Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prepping, tutoring, accommodations, and affirmative action are not the same thing as cheating.

Admitting people who will affect the lives of many other people due to their position (e.g. a crown prince in one example) is not unfair.

Accepting large donations that benefit the entire school community with a wink that a dum dum kid will be admitted, isn't fair, but it's not cheating. Lower expectations for student athletes during admissions isn't fair, but because they attract more students/more money which helps the school community, so it's not cheating.

Paying someone to take a test, lying about achievements, falsely representing learning disabilities for accommodations, bribing school officials to assert that you are a student athlete, while doing nothing to contribute to your school community such as excelling at a sport or adding prestige, is cheating.

There is a difference between what is unfair, and what is cheating. I think it's super unfair, but not cheating, that other people have trust funds, safety nets, inheritances, private schools educations and connections that they can leverage for more privilege- while I just had hard work and a state school where I owed student debt, because that's what we could afford...but such is life. I have advantages too--it's relative.

Thanks.
Where do we place the amphetamines prescriptions on this continuum and the questionable ADHD diagnoses used to procure them?

+1. There is a continuum, with a lot of grey area. Perhaps cynical, but maybe it's human nature to try to obtain more resources for your offspring. Maybe the main difference between the questionable ADHD diagnoses and accommodations and those who swept up in the current scandal is just that the latter have access to more money, power, and connections. (Along with a greater sense of entitlement that comes from being rich and/or famous, since they obviously thought they'd get away with it.)

These families got the fake accommodations in order to:

1) get extra time so that their answers could be corrected once the kid was finished

2) to allow testing a a solo location so that someone else could take the test without detection

Singer had people at SAT and ACT in on the scam.

This is not at all equivalent to what people whose kids have legitimate disabilities and accommodations do.

PP here. I'm not talking about the legitimate cases--I'm talking about those who pursue questionable diagnoses and accommodations for their kids. All of the above parents want a leg up--but those in the college admissions scandal have a bigger leg up, with more money to throw at the problem.

+1000 over half of our private school have accommodations that started in 10th grade ...one mom didn’t want her kid to take the PSAT or any SAT subject tests prior to doctor visit. Another mom was unhappy her diabetic child didn’t get extra time but only breaks .

Anonymous wrote:Two years of mandatory military or national service for all able bodied males and females (with extremely limited exceptions that be exploited by rich people or the types who populate this forum.

Anonymous wrote:I'd be pissed if I paid $250k k-12 for my kid to end up at WVU or UMD not gonna lie. That sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prepping, tutoring, accommodations, and affirmative action are not the same thing as cheating.

Admitting people who will affect the lives of many other people due to their position (e.g. a crown prince in one example) is not unfair.

Accepting large donations that benefit the entire school community with a wink that a dum dum kid will be admitted, isn't fair, but it's not cheating. Lower expectations for student athletes during admissions isn't fair, but because they attract more students/more money which helps the school community, so it's not cheating.

Paying someone to take a test, lying about achievements, falsely representing learning disabilities for accommodations, bribing school officials to assert that you are a student athlete, while doing nothing to contribute to your school community such as excelling at a sport or adding prestige, is cheating.

There is a difference between what is unfair, and what is cheating. I think it's super unfair, but not cheating, that other people have trust funds, safety nets, inheritances, private schools educations and connections that they can leverage for more privilege- while I just had hard work and a state school where I owed student debt, because that's what we could afford...but such is life. I have advantages too--it's relative.

Thanks.
Where do we place the amphetamines prescriptions on this continuum and the questionable ADHD diagnoses used to procure them?

+1. There is a continuum, with a lot of grey area. Perhaps cynical, but maybe it's human nature to try to obtain more resources for your offspring. Maybe the main difference between the questionable ADHD diagnoses and accommodations and those who swept up in the current scandal is just that the latter have access to more money, power, and connections. (Along with a greater sense of entitlement that comes from being rich and/or famous, since they obviously thought they'd get away with it.)

These families got the fake accommodations in order to:

1) get extra time so that their answers could be corrected once the kid was finished

2) to allow testing a a solo location so that someone else could take the test without detection

Singer had people at SAT and ACT in on the scam.

This is not at all equivalent to what people whose kids have legitimate disabilities and accommodations do.

PP here. I'm not talking about the legitimate cases--I'm talking about those who pursue questionable diagnoses and accommodations for their kids. All of the above parents want a leg up--but those in the college admissions scandal have a bigger leg up, with more money to throw at the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accommodations scam needs to end. Kids who never needed before all of the sudden in 8th grade needed for the high school entry standardized tests. Total scam. Like therapy dogs.

But but, my transgender Haitian black kid with ADHD and processing issues has PTSD due to trauma so he really really needs some help.

Don't be a racist xenophobe antihuman pig, remember how holistic we all holistically are.

PP said the scams have to end. Not the real accommodations. The scammers are really hurting the kids who need it.

This. 50 some odd pages before anyone mentions this. This is going to hurt the kids who need those accommodations. I'm a mom of a child with disabilities who needs the accommodations. I hate that the fbi included the handwriting sample for the one kid in the affidavit. I know I shouldn't diagnose but it looks like dysgraphia to me. The kid probably has other disabilities as well. I'm not saying his mom derserves special treatment. I think including the writing sample was mean spirited. Some of the first posts on the thread were makig fun of the kid for his handwriting. My child has experienced so many nasty comments because of the dysgraphia. We've had to deal with teachers who ignored the iep and tried to punish child for handwriting. Ignorance about disabilities is prevalent and harmful. My child has extended time and did very well on college tests. My child is very bright but struggles in many ways due to child's disailities. My child needs the accommodations to even the playing field. What Singer and his cheating proctors and college coaches did is disgusting.

I am also parent of 2 kids, one with a disability that requires accommodations.

But I will defend the prosecutors on the handwriting issue. It was submitted so that the fake test taker could practice the kid's handwriting. It demonstrates the length the parent was willing to go.

If the kid needed accommodations, it would have been known before junior year in high school, and he would have been using them throughout school (like our kids). Instead, his mom took him to a compromised/bribed psychologist recommended by Singer to gin up a fake disability that would give them extra time, and permission to test alone which made the cheating possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prepping, tutoring, accommodations, and affirmative action are not the same thing as cheating.

Admitting people who will affect the lives of many other people due to their position (e.g. a crown prince in one example) is not unfair.

Accepting large donations that benefit the entire school community with a wink that a dum dum kid will be admitted, isn't fair, but it's not cheating. Lower expectations for student athletes during admissions isn't fair, but because they attract more students/more money which helps the school community, so it's not cheating.

Paying someone to take a test, lying about achievements, falsely representing learning disabilities for accommodations, bribing school officials to assert that you are a student athlete, while doing nothing to contribute to your school community such as excelling at a sport or adding prestige, is cheating.

There is a difference between what is unfair, and what is cheating. I think it's super unfair, but not cheating, that other people have trust funds, safety nets, inheritances, private schools educations and connections that they can leverage for more privilege- while I just had hard work and a state school where I owed student debt, because that's what we could afford...but such is life. I have advantages too--it's relative.

Thanks.
Where do we place the amphetamines prescriptions on this continuum and the questionable ADHD diagnoses used to procure them?

+1. There is a continuum, with a lot of grey area. Perhaps cynical, but maybe it's human nature to try to obtain more resources for your offspring. Maybe the main difference between the questionable ADHD diagnoses and accommodations and those who swept up in the current scandal is just that the latter have access to more money, power, and connections. (Along with a greater sense of entitlement that comes from being rich and/or famous, since they obviously thought they'd get away with it.)

These families got the fake accommodations in order to:

1) get extra time so that their answers could be corrected once the kid was finished

2) to allow testing a a solo location so that someone else could take the test without detection

Singer had people at SAT and ACT in on the scam.

This is not at all equivalent to what people whose kids have legitimate disabilities and accommodations do.

PP here. I'm not talking about the legitimate cases--I'm talking about those who pursue questionable diagnoses and accommodations for their kids. All of the above parents want a leg up--but those in the college admissions scandal have a bigger leg up, with more money to throw at the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prepping, tutoring, accommodations, and affirmative action are not the same thing as cheating.

Admitting people who will affect the lives of many other people due to their position (e.g. a crown prince in one example) is not unfair.

Accepting large donations that benefit the entire school community with a wink that a dum dum kid will be admitted, isn't fair, but it's not cheating. Lower expectations for student athletes during admissions isn't fair, but because they attract more students/more money which helps the school community, so it's not cheating.

Paying someone to take a test, lying about achievements, falsely representing learning disabilities for accommodations, bribing school officials to assert that you are a student athlete, while doing nothing to contribute to your school community such as excelling at a sport or adding prestige, is cheating.

There is a difference between what is unfair, and what is cheating. I think it's super unfair, but not cheating, that other people have trust funds, safety nets, inheritances, private schools educations and connections that they can leverage for more privilege- while I just had hard work and a state school where I owed student debt, because that's what we could afford...but such is life. I have advantages too--it's relative.

Thanks.
Where do we place the amphetamines prescriptions on this continuum and the questionable ADHD diagnoses used to procure them?

+1. There is a continuum, with a lot of grey area. Perhaps cynical, but maybe it's human nature to try to obtain more resources for your offspring. Maybe the main difference between the questionable ADHD diagnoses and accommodations and those who swept up in the current scandal is just that the latter have access to more money, power, and connections. (Along with a greater sense of entitlement that comes from being rich and/or famous, since they obviously thought they'd get away with it.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prepping, tutoring, accommodations, and affirmative action are not the same thing as cheating.

Admitting people who will affect the lives of many other people due to their position (e.g. a crown prince in one example) is not unfair.

Accepting large donations that benefit the entire school community with a wink that a dum dum kid will be admitted, isn't fair, but it's not cheating. Lower expectations for student athletes during admissions isn't fair, but because they attract more students/more money which helps the school community, so it's not cheating.

Paying someone to take a test, lying about achievements, falsely representing learning disabilities for accommodations, bribing school officials to assert that you are a student athlete, while doing nothing to contribute to your school community such as excelling at a sport or adding prestige, is cheating.

There is a difference between what is unfair, and what is cheating. I think it's super unfair, but not cheating, that other people have trust funds, safety nets, inheritances, private schools educations and connections that they can leverage for more privilege- while I just had hard work and a state school where I owed student debt, because that's what we could afford...but such is life. I have advantages too--it's relative.

Thanks.
Where do we place the amphetamines prescriptions on this continuum and the questionable ADHD diagnoses used to procure them?

+1. There is a continuum, with a lot of grey area. Perhaps cynical, but maybe it's human nature to try to obtain more resources for your offspring. Maybe the main difference between the questionable ADHD diagnoses and accommodations and those who swept up in the current scandal is just that the latter have access to more money, power, and connections. (Along with a greater sense of entitlement that comes from being rich and/or famous, since they obviously thought they'd get away with it.)

These families got the fake accommodations in order to:

1) get extra time so that their answers could be corrected once the kid was finished

2) to allow testing a a solo location so that someone else could take the test without detection

Singer had people at SAT and ACT in on the scam.

This is not at all equivalent to what people whose kids have legitimate disabilities and accommodations do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm worried about this story because of how it is going to affect affirmative action.

This story, coupled with the lawsuit in Harvard, is all about the 'two tiers' that exist to get into schools--one the regular merit-based application and the other about 'hooks' that can get you in, be it legacy, donations, athletics and yes, affirmative action. Anything that is giving anyone a leg up is now suspect, and if you think affirmative action isn't going to be the 'baby with the bath water' you aren't paying attention. Those who oppose affirmative action are already using this story already in their assault on preferences of any sort.

Yea it's fun to watch some rich white people squirm, but longer term things are a bit more dicey.

What’s wrong with the caltech / Oxbridge model of admissions?

Caltech/MIT really does seem to admit on merit.

Oxbridge does too -- but there is plenty of gaming to get kids into the right secondary schools to optimize your chances of getting into Oxbridge. So the crazy stuff happens but in the equivalent of our 9th or 10th grade, not when they are applying to Oxbridge.

International applicants to Oxbridge do go through a mostly merit-based system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test prepping, tutoring, accommodations, and affirmative action are not the same thing as cheating.

Admitting people who will affect the lives of many other people due to their position (e.g. a crown prince in one example) is not unfair.

Accepting large donations that benefit the entire school community with a wink that a dum dum kid will be admitted, isn't fair, but it's not cheating. Lower expectations for student athletes during admissions isn't fair, but because they attract more students/more money which helps the school community, so it's not cheating.

Paying someone to take a test, lying about achievements, falsely representing learning disabilities for accommodations, bribing school officials to assert that you are a student athlete, while doing nothing to contribute to your school community such as excelling at a sport or adding prestige, is cheating.

There is a difference between what is unfair, and what is cheating. I think it's super unfair, but not cheating, that other people have trust funds, safety nets, inheritances, private schools educations and connections that they can leverage for more privilege- while I just had hard work and a state school where I owed student debt, because that's what we could afford...but such is life. I have advantages too--it's relative.

Thanks.
Where do we place the amphetamines prescriptions on this continuum and the questionable ADHD diagnoses used to procure them?

+1. There is a continuum, with a lot of grey area. Perhaps cynical, but maybe it's human nature to try to obtain more resources for your offspring. Maybe the main difference between the questionable ADHD diagnoses and accommodations and those who swept up in the current scandal is just that the latter have access to more money, power, and connections. (Along with a greater sense of entitlement that comes from being rich and/or famous, since they obviously thought they'd get away with it.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank Bruni's op ed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/opinion/college-bribery-admissions.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

It may be legal to pledge $2.5 million to Harvard just as your son is applying — which is what Jared Kushner’s father did for him — and illegal to bribe a coach to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but how much of a difference is there, really? Both elevate money over accomplishment. Both are ways of cutting in line.

It may be legal to give $50,000 to a private consultant who massages your child’s transcript and perfumes your child’s essays, and illegal to pay someone for a patently fictive test score, but aren’t both exercises in deception reserved for those who can afford them?

It's not legal to "massage" a transcript (what does this even mean)? Or "perfume" an essay.

I found it interesting that Singer posed this scam as a "side door" for parents, saying that there was the "front door" (earning admission) and the "back door" (donating to the institution & using connections), but that the back door cost 10x more and was not guaranteed.

The

Yes, it is legal to "massage" a transcript. A college counselor can make your volunteering sound really good vs. I did 100 hours at a soup kitchen. Most people have somebody "edit" their kids essay, even if it is a family memeber.

They can't change your grades -- that's what "massage" would mean to me when it comes to a transcript. Proofing is not "perfuming," that wiould be doing some rewriting for the kid which would not be legal.

Massage means picking the right classes and teachers to get the best transcript possible with the highest GPSA. There are consultants that can do that for a kid by school. Perfume is working with a kid starting junior year to develop great essays. There are high level consultants in all major cities that provide those services for $$$. They also cover other test and tutor.... and kids generally get in.