Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Nope, both kids got into first choice schools. One now headed to Cambridge for graduate school.

Just stating the obvious on how higher education institutions have (d)evolved over the past four decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Nope, both kids got into first choice schools. One now headed to Cambridge for graduate school.

Just stating the obvious on how higher education institutions have (d)evolved over the past four decades.

Well you sound like a bad parent. Higher education is so poor quality and damaged and corrupt and horrible and yet you allowed your children to be involved in it. You should have done a better job to protect your children and keep them away from that.

Yes, higher education in America is not what it once was across the board.

There are still some quality schools and parents should help their kids find good fit schools, not chase schools based on DCUM or other 3rd party rankings only to be disappointed with the end result.

Glad my kid is going oversees as UK schools have maintained their standards to a much higher degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Nope, both kids got into first choice schools. One now headed to Cambridge for graduate school.

Just stating the obvious on how higher education institutions have (d)evolved over the past four decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Nope, both kids got into first choice schools. One now headed to Cambridge for graduate school.

Just stating the obvious on how higher education institutions have (d)evolved over the past four decades.

Well you sound like a bad parent. Higher education is so poor quality and damaged and corrupt and horrible and yet you allowed your children to be involved in it. You should have done a better job to protect your children and keep them away from that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Nope, both kids got into first choice schools. One now headed to Cambridge for graduate school.

Just stating the obvious on how higher education institutions have (d)evolved over the past four decades.

Well you sound like a bad parent. Higher education is so poor quality and damaged and corrupt and horrible and yet you allowed your children to be involved in it. You should have done a better job to protect your children and keep them away from that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This weekend I was chatting with a neighbor who said they had a grandson at Bucknell and I couldn't hep but think to myself how much DCUM hates Bucknell, lmao.

LOL

Very few heard of Bucknell and even fewer have any opinion on it. Most just dont care about some small obscure non-entity.

You do realize that actual people with feelings read what you write? Would you speak like this in mixed company? If not, then don't say it online. If you would...then learn to be considerate. Comments like this add no value.

BYW, I have no relation to Bucknell and don't really have an opinion on the school. I just hate to see talk like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Nope, both kids got into first choice schools. One now headed to Cambridge for graduate school.

Just stating the obvious on how higher education institutions have (d)evolved over the past four decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Someone’s kid definitely didn’t in.

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

It seems as if you are implying that only so-called DEI hires (women, minorities) were dishonest with their background, etc. That’s just not true.

Anonymous wrote:There was a time, up to the mid to late 1980s, where the college you attended mattered. But then the slow but unstoppable push for diversity for diversity’s sake began. Schools began to offer more and more money to “underprivileged” students to diversify their student population. At first school’s worked hard to make sure that the students had the requisite talent to succeed, but as time wore on it became a numbers game and student quality no longer mattered.

The 90s and early 2000’s saw the rise of diversity in the faculty ranks, again at first with positive results. But it too became a numbers game. Now we have university leaders who got to where they were via falsified research and plagiarism not talent.

The top schools up until recently skated by on their reputations but the facades are crumbling. Now companies still recruit at top universities but have branched out to find true talent. They do their own preemployment testing to separate the high performers from those gifted As to avoid parents complaining about Larla and Larlo not getting As for $100K a year.

So, you now have parent’s complaining that they spent mid six figures on an Ivy League education only to have their kid working at the local grocery store.

But gotta keep that consulting gravy train rolling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This weekend I was chatting with a neighbor who said they had a grandson at Bucknell and I couldn't hep but think to myself how much DCUM hates Bucknell, lmao.

LOL

Very few heard of Bucknell and even fewer have any opinion on it. Most just dont care about some small obscure non-entity.