Atlantic article on college admissions

[Anonymous]

Interesting article on Lachlan Murdoch which has some insights on admissions for the uber-wealthy. Despite "disciplinary issues" that led him to leave Andover, Lachland managed to be admitted to Princeton where he made no impression at all on his fellow students.

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/30/lachlan-murdoch-fox-news/

His father is Australian by birth and began his media empire there but moved to the U.S. in the 1970s to expand his holdings. Lachlan was enrolled in a series of private schools: Allen-Stevenson School and Trinity School in Manhattan, then Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, and he graduated from Aspen Country Day School. According to a book by Neil Chenoweth, Lachlan, as well as his sister, had disciplinary issues at their East Coast schools — a “drinking episode” in Lachlan’s case — prompting their mother to move with them to the family’s winter vacation home in Aspen, Colorado. (Hope Hicks, the chief communications officer for the parent company of Fox News, described Chenoweth’s book as “not accurate” on these points. Lachlan declined to be interviewed for this story, and Hicks declined to respond to a list of additional questions.)

Despite bouncing from school to school and graduating from a tiny one in a winter ski resort (there were just six students in his Aspen graduating class), Lachlan, like his siblings, landed quite well in college. While he was accepted to Princeton, his sister Elisabeth got into Vassar and his brother James went to Harvard. These Murdochs were either remarkable students or, as can happen in families of wealth, remarkably fortunate. The doors to elite universities often have magical openings for the offspring of the rich and famous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

Proving the point.

You are focusing on one SN parent (an obnoxious one at that) and ignoring the half dozen on this thread who shared that their kids not to use them for one reason or other.

-SN parent who explained my kid getting accommodations in MS and 9th grade and letting them go for SATa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

It's a more level playing field than any other part of this process. There is nothing limiting how much money the UMC parent can throw at tutors or test instruction or how many times children can take the test. There is a limit on accommodations and who can get those accommodations. Your child has to undergo testing, has to be found to need accommodations, has to request accommodations from the testing company, and then they have to be granted by the testing company.

So you'll yell about the thing that's regulated fairly strictly, and just let it pass all the benefits UMC kids get. Those kids getting tutors and going to SAT camps? There are more of them than there are kids who shouldn't be getting accommodations who are. But you're OK with those benefits, even though they harm kids without as much money. Because who cares about poor kids! You only care about the fact that there might be a tiny, tiny handful of super rich families who have learned how to game the disability system (oops, and they're going to jail...). You're fine with them gaming the athletic benefits (no complaints about the fake sailing?), you're fine with them benefiting from legacy status. You're fine with them being able to donate to the school to get a place. But those kids with special needs? They're the problem, they're preventing your kid from getting in!

I bet you also complain about people sitting in wheelchairs in line while you're standing. Completely unfair! They should have to stand, too! They're being lazy and aren't as dedicated a line-stander as you are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

It's a more level playing field than any other part of this process. There is nothing limiting how much money the UMC parent can throw at tutors or test instruction or how many times children can take the test. There is a limit on accommodations and who can get those accommodations. Your child has to undergo testing, has to be found to need accommodations, has to request accommodations from the testing company, and then they have to be granted by the testing company.

So you'll yell about the thing that's regulated fairly strictly, and just let it pass all the benefits UMC kids get. Those kids getting tutors and going to SAT camps? There are more of them than there are kids who shouldn't be getting accommodations who are. But you're OK with those benefits, even though they harm kids without as much money. Because who cares about poor kids! You only care about the fact that there might be a tiny, tiny handful of super rich families who have learned how to game the disability system (oops, and they're going to jail...). You're fine with them gaming the athletic benefits (no complaints about the fake sailing?), you're fine with them benefiting from legacy status. You're fine with them being able to donate to the school to get a place. But those kids with special needs? They're the problem, they're preventing your kid from getting in!

I bet you also complain about people sitting in wheelchairs in line while you're standing. Completely unfair! They should have to stand, too! They're being lazy and aren't as dedicated a line-stander as you are!

Hello, have you not been reading the news? It is not regulated fairly strictly else what has happened would not have happened. You think Singer is the only one? You have many people in Singer’s position advising their clients to get accomodations. You are naive if you do not think so. Why should kids who do not get any accomodations in these tests be penalized? Level the playing field - isn’t that what is being waved about? Change the tests and have extended time for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

It's a more level playing field than any other part of this process. There is nothing limiting how much money the UMC parent can throw at tutors or test instruction or how many times children can take the test. There is a limit on accommodations and who can get those accommodations. Your child has to undergo testing, has to be found to need accommodations, has to request accommodations from the testing company, and then they have to be granted by the testing company.

So you'll yell about the thing that's regulated fairly strictly, and just let it pass all the benefits UMC kids get. Those kids getting tutors and going to SAT camps? There are more of them than there are kids who shouldn't be getting accommodations who are. But you're OK with those benefits, even though they harm kids without as much money. Because who cares about poor kids! You only care about the fact that there might be a tiny, tiny handful of super rich families who have learned how to game the disability system (oops, and they're going to jail...). You're fine with them gaming the athletic benefits (no complaints about the fake sailing?), you're fine with them benefiting from legacy status. You're fine with them being able to donate to the school to get a place. But those kids with special needs? They're the problem, they're preventing your kid from getting in!

I bet you also complain about people sitting in wheelchairs in line while you're standing. Completely unfair! They should have to stand, too! They're being lazy and aren't as dedicated a line-stander as you are!

Hello, have you not been reading the news? It is not regulated fairly strictly else what has happened would not have happened. You think Singer is the only one? You have many people in Singer’s position advising their clients to get accomodations. You are naive if you do not think so. Why should kids who do not get any accomodations in these tests be penalized? Level the playing field - isn’t that what is being waved about? Change the tests and have extended time for all.

People with millions of dollars can game the system. That does not demonstrate that something isn't being regulated fairly strictly. It definitely doesn't demonstrate that it's being regulated less than athletic recruiting, practice tests, number of times kids take tests, the amount of tutoring children of the rich get, the personal recommendations children of the UMC have access to, the other opportunities they have access to which boost their college applications...

But you're probably not complaining about that sort of stuff because it's the sort of stuff you engage in or hope to. And you don't really care about an uneven playing field, you care about the parts of the playing field you feel may potentially be stacked against your kids.

You're a bigot. You're choosing to pick on kids with special needs because they're an easy target, while ignoring the glaring privileges the UMC and the wealthy have in the college arms race across all aspects of the exercise, not just being able to pursue appropriate accommodations for their kids. These families cheated across all aspects of the applications, from recommendations to athletic recruitment to accommodations, and you're focusing on only one of those things and you're acting like it's the problem, not the cheating as a whole, and not the cheating in other areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

It's a more level playing field than any other part of this process. There is nothing limiting how much money the UMC parent can throw at tutors or test instruction or how many times children can take the test. There is a limit on accommodations and who can get those accommodations. Your child has to undergo testing, has to be found to need accommodations, has to request accommodations from the testing company, and then they have to be granted by the testing company.

So you'll yell about the thing that's regulated fairly strictly, and just let it pass all the benefits UMC kids get. Those kids getting tutors and going to SAT camps? There are more of them than there are kids who shouldn't be getting accommodations who are. But you're OK with those benefits, even though they harm kids without as much money. Because who cares about poor kids! You only care about the fact that there might be a tiny, tiny handful of super rich families who have learned how to game the disability system (oops, and they're going to jail...). You're fine with them gaming the athletic benefits (no complaints about the fake sailing?), you're fine with them benefiting from legacy status. You're fine with them being able to donate to the school to get a place. But those kids with special needs? They're the problem, they're preventing your kid from getting in!

I bet you also complain about people sitting in wheelchairs in line while you're standing. Completely unfair! They should have to stand, too! They're being lazy and aren't as dedicated a line-stander as you are!

Hello, have you not been reading the news? It is not regulated fairly strictly else what has happened would not have happened. You think Singer is the only one? You have many people in Singer’s position advising their clients to get accomodations. You are naive if you do not think so. Why should kids who do not get any accomodations in these tests be penalized? Level the playing field - isn’t that what is being waved about? Change the tests and have extended time for all.

People with millions of dollars can game the system. That does not demonstrate that something isn't being regulated fairly strictly. It definitely doesn't demonstrate that it's being regulated less than athletic recruiting, practice tests, number of times kids take tests, the amount of tutoring children of the rich get, the personal recommendations children of the UMC have access to, the other opportunities they have access to which boost their college applications...

But you're probably not complaining about that sort of stuff because it's the sort of stuff you engage in or hope to. And you don't really care about an uneven playing field, you care about the parts of the playing field you feel may potentially be stacked against your kids.

You're a bigot. You're choosing to pick on kids with special needs because they're an easy target, while ignoring the glaring privileges the UMC and the wealthy have in the college arms race across all aspects of the exercise, not just being able to pursue appropriate accommodations for their kids. These families cheated across all aspects of the applications, from recommendations to athletic recruitment to accommodations, and you're focusing on only one of those things and you're acting like it's the problem, not the cheating as a whole, and not the cheating in other areas.

Er.....by getting more time than one is qualified for is cheating

[Anonymous]

Screw the Murdochs.

Also screw the Fed prosecutor who said about Aunt Becky “it’s not like she bought a building, this was fraud!”

Relatedly, screw Inferior Jared Kushner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you 9:59.

We've lost all perspective in this debate.

Legacies, uber-wealthy buying their way in through side or back doors, faux-disabled (or exaggerated disabilities) people are a tiny, tiny fraction of the college population.

The effects of the more mundane advantages are widespread and rarely questioned, perhaps because so many have them.

Ah, but the sanctity of the SN parents who says the extended time is a level playing field but it actually is not, it gave a leg up to those who got more time than they should have. Poster 9:59 was already on 2nd or 3rd base to afford all the testing and for his/her kid to go to a good school system. It is okay then then to have an advantage of the kid in the poorer neighborhoods, immigrants etc? The “as long as my kid benefit club”....

It's a more level playing field than any other part of this process. There is nothing limiting how much money the UMC parent can throw at tutors or test instruction or how many times children can take the test. There is a limit on accommodations and who can get those accommodations. Your child has to undergo testing, has to be found to need accommodations, has to request accommodations from the testing company, and then they have to be granted by the testing company.

So you'll yell about the thing that's regulated fairly strictly, and just let it pass all the benefits UMC kids get. Those kids getting tutors and going to SAT camps? There are more of them than there are kids who shouldn't be getting accommodations who are. But you're OK with those benefits, even though they harm kids without as much money. Because who cares about poor kids! You only care about the fact that there might be a tiny, tiny handful of super rich families who have learned how to game the disability system (oops, and they're going to jail...). You're fine with them gaming the athletic benefits (no complaints about the fake sailing?), you're fine with them benefiting from legacy status. You're fine with them being able to donate to the school to get a place. But those kids with special needs? They're the problem, they're preventing your kid from getting in!

I bet you also complain about people sitting in wheelchairs in line while you're standing. Completely unfair! They should have to stand, too! They're being lazy and aren't as dedicated a line-stander as you are!

Hello, have you not been reading the news? It is not regulated fairly strictly else what has happened would not have happened. You think Singer is the only one? You have many people in Singer’s position advising their clients to get accomodations. You are naive if you do not think so. Why should kids who do not get any accomodations in these tests be penalized? Level the playing field - isn’t that what is being waved about? Change the tests and have extended time for all.

People with millions of dollars can game the system. That does not demonstrate that something isn't being regulated fairly strictly. It definitely doesn't demonstrate that it's being regulated less than athletic recruiting, practice tests, number of times kids take tests, the amount of tutoring children of the rich get, the personal recommendations children of the UMC have access to, the other opportunities they have access to which boost their college applications...

But you're probably not complaining about that sort of stuff because it's the sort of stuff you engage in or hope to. And you don't really care about an uneven playing field, you care about the parts of the playing field you feel may potentially be stacked against your kids.

You're a bigot. You're choosing to pick on kids with special needs because they're an easy target, while ignoring the glaring privileges the UMC and the wealthy have in the college arms race across all aspects of the exercise, not just being able to pursue appropriate accommodations for their kids. These families cheated across all aspects of the applications, from recommendations to athletic recruitment to accommodations, and you're focusing on only one of those things and you're acting like it's the problem, not the cheating as a whole, and not the cheating in other areas.

Er.....by getting more time than one is qualified for is cheating

Yes. Lying about needing accommodations, lying about athletics participation and accomplishments, bribing people, all of those things are cheating.

A kid with special needs getting extra time is not cheating. A kid with special needs getting 50% extra time when their disability might only delay them 45% is not cheating - because there is no fine grain between 45% and 50%. A kid with special needs getting 50% extra time when their disability might delay them 55% is also a likely scenario, because there aren't those fine grained methods for providing accommodations. It's an imperfect attempt to make the system more level.

Focusing on children with special needs, because someone abused a system, while looking away from the other ways that same person abused the system, puts a spotlight on your bigotry.

[Anonymous]

Some family from China apparently paid Singer over 6 Million to get their daughter into Sanford. He’s in prison, right? For how long?

[Anonymous]

I know of a lot of students with extra time who still get crummy scores. Are you happy? At least they had a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he had somebody on the inside on the College Board. He seemed to have enough other people in on the scam.

Thank you 15:31. My oldest DS also qualified for a using a lap top to write essays on and extra time, but he refused the the extra time. His teachers had urged us to seek a computer accommodation because it it very difficult to read his handwriting and takes him an extraordinary long time to write anything by hand, but he's actually a great writer. The way the psych testing works, he came out as qualified for both extra time and a computer accommodation. He had close friends with dyslexia who needed extra time, and though it was unfair for him to use extra time he did not believe he needed and refused to apply for the accommodation although the school was supportive as was the psychologist. He used his computer accommodation in both the classroom and the essay portions of on standardized tests, the results of which confirmed he was right -- he didn't need the time to do extremely well. My second child, however, has always taken a particularly long time to complete certain tasks. Diagnostic testing called it slow processing speed, some ADD, and a lot that was just unexplained as to root cause . Like the child of the poster above, DC is extremely bright -- he would get every problem right that he completed on an exam, but only finish 2/3 of the questions -- especially if they involved reading. Even math word problems would raise the issue which was not evident in pure equations/calculations. He bregudingly accepted the extra time (50%) and yes -- went to the top of the class. But no one seemed jealous of his time. DC's friends and teachers all knew from conversations with DC just how smart he was and that it wasn't showing. He also dislikes it, because he has to sit for very long periods to complete standardized tests. They won't let you go faster if you only need, say 25% extra time but they gave you 50%. I don't see him as advantaged over other kids -- i see him as not having had an opportunity to test in a manner that showed his true abilities without the time, just as our older DC could not show his true written ability if he was forced to make chicken scratch no one could read at a painfully slow pace rather than bang our his ideas on a key board quickly. some families abuse the system -- shame on them -- but the rest of these kids should not be punished.

And have you ever wondered that maybe your kid received too much extra time and hence was able to double check their answers and with the extra time also had extra time to go through all the questions? Yes, they deserved extra time for their disability but since none of the xtra time are personalized, the time they received was more than they needed that they had the luxury to double check their answers and able to answer all the questions. So basically you are part of the group that created an uneven playing field for the kids who did not receive any accommodations.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Atlantic article references this Slate article from 2006:

The distortions worked on the SAT and other standardized tests are revealed in data winkled out of the College Board last year by Sam Abrams, a young researcher at Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science. Nationwide, only 2 percent of students who have taken the SAT over the past 10 years have done so untimed. Most of these students’ diagnoses are presumably genuine. But in places like Greenwich, Conn., and certain zip codes of New York City and Los Angeles, the percentage of untimed test-taking is said to be close to 50 percent. These data aren’t readily available from the College Board, which publishes only statewide figures on the numbers of “accommodated” SAT takers. But Abrams noticed that in the District of Columbia—the only city whose data is separately released by the board, since D.C. is a separate jurisdiction—7 to 9 percent of all SAT-takers typically get extra time on the test. The results clearly show that these “accommodated” children are not the city’s poor and disadvantaged. Nationally, children who receive extra time on the test score lower as a group than students who don’t. In 2005, they scored an average combined 975 on the math and verbal sections, compared to 1,029 for standard test-takers. This is what one would expect for children struggling to keep up because of disabilities. But the trend was reversed among the 264 children in D.C. who took untimed SATs in 2005. They scored a combined 1,105 on the tests, well above the national average and even further above the average of 957 among D.C. children who took timed tests.

Just an observation - in DC's calculus class at a big 3 private, at least 1/2 of the kids get extra time on exams. DC feels at a disadvantage but what can you do?

1/2 of the kids? amazing. Parents are taking advantage of the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind that most kids who get accommodations actually do need them. (Parent of two kids with LDs who have had extra time as an accommodation since around the age of 10 for each - and until quite recently it was like pulling teeth to get them to use their accommodations, because they didn't want to "stand out" or have people "think they were dumb."

If kids who don't need them are getting accommodations, I think the focus should be on unethical psychologists who are certifying fake LDs, not on the fact that the College Board allows accommodations for kids with documented disabilities.

So what happens when the kids get in the work force? I'm still amazed that half of the kids in a Calculus class get accomodations.

[Anonymous]

Why are kids taking Calculus in high school even getting extra time? I can see a kid in 9th grade taking remedial math getting extra time but if a kid is taking Calculus in high school it seems amazing that they get concessions. Many kids don't take Calculus until college.

Again I can see if the kid is taking remedial math in 11th grade that extra time would be warranted.

Soooo.....what happens to these extra time kids when they enter the work force?