US College Bribery Scandal

Ella Mealy Visa wrote: »

Teacher training.

I would imagine a private school with higher expectations and a culture of achievement and aiming for the most prestigious third level institutions, brings out the best in teachers.

I went to a school which lacked such a culture and you could just sense the teachers giving up the ghost because they were met with such apathy. I know they'd have fared far better in a different environment.

Your point is perfectly illustrated by this comic.

privilege-explanation-comic-strip-on-a-plate-toby-morris-1.gif

privilege-explanation-comic-strip-on-a-plate-toby-morris-2.gif

privilege-explanation-comic-strip-on-a-plate-toby-morris-3.gif

privilege-explanation-comic-strip-on-a-plate-toby-morris-4.gif

Kirby

Hmmm. Not exactly what I took away from that comic.

Kirby wrote: »

Hmmm. Not exactly what I took away from that comic.

Well it does have a panel with an exhausted teacher on it.

It implies that anyone who comes from a comparatively better off background doesn't deserve their success, that they probably didn't study as hard or work or put in as much effort as the person who comes from a more challenging background who may be just as bright but lacks opportunity. It's a bit simplistic. You can work hard and earn success without it being handed to you, regardless of your parents circumstances. And you can work hard and have nothing handed to you, regardless of your parents circumstances.

The difference is opportunity, and while true equality of opportunity is as hard to agree on as anything else, it's something that should be strived for. It's almost impossible to factor in things like parental involvement, or living environment, so that leaves schooling - as opposed to education which starts at home - and if someone is lucky, their schooling is encouraged in an all round supportive environment. Sadly, lots of very bright people from all backgrounds don't have that and you can't do much about it and their outcomes will be poorer than the kid with interested and involved parents.

If there were more educational supports for people in more resource deprived circumstances that would be a start, but someone is always going to see any attempt at levelling a playing field as being discriminatory towards some other group. Black people in the US benefited enormously with quotas because the education system in decades past was without doubt institutionally racist, and in the same vein I would totally support efforts to ensure bright people from challenged circumstances get the same help, but as sure as the sun rises in the morning and that there were white people complaining about black people getting 'preferential' treatment, there will, sadly, certainly be people pointing the finger at the recipients of quotas regarding financial circumstances complaining at their preferential treatment, and that the only reason they're there is because they make up the numbers.

Which is as crappy as insinuating that kids from better off backgrounds had everything handed to them. Nobody has control over the family they're born into and making assumptions about kids because of the financial situation of their parents is always wrong.

It's still important to do whatevers possible to make sure people have opportunities, but it really needs to be a multi-pronged approach that involved everything from schools and educational support, to parenting courses, housing and diet. And few people will want to pay the kind of taxes needed for that.

Purple Mountain

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Is anyone truly shocked by this? :pac:
Corruption every where.

If this happened in Ireland, we'd tut a bit but what we'd really mean is fair play to them, because if we had the money we'd do the same and not have to worry about being sent to jail.

The reality is that 'legacy brats' have their college places bought completely openly and above board, requiring them to reach a minimum grade for entry but that's likely to be much less - and more flexible - than other applicants.

UpintheAir1

haha so true

UpintheAir1

admissions in Ireland exploits poor kids in more subtle ways because where there is no differentiation in points required on the basis of one's socio-economic background, there is an implicit bias that favours kids from stable, middle-class backgrounds that have access to the best teachers.

Candie wrote: »

in the same vein I would totally support efforts to ensure bright people from challenged circumstances get the same help

Would you support efforts to get help for not-so-bright people for challenged circumstances, who may well be in more need of help?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you support efforts to get help for not-so-bright people for challenged circumstances, who may well be in more need of help?

Of course I would. Any support needed to equalize educational opportunities, regardless of ability. I was particularly thinking of university entrance there but I should have phrased it better.

In all areas of life really, including but not limited to education.

Poor Lori

suicide_circus

it devalues the institutions certificates but im not sure a crime has been committed, this is not a state body

suicide_circus wrote: »

it devalues the institutions certificates but im not sure a crime has been committed, this is not a state body

No crime has been committed? What are you talking about? The people involved have all been arrested for fraud as part of a massive investigation into criminal conspiracy.

steddyeddy wrote: »

We need to realise as you seem to, that private schooling will usually award the child better results than if they went public. Universities need to reflect that in their admission policies.

Why?

LirW

I think what got to a lot of students that genuinely worked hard for their places bothered was how Lori Loughlin's brat behaved before and around that scandal.
She was openly talking about how she doesn't give a hoot about studying, college doesn't interest her and instead of learning she is partying with daddy's stinking rich mates.
If you're already paying some laughable money to get your mediocre child into a college can you not at least be smart enough to teach them that they can at least shut their mouth and keep quiet until they have their degree?

Olivia was too focused on being a wannabe influencer and messed up big time. That's why I really do not have any sympathy for Lori and her runt. Why bother?

764dak wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

We need to realise as you seem to, that private schooling will usually award the child better results than if they went public. Universities need to reflect that in their admission policies.

Why?

consider closely the meaning of the word "award" in that sentence

LirW wrote: »

I think what got to a lot of students that genuinely worked hard for their places bothered was how Lori Loughlin's brat behaved before and around that scandal.
She was openly talking about how she doesn't give a hoot about studying, college doesn't interest her and instead of learning she is partying with daddy's stinking rich mates.
If you're already paying some laughable money to get your mediocre child into a college can you not at least be smart enough to teach them that they can at least shut their mouth and keep quiet until they have their degree?

Olivia was too focused on being a wannabe influencer and messed up big time. That's why I really do not have any sympathy for Lori and her runt. Why bother?

But I assume that's why the bribery was needed. She was genuinely unsuitable for college and didn't see the value of it. There's no way she would have got in ordinarily.

This happens a lot. An expectation that a child of a certain parental income go to university despite their ability or interest. I wonder how many times this is challenged? I know people in university in England who went to some of the top schools and yet should never have been sent down an academic path. It's not fair to brighter students and not fair to the student not cut out for academia. We have to seperate socioeconomic class with academic ability. It's a sham.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

consider closely the meaning of the word "award" in that sentence

But aren't standardized tests important in the US? Private schools and good public schools in the US have more AP subjects available so these students would end high school at a higher standard. The US also has affirmative action.

764dak wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

consider closely the meaning of the word "award" in that sentence

But aren't standardized tests important in the US? Private schools and good public schools in the US have more AP subjects available so these students would end high school at a higher standard. The US also has affirmative action.

Yes there is standardised testing, mainly the SAT, although as we've seen with this scandal it's possible to cheat it. But it's not like at home where the state exam is your only metric. They also take your GPA into account, which is calculated based on your grades as given by your teachers.

More importantly the admissions process isn't just about your grades, it's about "the whole person" which translates into volunteering, traveling, participating in sports and theatre, and all sorts of other things that disproportionately favour rich people.

You mention affirmative action, but that's not much good to a poor white kid, setting aside the fact that athletics scholarships, outside football and basketball, go overwhelmingly to elite sports played by rich whites and which give a demonstrable leg up on your ability to get into elite colleges (I gave details in a post earlier in the thread on this). No exaggeration, such sports constitute nothing short of affirmative action for white people.

LirW

steddyeddy wrote: »

But I assume that's why the bribery was needed. She was genuinely unsuitable for college and didn't see the value of it. There's no way she would have got in ordinarily.

This happens a lot. An expectation that a child of a certain parental income go to university despite their ability or interest. I wonder how many times this is challenged? I know people in university in England who went to some of the top schools and yet should never have been sent down an academic path. It's not fair to brighter students and not fair to the student not cut out for academia. We have to seperate socioeconomic class with academic ability. It's a sham.

I completely agree with you there. I'm also aware that plenty of wealthy kids have deals with their parents to graduate from college X with a degree in Y and the parents can then sort out cushy work in company Z.
But seriously, Olivia Jade has shown to just be a brat, her mother is 100% oblivious about it by denying doing anything wrong and the only statement the daughter gave was "ah my dad also cheated his way through university". When the placement in college is already dodgy, why would you let your child run around bragging that she doesn't need all of that anyway and being in college sucks?
The whole family really managed to appear in the worst light possible.

764dak wrote: »

Why?

Well it depends what you're view is. I think the most intelligent and hard working should get a place in university. Anecdotally it was always said that private school students were simply more gifted students. Now several studies show that state school students with the same grades as private school students will generally do a lot better than their private school counterparts. An article from the Times Higher Education details the studies from the University Of Manchester and Cambridge.

So in other words the private-state school difference in grades isn't Representative of actual academic differences but school dependent effects. By simply looking at school grades and not the benefits one might have had to get them we'll be grossly overestimating academic ability.

The researchers, led by Steven Jones, senior lecturer in education at the University of Manchester, conducted further modelling that confirmed that “coming from a comprehensive school leads to a significant advantage” in terms of degree attainment over students from independent schools, as well as grammar schools and sixth-form colleges. The researchers stress that entry qualifications are the strongest predictor of success at university.

This is not the first study to find that state school students have an advantage over their private school peers at university. In 2015 a study by the University of Cambridge’s examination arm, Cambridge Assessment, found that private school leavers at Russell Group universities were about a third less likely to achieve a first or a 2:1 than state school students with similar entry grades.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it depends what you're view is. I think the most intelligent and hard working should get a place in university. Anecdotally it was always said that private school students were simply more gifted students. Now several studies show that state school students with the same grades as private school students will generally do a lot better than their private school counterparts. An article from the Times Higher Education details the studies from the University Of Manchester and Cambridge.

So in other words the private-state school difference in grades isn't Representative of actual academic differences but school dependent effects. By simply looking at school grades and not the benefits one might have had to get them we'll be grossly overestimating academic ability.

Is there any equivalent study for the US? It's an interesting finding, but I wonder if the very different circumstances of state schools in America might affect this.

Interestingly, many elite universities here won't even consider someone from a school with a poor reputation unless you are the single best student to graduate from it. My wife was her school's "valedictorian" and got accepted into Vanderbilt for that reason. If she had come second in her class they wouldn't have taken her, regardless of the fact her grades would have been the same. This informal rule does not apply to private schools, needless to say.

notobtuse

poisonated wrote: »

Reading some of the posts here, people seem to think that private schools have better teachers. That is not true.

When it comes to colleges/universities private schools do have better teachers/professors, generally. Private university's total bill is usually between $45,000 US and $68,000 US per year. Public (state) universities run from $25,000 US to around $30,000 US per year (in-state). Therefore private colleges can pay more in salary and usually draw the better professors.

notobtuse wrote: »

When it comes to colleges/universities private schools do have better teachers/professors, generally. Private university's total bill is usually between $45,000 US and $68,000 US per year. Public (state) universities run from $25,000 US to around $30,000 US per year (in-state). Therefore private colleges can pay more in salary and usually draw the better professors.

Actually the state fees are usually considerably lower, at least where I am (Texas), but the general point is partly correct. I interviewed for my current role (Assistant Professor) last year at a public university and a well-funded private SLAC, and the pay for the private place was nearly 60% higher. That said it was also in New York, where taxes would be a lot higher than here, but not that much higher.

That's before you get to the fact that teaching in private, elite institutions, you will usually have smaller class sizes and will have a lower course load, with probably better students in general, and more time to pursue a more ambitious research agenda. Combine that with the money and it's easy to see why such places can attract better teachers.

That being said, like any industry, there's huge amounts of networking and politics that goes into it. The job I missed out on in the private place went to a guy who had graduated from that college and gone on to an ivy league university, whose institutional knowledge, and connections in the department, helped secure him the place. His research profile in the area of the job (Irish studies) was non-existent really, and without bragging I can definitely say mine was better. Meanwhile the job I did get, was also to some extent dependent on my institutional knowledge having worked as an adjunct here, and knowing the philosophy of the place, the student body, and other kinds of things like that, but no doubt my connections here helped too. They also helped in getting into Notre Dame.

My point is that while we might say in general the richest places can and will attract better people, as with any industry there's a lot of politics involved, and certainly some of the best people in the world in my field are working in public institutions. The quality of both private and public places can vary wildly too. Berkeley is public, for instance, and is miles ahead of most "elite" private institutions. UMass could claim the same, UTexas as well.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it depends what you're view is. I think the most intelligent and hard working should get a place in university. Anecdotally it was always said that private school students were simply more gifted students. Now several studies show that state school students with the same grades as private school students will generally do a lot better than their private school counterparts. An article from the Times Higher Education details the studies from the University Of Manchester and Cambridge.

So in other words the private-state school difference in grades isn't Representative of actual academic differences but school dependent effects. By simply looking at school grades and not the benefits one might have had to get them we'll be grossly overestimating academic ability.

All UK university students would have done A-level subjects or equivalent. The UK universities would ask US students for AP or IB Higher Level subjects. Private schools and good public schools would offer AP subjects. Most US high school students take regular subjects. Only 23% of high school have passed an AP subject.

AP subjects can exempt you from intro courses or allow you to take an advanced version of an intro course.

US private schools have more rigour than public schools.

KSU

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I think Lori's kid prefers spending time on Youtube and Instagram

Ironically she is worth $500,000 because of this, more than she would have made from a post collegiate career however this has effectively ended that also.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Is there any equivalent study for the US? It's an interesting finding, but I wonder if the very different circumstances of state schools in America might affect this.

Interestingly, many elite universities here won't even consider someone from a school with a poor reputation unless you are the single best student to graduate from it. My wife was her school's "valedictorian" and got accepted into Vanderbilt for that reason. If she had come second in her class they wouldn't have taken her, regardless of the fact her grades would have been the same. This informal rule does not apply to private schools, needless to say.

I don't know to be honest R. I was looking but can't seem to find any.

My supervisor went to MIT for his degree and PhD. He comes from a small farming family in Oaklahoma and was the first in his family to go to university. He got in on a scholarship and his PhD supervisor said "I've never sent anyone from a stupid school to a viva before". My supervisor is speaking at Congress next week. He's the most gifted human I've ever met.

We have to change expectations. Currently people that we think of as most deserving of university are those from better schools. We need line this up to intelligence because at least in the UK we're seeing that the quality of school doesn't correlate with actual academic ability of the student.

Gimme A Pound

steddyeddy wrote: »

Your point is perfectly illustrated by this comic.

I think all that old boys club stuff is only the preserve of the very wealthy though. Middle-class people (like me) definitely have more of an advantage than impoverished folk in terms of getting a leg up early on, but ultimately we have to work extremely hard and make sacrifices without short cuts or nepotistic privileges too.

Ella Mealy Visa wrote: »

I think all that old boys club stuff is only the preserve of the very wealthy though. Middle-class people (like me) definitely have more of an advantage than impoverished folk in terms of getting a leg up early on, but ultimately we have to work extremely hard and make sacrifices without short cuts or nepotistic privileges too.

Yes that's true. It's still a fact that some people work harder than others and ironically a reason given for the the lack of poorer people in top universities like Oxford is that they don't work as hard. Now we know that state school pupils work hard than their private school counterparts when they get to university. What does that say about the preference some universities have for private school students? Privilege or actual merit?