the kids as athletes, and creating pics showing their heads pasted on pics of actual athletes. Etc.
I haven't dug into this. I know college can be really important for career prospects, networking, personal growth, and as a rite of passage--oh, and for learning
. From some of the coverage, it seems that some of the kids weren't remotely interested in college. Someone was reported as saying they wanted their kid "to have the college experience". If the kid truly doesn't want to be there, is totally disinclined to do the coursework, and maybe simply doesn't have academic skills, interests, or talent, the kid will probably be really miserable at college, and will probably do very badly.I could see taking extraordinary, even illegal risks if a kid has the desire/need for college, but can't afford it, and/or was stuck at substandard schools, etc. But why go through all that if the kid's not interested? Why risk prison? Why teach your kid, by example, that "by any means necessary" is ok? Why risk *your kid's* future by getting them into the midst of that mess?
ISTM, it would make much more sense to find out what the kid really wants. If that's college, then spend money on test prep tutoring instead of bribes. If they're not at all sure, community college plus a job might be a good step. Or travel. Or volunteering. Or starting a small business. Etc.
But, now, careers are wrecked, parents may well be going to prison, kids may be in trouble, etc.
Does it make sense to anyone?
I'm thinking of this thread as a place to discuss this current scandal, but maybe also whether college, uni, voc-tech is always necessary (even a good idea*) for everyone. And whether it must take place right after high school. And whether time off in between is better for some people.
What about the deserving, interested, talented kids who didn't get a chance at college because places were taken by scams and bribes?
Why is college so very expensive, anyway? If a kid gets loans, why do they take so long to pay off? And why can't everyone who really *wants* college, but can't afford it, get financial aid? Etc., etc.
What the heck is going on? And can the whole thing be improved?
*Anyone remember Caroline Byrd's book "The Case Against College"?
Tagged:
Comments
ETA: Public university.
The systems around college admittance aren't at all equitable or fair. These folks went even further and broke the law, but the real scandal is that admittance into elite schools isn't merit-based in the first place.
Georgetown, Stanford, and Yale are private. Not sure about Wake Forest.
ETA: I only count 7 there, not 8. Is this a bad math day for me, or was one left out?
Having gained access to an excellent education, she had no intention of taking advantage of it
In other news, sky is blue and bears still poop in the woods.
AFF
Yes Wake is private.
Wake Forest Baptist University.
I am so embarrassed.
AFF
What were these parents imagining would happen between admittance and some future diploma? Were they planning to purchase passing grades from the freshman comp teacher, the Bio 101 instructor, the professor of Intro to Sociology?
I've been teaching freshman comp (among other courses) for nearly 30 years. Under US law, I am not allowed to talk with a student's parents (even when they're paying the bills/bribes) unless I have the student's written permission to do so. While no parent has ever offered me money to pass an undeserving student, a few have attempted to bully or intimidate me into doing so. I refer these folks to my department head, and they (I've had two) have always backed me up.
Though the government in NZ now pays for a student's first year of study at a tertiary institution or for industry training, which I think is a good thing.
I must say this was my reaction. I was surprised actors were involved, but my first thought went to "rich privilege".
Ohher: that was my second thought. I guess they thought they'd play it by ear? Hope for the best?
That bullying/intimidation is terrible.
Looks like you've got great support: I know of several instances back in Australia where academics were forced to pass people by those above them^, against their better judgement. They didn't stay in that department long.
^generally to keep the money rolling in, rather than bullying
Canada doesn't really have anywhere comparable to an Ivy League university, as much as some at UofT and McGill might pretend that they are the Harvard and Yale of Canada, they are not.
I'd like to see people other than those two actors who I hadn't heard of before exposed on the television. As I understand it the list includes wealthy individuals across a wide range of industries and callings, including people who if they committed a similar crime in Australia would lose their license to practice law and who (I think) would have to surrender any partnership they had with other lawyers in lucrative international law firms. I believe that happens in New York, as Cohen has been struck off. Surely it happens in the other 50 jurisdictions as well.
Please note that I am raising this for discussion. This is what it is beginning to look like from where I sit and applying my values. I will be very pleased to be wrong.
Is there any other country where the most important standardized tests universities, including public universities, look at (SAT, ACT, AP, etc.) are not made by any national, state, or local board of education/education ministry but by private non-profits (The College Board, ACT, Inc., etc.) with no mandate from the government? Where these standardized tests are not linked to the curriculum students' study in school, but rather to what the non-profit thinks are the verbal and math skills needed to succeed at university (there is no national curriculum, by the way, and what students are taught varies widely across states and even across school districts within a state)? (Granted, many universities are starting to not require the SAT or ACT, but students feel pressured to take them anyway).
Do universities in other countries care about anything other than standardized test scores and school grades/marks? Do any universities conduct interviews or take into account factors like the student's background (family income, whether the student is the first in the family to go to university, if the student comes from a part of the country that the university has few students from, what hardship the student has had to overcome, the student's race, ethnicity, etc.) in making admissions decisions?
Does being the child of an alumnus/alumna of a university help in admissions in other countries? Would it help if a student's parents made a very large donation to the university?
Is there any other country where a student's athletic and artistic talents matter for admission to a university to study an academic subject that has nothing to do with sports or the performing or visual arts? What about a student's leadership in high school clubs, community service, accomplishments in the Scouts or other such group, jobs, internships, taking university courses during the summer or even during the school year, scholarly and/or scientific research done outside class, etc.? Do students obsess about doing many of the activities I have listed, even if they are not particularly interested, in order to appear "well rounded" or to "stand out" from the crowd of applicants?
Do students have to write an admissions essay as part of their college application? (In the US, this essay is usually autobiographical and talks about a significant event in a student's life, although some essay prompts students are given are more creative than this. The essay usually has little to do with a student's academic work and in my opinion is an exercise in self-promotion (while trying not to sound that one is promoting oneself) that I think is one of the worst parts of US culture. Although college admissions officers say they can smell if an essay has been polished or even written in its entirety by one of the many coaches that help students prepare for college, most wealthy students have some tutor or coach at least edit their essay.)
I have tutored kids (not very wealthy ones) for the SAT and helped edit their college essays, by the way, and I find the whole university admissions process in this country farcical and infuriating.
So no, this particular scandal would not happen here. What does happen here from time to time is people contracting with Unis paying kickbacks to administrators, including David Dench, a famous North Melbourne footballer from the 1980's. There was also a bloke in the Education Department who went down for fiddling school repairs to his benefit.
There might be scope for this sort of corruption around admissions for International Students. I'm not sure to what extent those students must meet educational criteria.
I would be gobsmacked if a university waived academic standards for people who were good at sport. We don't glorify sport at university one little bit.
a) How could parents do such stupid things? Especially when they have the resources to get other sorts of opportunities for their own kids?
b) If their kids have had a very hard time with school, and really do need extra time to take tests, maybe the kids really do have undiagnosed learning disabilities? Maybe they should get tested for them, and helped if they do have them, rather than the parents pulling all this crap?
Gaaaaa! (:mad:)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[GASP]
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You have, I know from reading other threads, been following US politics and the, um, activities of the current occupant of the White House plus the antics of various of his followers, who do number in the thousands. I assume you raise the question above in some acutely dry Antipodean form of ironic wit.
But however you meant it, I admit it makes me want to cry.
One can read the indictment at https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download
and an affidavit https://www.justice.gov/file/1142876/download
This is big local news where I am since many of the parents are local as well as one of the universities.
Here's what was really going on: I was extremely lucky in my guess-work. I looked at so many problems full of so many terms and symbols I hadn't the least clue about, I simply went through the test eliminating the one answer for each problem that couldn't possibly be right (out of 5 possibilities, there's nearly always one nonsensical response), leaving me with a 1-in-4 chance of guessing right, and I hit a lucky streak.
If they're going to use these dratted tests, at LEAST make the candidates actually DO the math and SHOW their work. These multiple-guess tests are a complete waste of time and money -- and apparently also easy to cheat on.
Good freaking grief re proctors.
Yup, Stanford is doing an internal investigation since what has come out is only what the Fed think they can get convictions for. https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/admission-case-info/
"Decline" implies some past golden age of fairness and merit-based college admissions. Does anyone truly believe that George W. Bush gained admission to Yale in 1964 because of his towering intellect? Note that this was only two years after it took the intervention of 500 U.S. Marshalls for James Meredith to enroll at the University of Mississippi. What state of integrity is the U.S. higher education system declining from?
Oh, they'll graduate, if it's something they want to do - assuming they don't just want to party for a few years en route to a career as a "celebrity" or something. It's not hard for someone wealthy to manage a pass.
I'm still bemused at the spectacle of alleged institutions of higher learning recruiting idiots for their sports teams, but that's hardly new either.
To quote Charles Pierce:
It's already questionable to have more lenient admissions standards for athletes who play sports only rich, white people play, like crew or squash. Removing the requirement that the students admitted in these slots actually play those sports seems like just admitting the obvious.
I know nothing about public university costs in New Zealand, Australia or Canada, but in the US, they vary widely depending on the state, and whether one is paying in-state or out-of-state tuition. There are 16 public universities in my state. Tuition for in-state students at them ranges from $1,000 to around $10,000 per year. We pay around $7,000 per year for oldest child.
Tuition costs vary per university in Oz.
^ in fact, sometimes costs at your universities can be cheaper than studying in Australia, even with the horrific exchange rate -- Georgia Tech had an online Masters of Analytics which was cheaper than the equivalent online programme at the university I had chosen in Australia even taking into account $1 US = $1.41 AUD currently. I only dropped it when my employer here in NZ [a university] said they'd pay my tuition if I studied here. My comment wasn't clear...I meant it as a general comment from what I've read about the "average" tuition fee, or debt students come out with in the US. I should've been more precise.
Scottish students don't pay tuition fees at Scottish universities. Students get loans from SAAS to cover rent / living costs etc. These loans have to be repaid after graduation once the person's income rises above a certain amount.
especially if they (or parents) also pay someone to help them write their essays, papers etc.
I read an interesting thread on Twitter the other day (tried to find it again but can't) where a writer who used to do that sort of thing showed that these well-heeled brainless wonders (her term was less polite) get that sort of coaching and ghost writing all the way through their adult lives. Not just Uni/college applications and essays/papers when there, but also resumes and applications for jobs and internships (especially for a company where mummy/daddy "knows someone"), letters asking for promotions once they have a foot in the door, or to apply on to the boards of charities/think tanks/other organisations; speech writing for corporate meetings/ fund raisers and so on.
As one who works in UK Higher Education, I'd love to see your evidence for this assertion.
--Actress Felicity Huffman reportedly had no thought that she could get into (big?) legal trouble for what she did.
--Someone in the case reportedly deducted their bribe from their taxes as a charitable contribution! (Per news today, and no name given.)
That brings whole new levels of legal trouble. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think that would be somewhere at the cross-streets of Fraud Ave. and Tax Evasion Court.
It continues to boggle me that anyone could be this *stupid*. (In the sense of not using whatever brain power they've got.)
I know that celebs can seem entitled and off beyond the Outer Limits somewhere. But are they *really* this out of touch? And what about the suspects who *aren't* celebs? You'd think that at least *some* of them would figure out "hey, this might not be the wisest thing in the world...".
AIUI, William H. Macy, husband of Felicity Huffman, had originally planned to be involved, then thought better of it. So he's not been charged.
I wonder if there is also some level of trust involved -- if someone they trust tells them what to do they may not engage the critical faculties as much... I'm not saying this to give them an out...but just wondering.
For, like you GK, I am wondering (if it was not a sense of entitlement that led them down that path) exactly what they were thinking, or not thinking. Others do it so it's okay? I'm unlikely to get caught? No idea.
The internet IS the pillory. But you get to be trashed by millions in the comfort of your own home.
This gives tremendous advantage to students whose parents can afford the time and resources to help them. It is unfair to parents who have to work nights or at multiple jobs. And, frankly, a lot of the "creative" at-home projects assigned are pretty absurd. Even if, as in the article, parents can advocate for their kids so that the assignments are more realistic in terms of what the students can actually complete on their own, many poorer parents and ones who have very limiting work schedules have a much harder time engaging in such advocacy than their more affluent counterparts.
I can, on a certain level, see the thinking behind that assumption. Writing your kid's essay for them or preparing their science fair exhibit as described by stonespring may lead to academic penalties if you get caught, but the law typically doesn't get involved. Some people will extrapolate this to schemes involving five-, six-, or even seven-figure sums and "things of value" like admissions slots at prestigious universities without necessarily starting to wonder if there's a some line which delineates the point where racketeering laws kick in.