Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^ cant be

This works for me. Doesn't mean they can't scam their way into college later but they'd at least have to be on an equal footing for a time.

Of course Trump has proposed eliminating the national service corporation completely, so I suppose it will have to be the military

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^ cant be

This works for me. Doesn't mean they can't scam their way into college later but they'd at least have to be on an equal footing for a time.

Of course Trump has proposed eliminating the national service corporation completely, so I suppose it will have to be the military

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?

Not enough white kids will get admitted, their parents will howl about how unfair it is that they have to compete with Asian students who will work harder and study more, and the push will be back on for 'holistic' admissions but without any consideration for URMs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to mention something else. At the private school I went to basically attending the school was a backdoor into UVA for less qualified students. The average student who got some As, some bs and even Cs and OK SATs routinely got into UVA whereas if these same kids went to public there is no way they would ever get into UVA. There are many legal, but unfair backdoors.

Spill the tea!!! Which school????

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to mention something else. At the private school I went to basically attending the school was a backdoor into UVA for less qualified students. The average student who got some As, some bs and even Cs and OK SATs routinely got into UVA whereas if these same kids went to public there is no way they would ever get into UVA. There are many legal, but unfair backdoors.

Anonymous wrote:Was just reading a piece about how the guy who would take the SATs had to be careful not to bring scores up too much. . . isn't it strange to think back on that AA girl who was accused of cheating because she had raised her score?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm.. for 250K in this area you can -- barely -- pay the Catholic school tuition, and those kids go to UMD all the time.
Try 600K for the top privates.

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

A few posts above yours says that the College Board for past 2 yrs is requiring high schools to apply for students’ testing accommodations. How is your school allowing half of your schools student body to have accommodations?

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

A few posts above yours says that the College Board for past 2 yrs is requiring high schools to apply for students’ testing accommodations. How is your school allowing half of your schools student body to have accommodations?

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/complete-list-charged-college-admissions-211212373.html

Complete list of those who have been charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one family paid $250k to get their son into USC and then he withdrew after one year.

This is interesting. We were discussing with my second grader last night, who asked whether the students are actually able to do the work in college[b]. Wondering about matriculation stats for these kids.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^ cant be