It kind of makes it clear why parents are willing to cheat for college acceptance when you read stories like this.
Amidst college admissions scandal at USC, Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade was on a yacht owned by the board chair
Sounds like this is the actual yacht. I would argue Loughlin is getting pretty good return on her investment here.
Starfucking, in general, is a major reason for donor culture. It's how school administrators and board members get to hang out and network with athletes, celebrities, and billionaires.
They are all top 50 schools. Wake forest or USC may not quite have the prestige level of an Ivy but they are close.
I don't disagree. I just think some are incorrectly dragging the term "Ivy League" into the discussion to grind other, pre-existing, axes was all.
Eh, I mostly use it (or intend it) as a synecdoche or metonym for "elite selective schools" since it's shorter. Rather than just those specific 8 colleges.
Honestly, I kind of find the most frustrating thing about all of this is the underlying facet of this scandal that will not get subjected to nearly as much scrutiny. The bullshit belief that so many people have, and will continue to hold, that being a Harvard Grad actually does make someone inherently better than someone else. Not to suggest that there is absolutely no qualitative difference in colleges. But the belief that the hierarchy places the pinnacle so high, and makes the summit so narrow when...it just isn't.
I think there's a reason people were bribing their way into these schools (although it does annoy me when they call it an "Ivy League" scandal when only Yale was implicated in this one).
I went to a state school, and not a bad one but certainly not elite. The intellectual rigors and classroom discussion were below what I got in high school (although the independent work required was more strictly enforced and voluminous). If anything the quality of my peer group intellectually declined from my high school AP/honors courses to college (largely due to my lack of work ethic when I was a teenager).
My wife went to Penn and I dated her throughout her time there and I sat in on a couple classes per semester. I also over the years sat in on classes at RPI, Tufts, Brandeis, one at Harvard etc that other friends were attending. There was a noticeable difference. I'd love to say the 12K a year I paid was equivalent to the 40K many of them were spending, but there really was a qualitative difference, and a large part of that was the peer effect.
Its really hard to get a feel for the difference between one's university situation and another tier of university. In the month+ I spent on Penn's campus over 4 years it was really noticeable that the student body was more capable (and at least as diverse) than what existed at mine. There were exceptions - the guy with a $2000/month allowance who transferred to Swarthmore who told my wife she shouldn't be dating a bartenders son because it wouldn't elevate her station or the 7th year senior suitemate who didn't understand why they didn't make wooden cooking pots for electric ranges - but most were driven and intelligent. And many were very privileged like the really nice girl who didn't get a job when she graduated in 05 or 06 so got a paid internship in Geneva from a family friend. But the same thing happens on lesser campuses - the "my dad owns a dealership" types.
That's why this kind of scandal is dangerous to those schools and they should stomp down on it. People are mostly willing to allow some elites to buy their way in because networking can be part of the benefit and it pays for ridiculous facilities. But no one gives a shit if Aunt Becky's idiot kid spends all her time youtubing the next dorm over and it will increase the idea that its not worth it.
I think you’re really downplaying the potential networking value these girls offer, based primarily on who their parents are. Loughlin and Gianulli both have substantial contacts, so having those girls on campus can be of benefit to other students that connect with them.
Not a defense or anything. And they’re still pretty awful, like, as humans. But yeah.
Interesting perspectives and I understand the logic. If you take the position that the fraud itself wasn't socially harmful, because "the game was rigged from the start", then revoking admission or credentials makes no logical sense. The only downside to keeping the admissions and credentials in place is after all that it incentives future fraud.
I'm afraid I don't agree with the premise though. I think this admissions fraud was socially harmful and should be prevented to the extent possible. To me, the fact this fraud was bad is unaffected by whether "institutional donations can buy access" is also bad.
I agree it's harmful. Both the legal and the illegal way to bribe your kids into a top tier school.
But at the same time, given that the legal way is complete bullshit too, if the situation came up I'd definitely consider gaming the rigged system for the benefit of my kids.
They are all top 50 schools. Wake forest or USC may not quite have the prestige level of an Ivy but they are close.
I don't disagree. I just think some are incorrectly dragging the term "Ivy League" into the discussion to grind other, pre-existing, axes was all.
I'm not sure what pre-existing axes there are to grind against the actual Ivy League that don't also apply to all the other schools people are referencing here.
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I think you’re really downplaying the potential networking value these girls offer, based primarily on who their parents are. Loughlin and Gianulli both have substantial contacts, so having those girls on campus can be of benefit to other students that connect with them.
Not a defense or anything. And they’re still pretty awful, like, as humans. But yeah.
Maybe I'm the old man yelling at the cloud here, but I am willing to bet the value of Olivia Jade and any other "influencer" is grossly overblown.
I think you’re really downplaying the potential networking value these girls offer, based primarily on who their parents are. Loughlin and Gianulli both have substantial contacts, so having those girls on campus can be of benefit to other students that connect with them.
Not a defense or anything. And they’re still pretty awful, like, as humans. But yeah.
Maybe I'm the old man yelling at the cloud here, but I am willing to bet the value of Olivia Jade and any other "influencer" is grossly overblown.
I hate the very *word* “influencer.” But her parents are still quite wealthy and presumably have some connections. He did found a worldwide brand, was presumably a CEO for a hot minute, and I gotta think he still knows people. Lori may be Hallmark Movie fodder now, but I bet she could still get a friend of her daughter a phone call from people in the industry you’d want phone calls from.
It feels shitty to say it, but with her parents being eight-figure people whose names I immediately recognize she *probably* offers a lot more networking potential to other USC students than whatever merit-based admit she might have bumped. And that’s aside from whatever connections she may or may not be developing with the brands she’s pimping personally; I assume her own connections are minimal.
Then she could have applied on the growth potential of her already established youtube channel and parent's connection. If the usc admissons board and alumni network feel like they don't have enough actors and ceos for students to network woth then Jade's application should have been judged by that.
I'd rather the schools go ahead and expell the fraudulent students.
Pragmatically, I don't see the benefit of expelling the students if they haven't personally violated the code of conduct. Will it open admission spots or something?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Pragmatically, I don't see the benefit of expelling the students if they haven't personally violated the code of conduct. Will it open admission spots or something?
Even if they weren't privy to the conspiracy they obtained their status as students through federal crimes. Keeping them on campus partially excuses fraud. If you bought a car that you didn't know was stolen and the authorities find out you will lose that car. These kids may or may not have been aware of the fraud and I don't think should be considered for charges but they obtained their spots in class because of fraud and those spots should be taken away.
We make the argument all the time that student athletes shouldn't be punished for their coach's actions, I don't see why this case is any different. It's crazy how this case sort of butts right up to, but doesn't actually touch all the shenanigans that go on on the sports side of things. Like how many fake offer letters go out to athletes that the schools never plan to make good on?
Pragmatically, I don't see the benefit of expelling the students if they haven't personally violated the code of conduct. Will it open admission spots or something?
Even if they weren't privy to the conspiracy they obtained their status as students through federal crimes. Keeping them on campus partially excuses fraud. If you bought a car that you didn't know was stolen and the authorities find out you will lose that car. These kids may or may not have been aware of the fraud and I don't think should be considered for charges but they obtained their spots in class because of fraud and those spots should be taken away.
A car is a convenient example because it's just a car. Its cost and its effect on your life are quite limited. Plus, the stolen car gets returned to the rightful owners (something something asset forfeiture). Education is a lot more messy.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
At the end of the day, I would not want to penalize someone who got in for dishonest or outright reasons for which they were unaware and were doing the work in their classes. Beyond the whole can of worms about legacies and donations, there is the fact that our entire admissions process is universally bullshit.
Just use the community college model. Let people in, let them take the classes, and the rest will sort itself out quickly enough.
If the fradulently admitted student has performed to their school's standard then they can put together an accurate application and could even get letters of recommendation from their professors. An application with professor's endorsement would be more favorably viewed than from other oncoming students.
I also find the arguement that these students were completely in the dark especially weak considering I and all my classmates prepared our own applications. Which included signing the box that said if it was found out that we lied or fabricated portions of our application we could
Be expelled. I assume that university other applications have similiar statements.
It seems like this us having serious reprpcussooms. I read on cnn that usc will recode admissions,and one of the actresses lost some brands she was in on.
And I belive I heard aunt becky projects at hll mark are being pulled.
If the fradulently admitted student has performed to their school's standard then they can put together an accurate application and could even get letters of recommendation from their professors. An application with professor's endorsement would be more favorably viewed than from other oncoming students.
I also find the arguement that these students were completely in the dark especially weak considering I and all my classmates prepared our own applications. Which included signing the box that said if it was found out that we lied or fabricated portions of our application we could
Be expelled. I assume that university other applications have similiar statements.
I don't think such an application could be reviewed objectively, and any decision reached would be saturated with PR politics. Plus, it increases competition in the next admissions cycle, further impacting uninvolved applicants. It's a lot of headache and further damage with no practical gain that I can see.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Pragmatically, I don't see the benefit of expelling the students if they haven't personally violated the code of conduct. Will it open admission spots or something?
The benefit is in protecting the brand. Since the degree is the only thing with tangible value, letting kids who got the degree by fraud keep it damages the value of the degree.
+3
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
We make the argument all the time that student athletes shouldn't be punished for their coach's actions, I don't see why this case is any different. It's crazy how this case sort of butts right up to, but doesn't actually touch all the shenanigans that go on on the sports side of things. Like how many fake offer letters go out to athletes that the schools never plan to make good on?
Coaches aren't legal guardians to their players and I'm not totally sure what player punishments you're talking about. Most coaching sanctions are from recruitment violations and the university pays the price for that not players. Usually when players get punished it's from taking gifts or money from boosters/agents.
At the end of the day, I would not want to penalize someone who got in for dishonest or outright reasons for which they were unaware and were doing the work in their classes. Beyond the whole can of worms about legacies and donations, there is the fact that our entire admissions process is universally bullshit.
Just use the community college model. Let people in, let them take the classes, and the rest will sort itself out quickly enough.
The work in the classes is only marginally relevant to the degree. What do you call a guy who graduates bottom of his class in medical school? You call 'em Doctor. Similarly, GPA is meaningless except in edge cases and admittance to graduate programs, and the education has little relevance outside hard STEM... and even then nobody's testing you on your Shakespeare or your understanding of planetary movement in your entry level Chemical Engineering job.
If they got in for dishonest reasons and learned something, let them try and parlay the learning into a career. The degree is a product only those who don't cheat get to have, or else they move closer to the end of the tale of the emperor's new clothes.
Pragmatically, I don't see the benefit of expelling the students if they haven't personally violated the code of conduct. Will it open admission spots or something?
The benefit is in protecting the brand. Since the degree is the only thing with tangible value, letting kids who got the degree by fraud keep it damages the value of the degree.
Furthermore from the universities’ perspective you have to consider protecting your admissions process in the future. Revoking admissions or degrees is a stronger deterrent against fraud than not doing so.
Also, a really key thing to remember is that without these bribes they would not have gotten in. In other words, they don't belong there and so it's only right to remove them from any gains they might have gotten through duplicitous means.
And yes, this probably means slots will open up. Will the people who deserve them get them? Jury's out on that one.
Yeah, ultimately it's the Universities themselves that were defrauded by this. Along with the dozens of students who were robbed of a legitimate admissions slot, but they're more difficult to identify. The kids may not necessarily be villains, possibly even victims themselves, but they are still profiting off of fraud.
They can enroll somewhere else or reapply with their new, legitimate scores. The harder question is for people who already graduated.
It is such a tough call. The usual rule is that if you benefit yourself through fraud (or other crime), we strip you of that benefit in addition to metering out punishment. But in this case the parents benefited their children through fraud.
So do we just punish the parents or do we also remove the benefit to the children?
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
As someone with a degree from USC, I would prefer these students be expelled and any degrees they attained revoked. Their fraudulent degrees lower the value of mine quite explicitly (since people may assume I got mine illegitimately).
I also think it's the only way to deter something like this from happening again--if parents know that their kid will get what they bought for them even if the parent gets caught, parents are not going to hesitate.
I'm fine if these kids want to transfer their actual credits to any school which will fairly take them.
My first big concern with this shit show, is how this gives ammo to asshats that have been working to make sure that it's hard to get test taking accommodations for individuals with disabilities. My next concern is how much shit this is going to bring down on what can essentially be called the hidden disabilities. These are the disabilities, where people can't usually spot obvious signs of their existence. I have CAPD, something recognized by top audiologists and I have to deal with a slew off asshats that insist there isn't anything there, I must be faking and some of those shitheads, are shit tier audiologists. All of them ignore that rigorous testing that is down to prove that these hidden disabilities are a thing and also ignore how certain accommodations seem to only help people with those diagnoses, but not really do anything for others (time extension is given for all tests and not just timed tests. Probably one of the few that could benefit people without disabilities, but usually only for timed tests). Then there is the fact that these individuals probably didn't have to fight tooth an nail to get these accommodations, which many people with the actual disabilities that do need them, have to do.
I imagine the colleges who have students that got caught up in this, will move to expel them. I don't really give shit if they do or not, it's not like many of these kids are fucked for laugh, not unless their parents cut them off. Those colleges aren't going to do this out of sense of fairness, it going to be completely self serving because they all rely on this myth that they are the few that give an education, that is worth a damn. If someone that wouldn't make the cut is able to pass, that begs the question, how many individuals, that didn't make the cut and then didn't have a work around be that legal or illegal bribes, that settled for a "lower tier" school.
Then there is the fact, that it's unlikely this was the only illegal ring that was doing this sort of shit. There are also likely schemes, where the privileges don't just end at getting the kid into the school, but extend to make sure the kid gets teachers that will fudge the numbers, while making sure they can take plenty of fluff courses to pad their numbers and ensure that the fudging on the challenging courses won't be to obvious. Not to mention again, the whole issue where this is only not kosher because it was the illegal way of doing bribes and no the legal way.
I mean the schools don't want this in the news because while many of this board know that the current state of education is bullshit and nowhere near being based on merits, many actually believe the system is fair. Hell, I have a coworker that is all aboard on a ton of shit being fucked, but she insists anyone that when to ivy league would be able to talk circles around her and myself. This is supposed to be someone that is fairly informed and right now, she is claiming this is an isolated event and insists that in the cases of legal bribing, those kids still have to be smarter than average. So the schools are going to move swiftly to get this out of the news before people really start looking and realizing that "I'm from Yale," means fuck all and that maybe we should start caring about whether people have the skills, rather than the names of specific institutions on a piece of paper.
I don't see the value in revoking degrees unless it is also demonstrated that the students defrauded the university during their coursework, nor do I think the students should be expelled unless it can be demonstrated that they were actively aware or involved with the fraud.
I haven't followed this stuff very closely, but there are many strong arguments to be made for completely removing entry requirements to college, and entrance into degree program doesn't guarantee a degree.
Lowering the barrier of entry to college doesn't devalues degrees, lowering the barrier of exit devalues degrees
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
They are developing people in an institution that has a responsibility to guide and teach them. If the best solution the institution can come up with is to expel them to cover its own butt in the cases where the students were just duped - well, it makes me want to look for opportunities to make life harder for that institution and dismantle the reputation it's willing to sacrifice students to protect. Meanwhile, I'm going to increase my alumni donation just for not being a part of this.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
They are developing people in an institution that has a responsibility to guide and teach them. If the best solution the institution can come up with is to expel them to cover its own butt in the cases where the students were just duped - well, it makes me want to look for opportunities to make life harder for that institution and dismantle the reputation it's willing to sacrifice students to protect. Meanwhile, I'm going to increase my alumni donation just for not being a part of this.
hah no, they are selling a prestige marker. You don't have to develop as a person to get a college degree and the institution doesn't have a 'responsibility' to guide or teach anyone. To have responsibility, there would need to be institutional accountability for a failure to guide or teach and nothing of the sort exists. The entire idea that college sells education is a misnomer - they sell degrees with value based only on reputation. I'd like it to be different, but it's not, and the only way to protect the value of the degree is to take it from every kid who got their entrance by fraud.
I do like the idea of letting them retain their credits though. Let them try and get in somewhere else, then transfer all the work they did to someone else who will sell them a new degree.
I don't see the value in revoking degrees unless it is also demonstrated that the students defrauded the university during their coursework, nor do I think the students should be expelled unless it can be demonstrated that they were actively aware or involved with the fraud.
I haven't followed this stuff very closely, but there are many strong arguments to be made for completely removing entry requirements to college, and entrance into degree program doesn't guarantee a degree.
Lowering the barrier of entry to college doesn't devalues degrees, lowering the barrier of exit devalues degrees
I guess I just disagree that the integrity of the admissions system is so utterly irredeemable that literally having a third person fraudulently take the SAT/ACT in your stead shouldn't matter.
They are developing people in an institution that has a responsibility to guide and teach them. If the best solution the institution can come up with is to expel them to cover its own butt in the cases where the students were just duped - well, it makes me want to look for opportunities to make life harder for that institution and dismantle the reputation it's willing to sacrifice students to protect. Meanwhile, I'm going to increase my alumni donation just for not being a part of this.
hah no, they are selling a prestige marker. You don't have to develop as a person to get a college degree and the institution doesn't have a 'responsibility' to guide or teach anyone. To have responsibility, there would need to be institutional accountability for a failure to guide or teach and nothing of the sort exists. The entire idea that college sells education is a misnomer - they sell degrees with value based only on reputation. I'd like it to be different, but it's not, and the only way to protect the value of the degree is to take it from every kid who got their entrance by fraud.
I do like the idea of letting them retain their credits though. Let them try and get in somewhere else, then transfer all the work they did to someone else who will sell them a new degree.
I was an architecture major in undergrad. Evidently we had very different college experiences.
They are developing people in an institution that has a responsibility to guide and teach them. If the best solution the institution can come up with is to expel them to cover its own butt in the cases where the students were just duped - well, it makes me want to look for opportunities to make life harder for that institution and dismantle the reputation it's willing to sacrifice students to protect. Meanwhile, I'm going to increase my alumni donation just for not being a part of this.
hah no, they are selling a prestige marker. You don't have to develop as a person to get a college degree and the institution doesn't have a 'responsibility' to guide or teach anyone. To have responsibility, there would need to be institutional accountability for a failure to guide or teach and nothing of the sort exists. The entire idea that college sells education is a misnomer - they sell degrees with value based only on reputation. I'd like it to be different, but it's not, and the only way to protect the value of the degree is to take it from every kid who got their entrance by fraud.
I do like the idea of letting them retain their credits though. Let them try and get in somewhere else, then transfer all the work they did to someone else who will sell them a new degree.
I was an architecture major in undergrad. Evidently we had very different college experiences.
If you'd had a string of bad teachers who failed to teach you anything, what was your recourse with the institution? There was none. How could you prove to me that you learned anything about architecture based on your studies? The degree claims to be a proxy for that, but unless I know enough to quiz you thoroughly, I just have to take the institution's word for it. Will they show me aggregate post-graduation success rates for architecture graduates? Nope. I just have to rely on their reputation, which is what sold you in the first place as you also had no way to judge whether your education would be good apart from the reputation.
Everything you learned about architecture was orthogonal to getting the degree. You could have maximized your free time and skated through with a 2.0 and gotten your degree and the reputation you bought would be identical to graduating in the top 1% of your class.
Lean on the criminal nature all you want, but do you really want to set the precedent that, say, a student admitted under affirmative action policies could have their degrees revoked if those policies showed they “stole” their place in class. When the entire admission process is as ganked as it is legally, this is some deep conservative crab bucket thinking.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
but those policies are legal ....
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.
Posts
Sounds like this is the actual yacht. I would argue Loughlin is getting pretty good return on her investment here.
Starfucking, in general, is a major reason for donor culture. It's how school administrators and board members get to hang out and network with athletes, celebrities, and billionaires.
Eh, I mostly use it (or intend it) as a synecdoche or metonym for "elite selective schools" since it's shorter. Rather than just those specific 8 colleges.
I think there's a reason people were bribing their way into these schools (although it does annoy me when they call it an "Ivy League" scandal when only Yale was implicated in this one).
I went to a state school, and not a bad one but certainly not elite. The intellectual rigors and classroom discussion were below what I got in high school (although the independent work required was more strictly enforced and voluminous). If anything the quality of my peer group intellectually declined from my high school AP/honors courses to college (largely due to my lack of work ethic when I was a teenager).
My wife went to Penn and I dated her throughout her time there and I sat in on a couple classes per semester. I also over the years sat in on classes at RPI, Tufts, Brandeis, one at Harvard etc that other friends were attending. There was a noticeable difference. I'd love to say the 12K a year I paid was equivalent to the 40K many of them were spending, but there really was a qualitative difference, and a large part of that was the peer effect.
Its really hard to get a feel for the difference between one's university situation and another tier of university. In the month+ I spent on Penn's campus over 4 years it was really noticeable that the student body was more capable (and at least as diverse) than what existed at mine. There were exceptions - the guy with a $2000/month allowance who transferred to Swarthmore who told my wife she shouldn't be dating a bartenders son because it wouldn't elevate her station or the 7th year senior suitemate who didn't understand why they didn't make wooden cooking pots for electric ranges - but most were driven and intelligent. And many were very privileged like the really nice girl who didn't get a job when she graduated in 05 or 06 so got a paid internship in Geneva from a family friend. But the same thing happens on lesser campuses - the "my dad owns a dealership" types.
That's why this kind of scandal is dangerous to those schools and they should stomp down on it. People are mostly willing to allow some elites to buy their way in because networking can be part of the benefit and it pays for ridiculous facilities. But no one gives a shit if Aunt Becky's idiot kid spends all her time youtubing the next dorm over and it will increase the idea that its not worth it.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Not a defense or anything. And they’re still pretty awful, like, as humans. But yeah.
I agree it's harmful. Both the legal and the illegal way to bribe your kids into a top tier school.
But at the same time, given that the legal way is complete bullshit too, if the situation came up I'd definitely consider gaming the rigged system for the benefit of my kids.
I'm not sure what pre-existing axes there are to grind against the actual Ivy League that don't also apply to all the other schools people are referencing here.
Maybe I'm the old man yelling at the cloud here, but I am willing to bet the value of Olivia Jade and any other "influencer" is grossly overblown.
I hate the very *word* “influencer.” But her parents are still quite wealthy and presumably have some connections. He did found a worldwide brand, was presumably a CEO for a hot minute, and I gotta think he still knows people. Lori may be Hallmark Movie fodder now, but I bet she could still get a friend of her daughter a phone call from people in the industry you’d want phone calls from.
It feels shitty to say it, but with her parents being eight-figure people whose names I immediately recognize she *probably* offers a lot more networking potential to other USC students than whatever merit-based admit she might have bumped. And that’s aside from whatever connections she may or may not be developing with the brands she’s pimping personally; I assume her own connections are minimal.
Not anymore.
I'd rather the schools go ahead and expell the fraudulent students.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Even if they weren't privy to the conspiracy they obtained their status as students through federal crimes. Keeping them on campus partially excuses fraud. If you bought a car that you didn't know was stolen and the authorities find out you will lose that car. These kids may or may not have been aware of the fraud and I don't think should be considered for charges but they obtained their spots in class because of fraud and those spots should be taken away.
A car is a convenient example because it's just a car. Its cost and its effect on your life are quite limited. Plus, the stolen car gets returned to the rightful owners (something something asset forfeiture). Education is a lot more messy.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Just use the community college model. Let people in, let them take the classes, and the rest will sort itself out quickly enough.
I also find the arguement that these students were completely in the dark especially weak considering I and all my classmates prepared our own applications. Which included signing the box that said if it was found out that we lied or fabricated portions of our application we could
Be expelled. I assume that university other applications have similiar statements.
And I belive I heard aunt becky projects at hll mark are being pulled.
I don't think such an application could be reviewed objectively, and any decision reached would be saturated with PR politics. Plus, it increases competition in the next admissions cycle, further impacting uninvolved applicants. It's a lot of headache and further damage with no practical gain that I can see.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The benefit is in protecting the brand. Since the degree is the only thing with tangible value, letting kids who got the degree by fraud keep it damages the value of the degree.
Coaches aren't legal guardians to their players and I'm not totally sure what player punishments you're talking about. Most coaching sanctions are from recruitment violations and the university pays the price for that not players. Usually when players get punished it's from taking gifts or money from boosters/agents.
The work in the classes is only marginally relevant to the degree. What do you call a guy who graduates bottom of his class in medical school? You call 'em Doctor. Similarly, GPA is meaningless except in edge cases and admittance to graduate programs, and the education has little relevance outside hard STEM... and even then nobody's testing you on your Shakespeare or your understanding of planetary movement in your entry level Chemical Engineering job.
If they got in for dishonest reasons and learned something, let them try and parlay the learning into a career. The degree is a product only those who don't cheat get to have, or else they move closer to the end of the tale of the emperor's new clothes.
Furthermore from the universities’ perspective you have to consider protecting your admissions process in the future. Revoking admissions or degrees is a stronger deterrent against fraud than not doing so.
And yes, this probably means slots will open up. Will the people who deserve them get them? Jury's out on that one.
They can enroll somewhere else or reapply with their new, legitimate scores. The harder question is for people who already graduated.
So do we just punish the parents or do we also remove the benefit to the children?
I also think it's the only way to deter something like this from happening again--if parents know that their kid will get what they bought for them even if the parent gets caught, parents are not going to hesitate.
I'm fine if these kids want to transfer their actual credits to any school which will fairly take them.
I imagine the colleges who have students that got caught up in this, will move to expel them. I don't really give shit if they do or not, it's not like many of these kids are fucked for laugh, not unless their parents cut them off. Those colleges aren't going to do this out of sense of fairness, it going to be completely self serving because they all rely on this myth that they are the few that give an education, that is worth a damn. If someone that wouldn't make the cut is able to pass, that begs the question, how many individuals, that didn't make the cut and then didn't have a work around be that legal or illegal bribes, that settled for a "lower tier" school.
Then there is the fact, that it's unlikely this was the only illegal ring that was doing this sort of shit. There are also likely schemes, where the privileges don't just end at getting the kid into the school, but extend to make sure the kid gets teachers that will fudge the numbers, while making sure they can take plenty of fluff courses to pad their numbers and ensure that the fudging on the challenging courses won't be to obvious. Not to mention again, the whole issue where this is only not kosher because it was the illegal way of doing bribes and no the legal way.
I mean the schools don't want this in the news because while many of this board know that the current state of education is bullshit and nowhere near being based on merits, many actually believe the system is fair. Hell, I have a coworker that is all aboard on a ton of shit being fucked, but she insists anyone that when to ivy league would be able to talk circles around her and myself. This is supposed to be someone that is fairly informed and right now, she is claiming this is an isolated event and insists that in the cases of legal bribing, those kids still have to be smarter than average. So the schools are going to move swiftly to get this out of the news before people really start looking and realizing that "I'm from Yale," means fuck all and that maybe we should start caring about whether people have the skills, rather than the names of specific institutions on a piece of paper.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I haven't followed this stuff very closely, but there are many strong arguments to be made for completely removing entry requirements to college, and entrance into degree program doesn't guarantee a degree.
Lowering the barrier of entry to college doesn't devalues degrees, lowering the barrier of exit devalues degrees
sorry, don't commit fraud to get your kid into the top 50 school of your choice.
Revocation is a big deal. Be very careful how gleeful you get when you support it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
but those policies are legal ....
hah no, they are selling a prestige marker. You don't have to develop as a person to get a college degree and the institution doesn't have a 'responsibility' to guide or teach anyone. To have responsibility, there would need to be institutional accountability for a failure to guide or teach and nothing of the sort exists. The entire idea that college sells education is a misnomer - they sell degrees with value based only on reputation. I'd like it to be different, but it's not, and the only way to protect the value of the degree is to take it from every kid who got their entrance by fraud.
I do like the idea of letting them retain their credits though. Let them try and get in somewhere else, then transfer all the work they did to someone else who will sell them a new degree.
I guess I just disagree that the integrity of the admissions system is so utterly irredeemable that literally having a third person fraudulently take the SAT/ACT in your stead shouldn't matter.
I was an architecture major in undergrad. Evidently we had very different college experiences.
If you'd had a string of bad teachers who failed to teach you anything, what was your recourse with the institution? There was none. How could you prove to me that you learned anything about architecture based on your studies? The degree claims to be a proxy for that, but unless I know enough to quiz you thoroughly, I just have to take the institution's word for it. Will they show me aggregate post-graduation success rates for architecture graduates? Nope. I just have to rely on their reputation, which is what sold you in the first place as you also had no way to judge whether your education would be good apart from the reputation.
Everything you learned about architecture was orthogonal to getting the degree. You could have maximized your free time and skated through with a 2.0 and gotten your degree and the reputation you bought would be identical to graduating in the top 1% of your class.
The right wing is currently arguing that they aren't. It's a central policy of theirs.