Suit Accuses Georgetown, Penn and M.I.T. of Admissions Based on Wealth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising at all - there is a lowered requirement for those kids that does not apply to the rest of the world.

Not sure about Penn and Georgetown, but if you are "unqualified" at MIT you are going to get destroyed. Your life will be miserable. Unlikely you will graduate.

Seeing as almost every person who enters MIT’s halls exits in 4 years, this just isn’t true

"Almost every person" isn't an unqualified rich kid who bought their way in, idiot.

NP. The rich kid isn't necessarily unqualified. Plenty of qualified kids are rejected. Among qualified apps, the decision is made on nonacademic factors.

There are no "qualifications" for USA college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Athletes should be next

Don’t think that’s what article is about, but yes, I’ll take the rich kid whose family will donate something thousands will benefit from versus the athlete where most students don’t even attend.

[Anonymous]

I don't get why this is newsworthy, let alone legally actionable. Minorities, athletes, and donor families always get preference in college admissions. Like it or not, that is how it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Behind the paywall, what does the article say exactly? Simply demonstrating the admission rate difference among income tiers isn't a good enough argument without controlling for merit factors.

They're in discovery now:

"At M.I.T., two children recommended by a wealthy banker with ties to a university board member got special treatment, according to the documents. In a deposition, the school’s director of admissions said the two children, who appeared on a “cases of interest” list, were among those who “we would really have not otherwise admitted.”
...
"Penn’s former associate dean of admissions, Sara Harberson, testified last year in a deposition in the case that a B.S.I. tag meant the student’s family was a big donor or had connections to the board. Those students “were untouchable,” Ms. Harberson said, and “would get in almost 100 percent of the time.”

Ms. Harberson said the admissions office was powerless to deny the student “even if the student was incredibly weak, even if the student had a major issue in the application.”"

Seems like they have more than different rates of admission

I see nothing wrong here. People need to get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising at all - there is a lowered requirement for those kids that does not apply to the rest of the world.

Not sure about Penn and Georgetown, but if you are "unqualified" at MIT you are going to get destroyed. Your life will be miserable. Unlikely you will graduate.

Seeing as almost every person who enters MIT’s halls exits in 4 years, this just isn’t true

"Almost every person" isn't an unqualified rich kid who bought their way in, idiot.

Laughable that you think that kid needs anything to be a success. The name on the degree is smoke and mirrors for the millions they start out with in life. They don't have the same goals or life path as the rest of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much for MIT being the only school that admits solely on merit

It never was. No school does that. Where do people get these ideas?

[Anonymous]

What is baffling is people rich enough to donate millions, why do they need to go to mit or an Ivy League. They are already rich.. their kids will be fine.. why do this too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why this is newsworthy, let alone legally actionable. Minorities, athletes, and donor families always get preference in college admissions. Like it or not, that is how it is.

Maybe, read the article?

[Anonymous]

Where is the illegality? Detrimental reliance? False advertising? Intentional infliction of emotional distress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the illegality? Detrimental reliance? False advertising? Intentional infliction of emotional distress?

If you can’t be bothered to read the article at least read the thread, this was already explained

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the illegality? Detrimental reliance? False advertising? Intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Are you parroting words you hear your Big Law spouse say?

[Anonymous]

There was already a thread I this earlier. The USA Today article linked there does a good job of explaining the issues.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1245889.page#29013136

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising at all - there is a lowered requirement for those kids that does not apply to the rest of the world.

Not sure about Penn and Georgetown, but if you are "unqualified" at MIT you are going to get destroyed. Your life will be miserable. Unlikely you will graduate.

Seeing as almost every person who enters MIT’s halls exits in 4 years, this just isn’t true

"Almost every person" isn't an unqualified rich kid who bought their way in, idiot.

NP. The rich kid isn't necessarily unqualified. Plenty of qualified kids are rejected. Among qualified apps, the decision is made on nonacademic factors.

I was responding to the PP who said "there is a lowered requirement for those kids".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising at all - there is a lowered requirement for those kids that does not apply to the rest of the world.

Not sure about Penn and Georgetown, but if you are "unqualified" at MIT you are going to get destroyed. Your life will be miserable. Unlikely you will graduate.

Seeing as almost every person who enters MIT’s halls exits in 4 years, this just isn’t true

"Almost every person" isn't an unqualified rich kid who bought their way in, idiot.

Laughable that you think that kid needs anything to be a success. The name on the degree is smoke and mirrors for the millions they start out with in life. They don't have the same goals or life path as the rest of the kids.

I did not say they did, idiot. I said that the kid will struggle at MIT if they did not have the same qualifications as the usual admits. Pay attention!

[Anonymous]

Why is this surprising. An anecdote one of my high school classmates was royalty. They sent the transcript to a top college where the dean took a look and said no way. The state department paid a visit and suddenly that classmate was matriculated into an old prestigious university. I don’t see how this suit holds.