[vtsnowedin]

BOSTON (AP) — Fifty people, including Hollywood stars Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, were charged Tuesday in a scheme in which wealthy parents allegedly bribed college coaches and other insiders to get their children into some of the nation’s most elite schools.

Federal authorities called it the biggest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department, with the parents accused of paying an estimated $25 million in bribes.

“These parents are a catalog of wealth and privilege,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the results of an investigation code-named Operation Varsity Blues.

https://apnews.com/2450688f9e67435c8590e59a1b0e5b47
My first question is how did the colleges not soon see that some of these students were not half as smart as their test scores and flunk them out?
A college that wanted to rise above this would announce that incoming freshmen would undergo a battery of on campus testing and those found deficient sent home and their places given to academically qualified applicants still in line.

[Outcast_Searcher]

BOSTON (AP) — Fifty people, including Hollywood stars Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, were charged Tuesday in a scheme in which wealthy parents allegedly bribed college coaches and other insiders to get their children into some of the nation’s most elite schools.

Federal authorities called it the biggest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department, with the parents accused of paying an estimated $25 million in bribes.

“These parents are a catalog of wealth and privilege,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the results of an investigation code-named Operation Varsity Blues.

https://apnews.com/2450688f9e67435c8590e59a1b0e5b47
My first question is how did the colleges not soon see that some of these students were not half as smart as their test scores and flunk them out?
A college that wanted to rise above this would announce that incoming freshmen would undergo a battery of on campus testing and those found deficient sent home and their places given to academically qualified applicants still in line.

This is something that has been a known problem for at least 4 decades, since when I took the SAT's in '76, it was a concern. I didn't understand why concerned looking people were carefully checking ID's, and then someone explained people pay other people to take the test, etc.

But if institutions cared, it's not like they couldn't check correlations. Why did this supposed genius get B's and C's in high school? (Of course, if they were cheating in high school, there's that.)

Like many problems, the folks in charge really don't care much, or they'd do something about it.

...

When I started at IBM in mid '81, they were hiring a lot of newly minted college grads with Computer Science degrees, as there was a lot of demand for programmers. Six months later a number of these folks suddenly disappeared. Turns out (management confirmed this) that they had simply made up their degrees, their grades, which colleges they went to, etc. and it took IBM 6 months of giving them more chances and checking on their background to decide they had grounds to fire them.

This stuff is nothing new. What surprises me is that the powers that be don't seem to care much. How much can it cost to get official transcripts (which IBM demanded for me -- and the college would ONLY send directly to the employer, not to me)?

All sorts of experiments in behavioral economics in recent decades prove that a large proportion of the population cheats if they believe they can get away with it. Even if it's only literally less than 50 bucks at stake. So it's not difficult to imagine that over a career, if it's potentially on the scale of $millions, that people will be strongly incented to cheat, unfortunately.

When I come across stories like this, I'm reminded why I have become so cynical as I age.

[vtsnowedin]

I suspect this is just the tip of this iceberg and much more will come out as the case unfolds.
My first thought was "I wonder how much Hilary had to pay to get Chelsea in?"
I suspect reporters will have a field day tracking down every famous persons children so see how many they can add to the cheaters list.

[KaiserJeep]

The perfect example of how the priviledged people cheat the system is Chelsea Clinton. Look up her official biography and find that she "earned" an undergraduate degree in History at Stanford, then a Master's at Oxford, followed by a Doctorate in Philosophy.

Except that Stanford is right up the peninsula from me and that's not how I remember it. She "studied" for two years at Stanford, including several epic parties that made headlines, then left the school to "work on her Mother's presidential campaign". She never went back, but was awarded a BA in History anyway, with "life experience" from politics.

The Masters and Doctorate from Oxford were originally "honorary" (after all, she never actually graduated) but now have mysteriously morphed into "earned" degrees years later.

I agree that the "right people" have been cheating for many decades. At a certain employment level it matters a lot less, if you can find a Chief of Staff who knows his stuff, and enough talented staffers. Then the person collecting the big paycheck is not actually doing the work.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I suspect this is just the tip of this iceberg and much more will come out as the case unfolds.
My first thought was "I wonder how much Hilary had to pay to get Chelsea in?"
I suspect reporters will have a field day tracking down every famous persons children so see how many they can add to the cheaters list.

Ironically, if it is very widespread (which I tend to agree with re the tip of the iceberg idea), then it will be dismissed via the old "well, everybody does it" line.

Funny how far things have shifted. When I got in trouble in school (never cheated, but finishing fights I didn't start, talking in class, etc. -- yeah, I did that stuff often enough to get caught), hell, my parents NEVER heard about it from me -- or I'd get 10X the punishment I got in school. If I had a problem or an issue, I handled it best I could, even when I was sure I was losing an issue that my father could perhaps win (like the library book they claimed I lost which I never heard of much less checked out). And even back then, I remember some peers would bring their mommy in, and they'd get out any punishment for doing exactly the same things I did.

But here we are with not only helicopter parents and overly protective parents, but parents who actively use bribes to give their kids an unfair advantage -- and it's apparently widespread. (I'm actually all for parents who help their kids who need it with honest stuff like extra tutoring, which the far left would call "unfair advantage", BTW). Just not cheating in any form.

Much more of this type of thing, and I won't even feel at all bad for being cynical.

[vtsnowedin]

A cynical point of view is often rewarded by developing revelations of facts.

[yellowcanoe]

A friend of mine wrote the following on Facebook.

The Difficulties of Getting into Elite US Universities.
As someone with a degree from an elite Ivy League university, I have been an alumnus volunteer interviewer for students applying to my alma-matter for over 18 yeas now and three things are clear (1) The quality of the students I interview each year is incredibly high and they are remarkably well prepared; (2) Only about 10% of the fabulous student I have the privilege of interviewing each year gets an offer, and it seem more akin to winning the lottery than just "being the best" (they are all incredibly good), and (3) If I had been facing such incredible odds when I was an applicant, I almost certainly would not have been accepted myself.

Each year to my alma-matter (Penn), there are over 30,000 applicants for only about 3,000 vacancies, and most of those applicants are at the top of their high-school classes. I never see an applicant who couldn't handle the work and I routinely see applicants who impress me highly with their brilliance and their breadth of abilities turned down, and I feel more and more discouraged for them. How are the selections people ensuring that the most deserving of students are getting in? I certainly would not want to be among the ones making those impossible selections. Now getting turned down from one of those elite institutions does not mean these student do not go on to university. There are many other excellent institutions that are more than happy to grab them up and provide them with just as good an education as the so-called elite universities would do. That assurance is why I don't feel total despair, and I have the pleasure each year of talking to these marvellous young people.

In spite of the tremendous odds faced by applicants, I am convinced that the process is generally impartial and based principally on merit (though factors such as affirmative action, "Legacy", and local residence are also considered and are justified). When I read that very rich people are willing to pay to give their kids an advantage, I feel outraged.

[Tanada]

For those of who grew up on the rural side of the tracks this is just nature taking its course. The outrage expressed that a wealthy or otherwise influential parent would use that power to benefit their own family tree is laughable.

What point power if you and yours gain no benefit from it? How many parents could honestly say that if they were guaranteed their child would get into the Elite class for a measly (to the 1%) sum of cash that they would turn it down cold?

Such is not normal human nature. Rage against reality all you want, but influence is its own reward, this is why the Elites want it. They don't want it so they can 'lead the plebes to a brighter future'. That might happen, but if it does it is a side effect of bettering their own family tree.

The smarter Elites ensure that some 'fresh blood' is introduced into the elite school systems every year. This ensures that as generations go on they don't get too thoroughly inbred, and after all if Joe6P's kids can make the top ACT/SAT scores without benefit of financial wealth then they are more than smart enough to be welcomed into the Elite class, once they are 'properly educated'.

My spouses nephew just scored in the top 20 All American track and field and was offered a full ride scholarship to an eastern school. After many such offers and campus tours he selected Notre Dame as much because it is far closer to home as because both his parents were collegiate athletes and it is ranked as a 'goal school' by people of that general persuasion. The young man got the offers because despite an adverse health condition he has worked harder than anyone I know to excel academically and in his sports. His achievements are not in any way lessened by some rich and influential folks cheating to get there kids into those elite schools. I suspect that in ten or fifteen years as a person after university his determination and raw talent will see him to a great life and allow him to achieve many of his goals. For those who cheat to get there kids in the kids are part of 'the club' but a fool is still a fool and what they achieve after schooling will in large part revert back to their talents and ambition. Wealth opened the door, but it is no guarantee of personal success.

Take Chelsea Clinton for example, got into an elite school because of her parents, was awarded a Baccalaureate degree and got a job working for a big news corporation as a 'journalist' or 'on air talent' of some sort. But as soon as HRC flamed out so did Chelsea's career, she married a rich guy in the 'elite club' and you hardly hear a peep about her these days. The reporters like you see on air today got in the door one way or another, but they kept those jobs after the election because whether i like what they say or not they know how to work inside the system and do their assigned jobs.

For the kids whose parents bribed them into school over the last who knows how many decades without getting caught, the influence got them in, but only talent and drive kept their jobs once they had the job for a while. For those just graduated the same process will occur, the ones with the right skill and drive will succeed, the ones without it will quietly fade into the bureaucracy jobs that are packed with 'elite school' graduates. There are a heck of a lot more openings for 'third assistant researcher' than there are for on screen talent or leadership roles in more mundane branches of work. Behind every uber successful lawyer is a huge staff of people doing research and looking up case law and formulating possible lines of argument or questioning for the 'up front talent' to use in the courtroom. The same is true for business executives or stock company executives or on and on in the long list of white color jobs in the big cities.

So ultimately, who cares? A few wealthy people exerted influence, and so what the heck did you think was going to happen? In the end drive and talent are what will lead to success, not favoritism. Favoritism is always limited in scope, because the actual work has to get done by someone.

[vtsnowedin]

Taking the prestigious school I am most familiar with they get about 22,000 applicants for some 1200 freshmen seats. The question becomes out of those 1200 how many were accepted on academic merit and how many were let in on other corrupt means? The college could of course make room for all the slackers from whatever means and still accept all the academically qualified students they want or need . Perhaps it is 1000 qualified that will carry though and go on to uphold the reputation of the collage with 200 that take up space and ask stupid questions that waste other students time but it is perhaps more or less then 200.
Unfortunately I doubt if this scandal will actually result in any meaningful reforms that give a bright but poor student a fair chance.

[ralfy]

The effects of late capitalism falling apart, as bribery seen in Wall Street and Washington can also be seen in uni admissions.

[vtsnowedin]

Seeing how rich and able to afford high priced lawyers most of the people caught up in this are I don't expect any of them to actually spend any time in jail as much as that would satisfy my desire to see justice served.
I do think that each should have to match or even double any amount paid or received into a fund that was then paid out to actual academically qualified students in the form of full scholarships. The one woman that paid a half million so her drone daughter could party till she dropped might then send ten real students to a real college degree worth something.
If you can blow a half million on what certainly will be a total loss spending a million on some real potential seems only fair.

[mmasters]

What's pathetic is nobody really cares where you went to college, it's all about what connections you have that can get you great experience early on. That will take you way farther than an Ivy League stamp. I went to an average dime a dozen university but my dad had Wall St. connections I took advantage of and that got me into the top companies in the world. If I had been right for it I would probably be worth 50 or 100 million today but I wasn't happy in the corporate world so I ended up dropping out. After some soul searching I found my own path as a writer and researcher and am in the process of starting a new belief system or branch of religion. I love my life now and could care less about big money.

[evilgenius]

This sort of problem is only going to become magnified as Artificial Intelligence causes disruption in the job market. The easy to fill by studying for them positions are great to attain, but harder to maintain. Many jobs that once required skilled people are being filled by machines. It won't only be blue collar people who will lose the positions they have trained for. Accounting and the law will be deeply effected. A machine, in this sense, doesn't have to be a physical automaton. It can be a piece of software.

This sort of cheating probably prevails in the contentious world in which the people who have worked for a long time in some field have then to change to another. People are simply practical. The farther away from the breadline you are, the more magnanimous you can afford to be. People cheat at everything. You can't trust many aspects of what anyone's record says about them. Pull up a person't driving record, for instance, and you will not be able to tell how many of the charges were bargained down in agreement with the local DA and how many were simply paid by a check dropped into the mail in response to an officer's ticket. Once people learn to cheat, and to look for places where they can cheat, they aren't the same people. They often don't realize this. They don't seem to fathom that there are pretty good reasons why they shouldn't be trusted. And the gray areas, those are huge.

The one comment I've heard above all others in response to this story was that it imperiled our sense of society as a meritocracy. How can you have a true meritocracy when cheating is so rampant? And what's the line that divides talking yourself up, marketing yourself, and lying to get in? In both cases you are attempting to understand what sort of thoughts are running through someone else's head about you, and trying to change their impression of you to become more favorable. If you are merely evaluating what's being done on the basis of whether it was a successful strategy for you, and not that of morality, then you can score very big by acting immorally. The only thing that would hold you back would be if your lies caught up to you. Taken in that context, even if marketing yourself is composed mostly of lies, those lies are not meant to be so far off of the actual picture of you that a person who had been even heavily influenced by them in the past wouldn't be able to get past them when meeting the real you. You could even pose your personal goals in such terms, while attempting to change a weakness into a strength. But you can never predict the sort of standards by which others will judge you, let alone those by which a future version of your self might. There is an element of randomness, and an indication of its importance, in this argument alongside the seeking for a staid and orderly approach to understanding life.

[vtsnowedin]

And what's the line that divides talking yourself up, marketing yourself, and lying to get in?

I believe the American baseball player Babe Ruth said it best with: "It ain't bragging if you can do it".
To test someone, give them a task they have said they can do and see if they actually can do it by themselves. Talk is cheap, especially on a Resume, but actual experience and ability comes much harder. These institutions of higher learning should have no trouble sorting out lairs and cheats from the truly qualified. After all they have the top quality , cream of academia, staff on hand to do the sorting.

[careinke]

After some soul searching I found my own path as a writer and researcher and am in the process of starting a new belief system or branch of religion. I love my life now and could care less about big money.

Interesting. I'm curious as to the motivation for starting a new religion. The only other person I know who has tried to start a new religion is Ibon, (maybe he can jump in on this too).

Did you have a vision? Is it based on metaphysics? Will it be directive in nature, or free willed based? Do you expect other religions to label you as blasphemous?

I have my own set of ethics I follow, but I don't think I would call it a religion. So, this intrigues me.

[jedrider]

The only scandal I see is corruption. The colleges will be fine. I'm not so sure of our society, though.

[mmasters]

After some soul searching I found my own path as a writer and researcher and am in the process of starting a new belief system or branch of religion. I love my life now and could care less about big money.

Interesting. I'm curious as to the motivation for starting a new religion. The only other person I know who has tried to start a new religion is Ibon, (maybe he can jump in on this too).

Did you have a vision? Is it based on metaphysics? Will it be directive in nature, or free willed based? Do you expect other religions to label you as blasphemous?

I have my own set of ethics I follow, but I don't think I would call it a religion. So, this intrigues me.

The motivation was I wasn't completely satisfied with all the explanations concerning the truth. I wanted to know for sure such that I could properly live my life in accordance with it. I have a complete vision I believe goes further than any other religion in terms of proof. I have developed my own exercises that the reader can perform that will prove what I have to propose is real. It becomes relatively free will based once you step out of the box of ordinary life and and let go of all the false beliefs people typically have. Basically I believe in something similar to Buddhism but I take it further. I also believe in God however I don't believe Jesus to be legitimate.

[vtsnowedin]

Sorry old man I can't go with you there. I think gods are a necessary product of the human brain that can't rest until it has an answer to every problem or question. All the things not understood can be easily blamed on a god or gods. In ancient times the Gods answered more questions then not so became the rulers of peoples lives and the cleverest humans became the priesthood which used that power to their advantage. Today as more and more questions are answered by science there is less and less need for god hence the decline in religious practice in the more developed sections of the world.
I coud go on but it is off this topic and I am sure you totally disagree but there it is.

[evilgenius]

And what's the line that divides talking yourself up, marketing yourself, and lying to get in?

I believe the American baseball player Babe Ruth said it best with: "It ain't bragging if you can do it".
To test someone, give them a task they have said they can do and see if they actually can do it by themselves. Talk is cheap, especially on a Resume, but actual experience and ability comes much harder. These institutions of higher learning should have no trouble sorting out lairs and cheats from the truly qualified. After all they have the top quality , cream of academia, staff on hand to do the sorting.

I don't think you are seeing how expensive it would be for an institution to second guess those it has accepted. Testing them would cost them both time and money. Sorting them out after they have begun taking classes would only slow down those classes. You would think that it was the institutions which would be the victims, so that they would be incentivized to act. The truth is that it is the students who haven't cheated who are the victims. That being the case, the schools don't have nearly the incentive to act that you might think they would. What this kind of thing really does is dumb down a class that otherwise could go much faster or reach a higher level within its time.

Therein lies an interesting thing. You can take this two ways. You can say that it slows down the education of gifted people, assessing them as merely victims. You can also say that it teaches them something in the process. Maybe they aren't simply victims? There is something about leadership where those who lead need to turn around from time to time and see how far behind those who follow are trailing. Maybe they aren't following at all? If they aren't a real leader needs to figure out why. If they are, but can't keep up, a real leader needs to understand where their limitations lie. It seems to me a good school would try to include something about this in their curriculum. The test to apply, in that case, would be whether they had allowed too many subpar people in, not whether they had allowed any.

This points out my gripe about rampant cheating. When cheating exists everywhere within a society, at a level which can be classified as pervasive, then you have a problem. It won't show up as long as things remain the same. People have a marvelous capacity for tolerating high percentages of their peers who abuse privilege. Just add some new society transforming technology, though, and see how far its adoption goes when the people are too incompetent to use it properly. That has been the case in much of business with system processes, on both the design and implementation side. Likewise, there are countless companies where the people doing the tasks know what to do and solve whatever problems on their own, while their bosses get the credit and the bonuses. The problem with those businesses is that they can't scale very well. People can't take what they know and apply it to new challenges because they need leadership when things change that much. They find that no one is looking back at them. There is a communication, therefore, between the leadership and the led that successful direction requires. I wonder how good much of the automated future will be at pulling that off? If it will create a new generation of companies that can't handle disruption, or a strange new breed that is so much better at it that no solely human built corporation could easily compete? What will people get angry at then? Will they demonize the competition, as they do foreigners today while sucking what they lack off of them? Will they react in a way that sorts out the challenges and makes them better? People are a part of any process, even if they are just consumers.

[vtsnowedin]

First I note today's paper has a piece where the colleges effected are taking a second look at all the students admitted by this scandal. no decision as yet and varied actions from one institution to the next but they are addressing the problem.
It is an obvious embarrassment to their reputations for excellence that none were ferreted out by the staff of these colleges.
In my day (class of 75) there were these things called quizzes and exams that led to grades and cumulative grade average which had to be above a certain level for the student to stay enrolled. Halfway through the first semester the professor issued warnings in writing to any student that was failing at that point. Several dozen students dropped out the day after warning day. Of those that started as freshmen a bit less then half graduated .
A return to vigorous standards of achievement , measured and recorded is the best way out for these institutions which have obviously lost there way.
In other words graduating magna-cum-laude should not mean full of hot air.