WashPost story on the aftermath of the college admissions scandal...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Onion piece on this scandal was perfect. Basically makes fun of all the obnoxious folks who point to this scandal as the reason for why they (or their kids) got rejected from a fancy school. The Onion jokes was basically sure, go ahead and claim you would have a Columbia degree were it not for the Full House mom...

^ that's dumb. When there is voter fraud it calls into question the legitimacy of the election and its outcome. When a juror engages in misconduct it will result in a mistrial lest there be a miscarriage of justice or perception thereof. If the dealer is caught dealing from the bottom of the deck there is a misdeal. Things need to be done properly so the participants in the process have confidence in its legitimacy of the outcome.

Actually, I think that Onion piece makes a great observation (via its satire) that the mainstream media hasn’t done a very good job of explaining: to the extent that anyone had a college spot taken away from them or their kids, it was a legitimate rowing, tennis or other athletic recruit. Those spots were NEVER going to the general population of applicants, which is why the “side door” used in the fraud actually worked in the first place until the scheme was exposed. The mainstream media has made it sound like “you or your kid” could have gotten into Yale, Georgetown or USC if it wasn’t for the Full House Mom and other nefarious rich people, but the reality is that these spots were always reserved specifically for athletic recruits (and no one else). The mainstream media has rightly stated that these people cheated, but it has done a poor job of explaining the rules of the game in which they cheated. Many posters here understand the massive “hook” of being an athletic recruit at elite schools, but much of the public legitimately thinks that only the generally less elite power conference schools care about sports.

[Anonymous]

^ +1. Malcontents will blame everyone but the mirror for their failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just canceled my Wash Post subscription. Stay away.

+1. Every single article is now political. And I'm not even a Trumper! We call it WaPravda.

So a hundred page thread of anonymous posts on the scandal, and salivating over the possibility of a Washington angle is fine, but you wouldn't read an article with actual reporting and people willing to use their names raising similar points in print? Why shouldn't there be room for stories like that? I have nothing to contribute, but I'd read it, certainly seems like there's enough interest to justify coverage.

NP
A) Didn't read the 100 page thread of anonymous posts = waste of my time
B) "Actual reporting" no longer happens at the Post. Reporters are too young, too liberal, and are too anxious to throw in any anti-Trump message they can even when it doesn't belong in the piece (like the recent WaPo travel article in the magazine about going to places that Trump dissed). I'm not a Trumper but the entire newspaper now is super progressive nut land.
C) No I won't read it because I refuse to pay for it since it changed so much. It once was a very good neutral newspaper. Now it's an angry liberal tirade.

Many of their opinion writers are conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Onion piece on this scandal was perfect. Basically makes fun of all the obnoxious folks who point to this scandal as the reason for why they (or their kids) got rejected from a fancy school. The Onion jokes was basically sure, go ahead and claim you would have a Columbia degree were it not for the Full House mom...

^ that's dumb. When there is voter fraud it calls into question the legitimacy of the election and its outcome. When a juror engages in misconduct it will result in a mistrial lest there be a miscarriage of justice or perception thereof. If the dealer is caught dealing from the bottom of the deck there is a misdeal. Things need to be done properly so the participants in the process have confidence in its legitimacy of the outcome.

Actually, I think that Onion piece makes a great observation (via its satire) that the mainstream media hasn’t done a very good job of explaining: to the extent that anyone had a college spot taken away from them or their kids, it was a legitimate rowing, tennis or other athletic recruit. Those spots were NEVER going to the general population of applicants, which is why the “side door” used in the fraud actually worked in the first place until the scheme was exposed. The mainstream media has made it sound like “you or your kid” could have gotten into Yale, Georgetown or USC if it wasn’t for the Full House Mom and other nefarious rich people, but the reality is that these spots were always reserved specifically for athletic recruits (and no one else). The mainstream media has rightly stated that these people cheated, but it has done a poor job of explaining the rules of the game in which they cheated. Many posters here understand the massive “hook” of being an athletic recruit at elite schools, but much of the public legitimately thinks that only the generally less elite power conference schools care about sports.

Actually the opposite - obviously the coaches didn’t need these recruits for the teams as they were fake athletes so then these spots could have gone to the general population. Most non helmet sports and basketball get only 4-6 recruited spots - the majority on the team are walk ons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As the parent of a child with ADHD and very low processing speed, who has 100% extra time on tests, what I can tell you is that special needs communities in the DC area are scheduling talks with experts to discuss the extra scrutiny and additional hurdles we will likely face in the coming years because of this scandal.

Our already difficult job as parents of children with challenges is NOT helped by people who claim to know “many” families gaming the system on accommodations. I am a research scientist, know what being a PhD-holding psychologist entails, and none of the psychologists I know would even entertain the notion of tweaking clients’ assessments! It’s grossly offensive that some people would smear an entire profession in this way.

+ 1

Not to mention these assessments have a scientific instrument and methodological basis. They are not just impressions that a psychologist gets.

I'm not convinced there will be a lot of extra hurdles for SN kids. The College Board is already fairly strict about granting accommodations. There will remain the advantage that families who can afford private testing get. If you can't afford testing you might not get a diagnosis.

Both of you are pretty naive. Of course there are doctors willing to sign these letters. It didn’t take Singer long to find one for his clients all over the country. I am in the math field - any statistics can be manipulated to tell a story. These tests are based on performance of the test taker - it is not as if it is a blood test measuring your blood cells levels. Google test accommodations - websites are touting them. I know wealthy parents in the private schools who would not let their kids take a standardized test until they get an accommodation as they feared their kid might score too high and hence accomodation would not be granted. They already have the doctor notes - just completing the school process and then college board. And kid in honors classes.

The doctors can request whatever they want. College Board and ACT have a rigid process for screening such requests. When Singer tried to get accommodations for that lawyer’s kid, the ACT rejected him—twice. Law enforcement had to step in and tell the ACT to grant it.

If you think it’s outrageous that accommodations were granted for a kid who takes “honors classes,” then you’re clueless about special needs.

And you are clueless about how easy the system can be abused. If a kid can get into honors classes and do the work which is usually at a faster pace and more materials are covered, then why is extended time needed during test except to have an advantage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Onion piece on this scandal was perfect. Basically makes fun of all the obnoxious folks who point to this scandal as the reason for why they (or their kids) got rejected from a fancy school. The Onion jokes was basically sure, go ahead and claim you would have a Columbia degree were it not for the Full House mom...

^ that's dumb. When there is voter fraud it calls into question the legitimacy of the election and its outcome. When a juror engages in misconduct it will result in a mistrial lest there be a miscarriage of justice or perception thereof. If the dealer is caught dealing from the bottom of the deck there is a misdeal. Things need to be done properly so the participants in the process have confidence in its legitimacy of the outcome.

Actually, I think that Onion piece makes a great observation (via its satire) that the mainstream media hasn’t done a very good job of explaining: to the extent that anyone had a college spot taken away from them or their kids, it was a legitimate rowing, tennis or other athletic recruit. Those spots were NEVER going to the general population of applicants, which is why the “side door” used in the fraud actually worked in the first place until the scheme was exposed. The mainstream media has made it sound like “you or your kid” could have gotten into Yale, Georgetown or USC if it wasn’t for the Full House Mom and other nefarious rich people, but the reality is that these spots were always reserved specifically for athletic recruits (and no one else). The mainstream media has rightly stated that these people cheated, but it has done a poor job of explaining the rules of the game in which they cheated. Many posters here understand the massive “hook” of being an athletic recruit at elite schools, but much of the public legitimately thinks that only the generally less elite power conference schools care about sports.

Actually the opposite - obviously the coaches didn’t need these recruits for the teams as they were fake athletes so then these spots could have gone to the general population. Most non helmet sports and basketball get only 4-6 recruited spots - the majority on the team are walk ons.

Meant except for basketball

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As the parent of a child with ADHD and very low processing speed, who has 100% extra time on tests, what I can tell you is that special needs communities in the DC area are scheduling talks with experts to discuss the extra scrutiny and additional hurdles we will likely face in the coming years because of this scandal.

Our already difficult job as parents of children with challenges is NOT helped by people who claim to know “many” families gaming the system on accommodations. I am a research scientist, know what being a PhD-holding psychologist entails, and none of the psychologists I know would even entertain the notion of tweaking clients’ assessments! It’s grossly offensive that some people would smear an entire profession in this way.

+ 1

Not to mention these assessments have a scientific instrument and methodological basis. They are not just impressions that a psychologist gets.

I'm not convinced there will be a lot of extra hurdles for SN kids. The College Board is already fairly strict about granting accommodations. There will remain the advantage that families who can afford private testing get. If you can't afford testing you might not get a diagnosis.

Both of you are pretty naive. Of course there are doctors willing to sign these letters. It didn’t take Singer long to find one for his clients all over the country. I am in the math field - any statistics can be manipulated to tell a story. These tests are based on performance of the test taker - it is not as if it is a blood test measuring your blood cells levels. Google test accommodations - websites are touting them. I know wealthy parents in the private schools who would not let their kids take a standardized test until they get an accommodation as they feared their kid might score too high and hence accomodation would not be granted. They already have the doctor notes - just completing the school process and then college board. And kid in honors classes.

The doctors can request whatever they want. College Board and ACT have a rigid process for screening such requests. When Singer tried to get accommodations for that lawyer’s kid, the ACT rejected him—twice. Law enforcement had to step in and tell the ACT to grant it.

If you think it’s outrageous that accommodations were granted for a kid who takes “honors classes,” then you’re clueless about special needs.

And you are clueless about how easy the system can be abused. If a kid can get into honors classes and do the work which is usually at a faster pace and more materials are covered, then why is extended time needed during test except to have an advantage?

Do you have a kid in honors? If so, then some of their classmates can kick their ass in class and still need accommodations for timed standardized tests.

I agree the present system can be and is abused (particularly by rich people). But you are cluelss about what needing accommodations means.

Personally, I think there should be a time limit just so the proctors can go home at some point. But that limit should be twice the limit it is now and for everyone. One way to level the playing field.

My kid gets no accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just canceled my Wash Post subscription. Stay away.

+1. Every single article is now political. And I'm not even a Trumper! We call it WaPravda.

So a hundred page thread of anonymous posts on the scandal, and salivating over the possibility of a Washington angle is fine, but you wouldn't read an article with actual reporting and people willing to use their names raising similar points in print? Why shouldn't there be room for stories like that? I have nothing to contribute, but I'd read it, certainly seems like there's enough interest to justify coverage.

NP
A) Didn't read the 100 page thread of anonymous posts = waste of my time
B) "Actual reporting" no longer happens at the Post. Reporters are too young, too liberal, and are too anxious to throw in any anti-Trump message they can even when it doesn't belong in the piece (like the recent WaPo travel article in the magazine about going to places that Trump dissed). I'm not a Trumper but the entire newspaper now is super progressive nut land.
C) No I won't read it because I refuse to pay for it since it changed so much. It once was a very good neutral newspaper. Now it's an angry liberal tirade.

Many of their opinion writers are conservative.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!