Feds uncover large-scale college entrance exam cheating plot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the naysayers - can’t leave early: we’ll, if you revamp the exam to that one can, why not?. Those who stay behind - hey, that is a choice they made.

Are you naysayers saying you prefer the system today that openly discriminates the poorer kids, inner city kids, disabled kids who don’t the proper time accommodation and would prefer the current system that can be abused by wealthy families?

This. Give everyone the same time and let the ones done early leave.

The TRULY exceptional kids can then brag that not only did they get a perfect score, they left with XXX hours to spare. They will take pride in not staying the entire time.

Letting people leave early is a security issue for the test. It won't happen.

Which is fine. Everyone can sit there all day. Students will survive.

Students all wait until the end of the exam. Did none of you take an entrance exam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You're all very naive. The colleges KNOW it's happening. They WANT/NEED the rich going there or Harvard, for example, isn't Harvard. Harvard is just like a well-financed tech school if you took out all the rich kids. And all you strivers who dream about your kid marrying an 'elite' wouldn't want to go there, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You're all very naive. The colleges KNOW it's happening. They WANT/NEED the rich going there or Harvard, for example, isn't Harvard. Harvard is just like a well-financed tech school if you took out all the rich kids. And all you strivers who dream about your kid marrying an 'elite' wouldn't want to go there, either.

They would argue that allowing in a 2.5 million Jared Kushner means that 10 other kids get scholarships, is my guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You can stop it when low scoring athletes stop outperforming the other students in life.

By what measure?

Wealth and influence - Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Oprah (not athletes)
Supreme Court justices - no athletes there either
Presidents - not in the last 50 years

My kid didn’t get an athletic admit. But:
- Forget a handful of tech wizzes and presidents, we’re taking a pipeline of thousands to Wall Street over the years. Wall Street *loves* athletes for their hard-driving, team-playing traits. Plus, many athletic recruits are smart enough to go to law school or other professions, where again these personality traits will take them far.
- Alumns donate more when the teams are winning, and universities need the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You're all very naive. The colleges KNOW it's happening. They WANT/NEED the rich going there or Harvard, for example, isn't Harvard. Harvard is just like a well-financed tech school if you took out all the rich kids. And all you strivers who dream about your kid marrying an 'elite' wouldn't want to go there, either.

They would argue that allowing in a 2.5 million Jared Kushner means that 10 other kids get scholarships, is my guess.

But you dilute the brand by letting in someone everyone knows is mediocre but rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended Harvard with Mark Riddell, the test taker.

He was smart and a tennis star at Harvard and good looking. I don't know why he had to do this, he could have gone to wall street and made money and hobnobbed with the rich.

Riddell, Zuckerberg - was Harvard '06 full of charlatans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You can stop it when low scoring athletes stop outperforming the other students in life.

By what measure?

Wealth and influence - Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Oprah (not athletes)
Supreme Court justices - no athletes there either
Presidents - not in the last 50 years

wasn't gerry ford a football player? and papa bush was a baseball player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You're all very naive. The colleges KNOW it's happening. They WANT/NEED the rich going there or Harvard, for example, isn't Harvard. Harvard is just like a well-financed tech school if you took out all the rich kids. And all you strivers who dream about your kid marrying an 'elite' wouldn't want to go there, either.

They would argue that allowing in a 2.5 million Jared Kushner means that 10 other kids get scholarships, is my guess.

But you dilute the brand by letting in someone everyone knows is mediocre but rich.

Most Z-list and development cases don’t end up with Jared’s high profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You can stop it when low scoring athletes stop outperforming the other students in life.

By what measure?

Wealth and influence - Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Oprah (not athletes)
Supreme Court justices - no athletes there either
Presidents - not in the last 50 years

My kid didn’t get an athletic admit. But:
- Forget a handful of tech wizzes and presidents, we’re taking a pipeline of thousands to Wall Street over the years. Wall Street *loves* athletes for their hard-driving, team-playing traits. Plus, many athletic recruits are smart enough to go to law school or other professions, where again these personality traits will take them far.
- Alumns donate more when the teams are winning, and universities need the money.

Wall Street hires those kids because they're connected, not because they bring anything special to the table. They're plugged into high-net worth social circles and daddy and grandpa have coin and connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the naysayers - can’t leave early: we’ll, if you revamp the exam to that one can, why not?. Those who stay behind - hey, that is a choice they made.

Are you naysayers saying you prefer the system today that openly discriminates the poorer kids, inner city kids, disabled kids who don’t the proper time accommodation and would prefer the current system that can be abused by wealthy families?

One of the naysayers here. Your proposal will strip any help from kids who actually need the accommodations. Now they’ll be competing head-to-head with the kids applying to Ivies. Sure, there’s abuse in the current system—so crack down on that, but don’t get rid of special accommodations completely.

PP again. The problem isn’t the accommodations. It’s UMC families cheating on accommodations and the lack of test tutoring for inner city kids. So fix those problems by cracking down on those who abuse accommodations and by providing tutoring to inner city kids. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water by getting rid of accommodations.

Kahn academy offers free SAT prep to everyone. You can link your PSAT scores to it and they will provide customized practice on the areas a student needs to work on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the naysayers - can’t leave early: we’ll, if you revamp the exam to that one can, why not?. Those who stay behind - hey, that is a choice they made.

Are you naysayers saying you prefer the system today that openly discriminates the poorer kids, inner city kids, disabled kids who don’t the proper time accommodation and would prefer the current system that can be abused by wealthy families?

This. Give everyone the same time and let the ones done early leave.

The TRULY exceptional kids can then brag that not only did they get a perfect score, they left with XXX hours to spare. They will take pride in not staying the entire time.

Letting people leave early is a security issue for the test. It won't happen.

Which is fine. Everyone can sit there all day. Students will survive.

What security issue? You never left a football game or a baseball game early?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the naysayers - can’t leave early: we’ll, if you revamp the exam to that one can, why not?. Those who stay behind - hey, that is a choice they made.

Are you naysayers saying you prefer the system today that openly discriminates the poorer kids, inner city kids, disabled kids who don’t the proper time accommodation and would prefer the current system that can be abused by wealthy families?

One of the naysayers here. Your proposal will strip any help from kids who actually need the accommodations. Now they’ll be competing head-to-head with the kids applying to Ivies. Sure, there’s abuse in the current system—so crack down on that, but don’t get rid of special accommodations completely.

PP again. The problem isn’t the accommodations. It’s UMC families cheating on accommodations and the lack of test tutoring for inner city kids. So fix those problems by cracking down on those who abuse accommodations and by providing tutoring to inner city kids. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water by getting rid of accommodations.

Kahn academy offers free SAT prep to everyone. You can link your PSAT scores to it and they will provide customized practice on the areas a student needs to work on.

My kids used Kahn Academy. It works really well unless you are one of the 60 million Americans without internet at home due to cost, or you live in a rural area without access to broadband.

https://www.recode.net/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between-urban-rural-internet-access-major-economies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among the Singer clients, most used the fake athlete approach and didn't fake their SATs.

How do we shut down that preference, which literally makes no sense in higher education? Let the best students compete in sports once admitted, but why do coaches have ANY role in the admissions process.

EXACTLY!

You can stop it when low scoring athletes stop outperforming the other students in life.

By what measure?

Wealth and influence - Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Oprah (not athletes)
Supreme Court justices - no athletes there either
Presidents - not in the last 50 years

My kid didn’t get an athletic admit. But:
- Forget a handful of tech wizzes and presidents, we’re taking a pipeline of thousands to Wall Street over the years. Wall Street *loves* athletes for their hard-driving, team-playing traits. Plus, many athletic recruits are smart enough to go to law school or other professions, where again these personality traits will take them far.
- Alumns donate more when the teams are winning, and universities need the money.

Wall Street hires those kids because they're connected, not because they bring anything special to the table. They're plugged into high-net worth social circles and daddy and grandpa have coin and connections.

Wrong. My kid went to a top ivy and athletic recruits generally don’t come from old money or Goldman CEO families or whatever you’re implying. Not the football, basketball, swimming, or track recruits, for sure. Maybe a few of the equestrian and water polo types, but even those families are more likely to be UMC or maybe law firm equity partners, and Wall Street doesn’t care. If they have connections, it’s from their classmates. But then everybody else in the class brings the same college connections. What athletes bring that’s special is the drive being team players. This really is a thing.

[Anonymous]

Let me understand this - you say athletic recruits Sb abolishes. Never mind that these kids worked hard at their sports. But you are okay w legacies and children of wealthy people who donate $$$ being admitted not due to their own achievements but achievements of their parents/ancestors. So we are willing to let people in based not on what they have accomplished but who they are??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me understand this - you say athletic recruits Sb abolishes. Never mind that these kids worked hard at their sports. But you are okay w legacies and children of wealthy people who donate $$$ being admitted not due to their own achievements but achievements of their parents/ancestors. So we are willing to let people in based not on what they have accomplished but who they are??

Guessing there are more athletic recruits taking spots that pp thinks belong to her kid.