US College Bribery Scandal

764dak · 22-04-2019 9:10am

Poor Lori

suicide_circus · 22-04-2019 10:47am

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

Realt Dearg Sec · 22-04-2019 1:36pm

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.

764dak · 22-04-2019 11:07pm

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 · 22-04-2019 11:35pm

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?

Realt Dearg Sec · 22-04-2019 11:40pm

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

steddyeddy · 23-04-2019 12:13am

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.

764dak · 23-04-2019 12:39am

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.

Realt Dearg Sec · 23-04-2019 2:43am

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 · 23-04-2019 8:03am

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.

steddyeddy · 23-04-2019 6:16pm

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.

Realt Dearg Sec · 23-04-2019 6:53pm

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 · 23-04-2019 10:23pm

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.

Realt Dearg Sec · 23-04-2019 11:32pm

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.

764dak · 23-04-2019 11:53pm

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 · 24-04-2019 8:53pm

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.

steddyeddy · 28-04-2019 11:36am

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 · 28-04-2019 5:45pm

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.

steddyeddy · 28-04-2019 8:17pm

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?

steddyeddy · 01-05-2019 7:35pm

There's more prosecutions on the way it seems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/college-admissions-scandal.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

schadenfreude eat your heart out.

Realt Dearg Sec · 01-05-2019 9:07pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's more prosecutions on the way it seems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/college-admissions-scandal.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

schadenfreude eat your heart out.

They're going to be really disappointed when they read this thread and find out those rich people did nothing wrong.

Realt Dearg Sec · 01-05-2019 9:22pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's more prosecutions on the way it seems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/college-admissions-scandal.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

schadenfreude eat your heart out.

"Stanford rescinded the admission of a student who has not been publicly named who worked with Mr. Singer and whose application, prosecutors say, contained fabricated sailing credentials."

To reiterate the main point here. The crimes are bad enough, but the real question needs to be, why on earth would a college application contain your sailing credentials? It's hilarious to me that people in the college administrations are worried about the "integrity" of their applications process when absurd stuff like that forms a part of it. It would be hilarious if it weren't so shameful.

People complaining about affirmative action need to explain the benefits of one's sailing credentials to a merit-based application process.

wally79 · 01-05-2019 9:30pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

"Stanford rescinded the admission of a student who has not been publicly named who worked with Mr. Singer and whose application, prosecutors say, contained fabricated sailing credentials."

To reiterate the main point here. The crimes are bad enough, but the real question needs to be, why on earth would a college application contain your sailing credentials? It's hilarious to me that people in the college administrations are worried about the "integrity" of their applications process when absurd stuff like that forms a part of it. It would be hilarious if it weren't so shameful.

People complaining about affirmative action need to explain the benefits of one's sailing credentials to a merit-based application process.

Stanford has a sailing team and the coach was fired and is facing racketeering charges

Apparently there’s some link between student above and a 500k donation made through same sailing coach

Realt Dearg Sec · 01-05-2019 10:42pm

wally79 wrote: »

Stanford has a sailing team and the coach was fired and is facing racketeering charges

Apparently there’s some link between student above and a 500k donation made through same sailing coach

No I get it alright, my question is with the logic of people being admitted into colleges based on their ability to participate in sports. Sport has a place in a college, I think, it's important that there are avenues through which to forge communities, and even to express a sense of identity with your college. But that's not what colleges are for. Sport should be something you do with your spare time at college. I think in Ireland we actually have the balance right on this front: sport is important in the identity of the college, and there are even scholarships for folks to participate in them, but you don't get admitted into the place for the ability to play.

Ultimately they are about knowledge and ideas, and if someone can get in on their sailing ability, while someone else who is academically superior is being excluded, I think that's a really bad idea, and serves as a leg up for the already privileged. I would go further, and suggest that the main purpose of such athletics admissions is to give a leg up to the already privileged.

Because for sure, nobody is actually watching the sailing team. But even with sports that people do care about, like football, the colleges at least pretend that football isn't why someone is in the college: after all, that's why they aren't paid, because ultimately they are supposed to be students first, athletes second. Right? Now we all know that's absolute horse-****e, but the football team is an exception because it's something to which people are paying attention, it defines the school's identity, and most of all it is supposed to help raise money. But they keep up a pretence that academics come first, sport second, for those kids.

So why on Earth should your sailing credentials be part of why you are admitted to a college? Surely the college can cobble together a sailing team with whoever they have admitted that happens to care about sailing? I mean, if they turn out to be terrible at sailing, who honestly is ever going to give a ****e? What, ultimately, is the benefit to the college of having a good sailing team? I think the answer is in the ability to give a leg up to the wealthy, which brings its own financial benefits. But of course such people never need to recognise that they were given a little leg up, and they can spend their lives convinced of how they got where they did on merit, and look down their noses at people who didn't get those opportunities, or worse still, the dreaded affirmative action students.

/rant

764dak · 01-05-2019 11:35pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

wally79 wrote: »

Stanford has a sailing team and the coach was fired and is facing racketeering charges

Apparently there’s some link between student above and a 500k donation made through same sailing coach

No I get it alright, my question is with the logic of people being admitted into colleges based on their ability to participate in sports. Sport has a place in a college, I think, it's important that there are avenues through which to forge communities, and even to express a sense of identity with your college. But that's not what colleges are for. Sport should be something you do with your spare time at college. I think in Ireland we actually have the balance right on this front: sport is important in the identity of the college, and there are even scholarships for folks to participate in them, but you don't get admitted into the place for the ability to play.

Ultimately they are about knowledge and ideas, and if someone can get in on their sailing ability, while someone else who is academically superior is being excluded, I think that's a really bad idea, and serves as a leg up for the already privileged. I would go further, and suggest that the main purpose of such athletics admissions is to give a leg up to the already privileged.

Because for sure, nobody is actually watching the sailing team. But even with sports that people do care about, like football, the colleges at least pretend that football isn't why someone is in the college: after all, that's why they aren't paid, because ultimately they are supposed to be students first, athletes second. Right? Now we all know that's absolute horse-****e, but the football team is an exception because it's something to which people are paying attention, it defines the school's identity, and most of all it is supposed to help raise money. But they keep up a pretence that academics come first, sport second, for those kids.

So why on Earth should your sailing credentials be part of why you are admitted to a college? Surely the college can cobble together a sailing team with whoever they have admitted that happens to care about sailing? I mean, if they turn out to be terrible at sailing, who honestly is ever going to give a ****e? What, ultimately, is the benefit to the college of having a good sailing team? I think the answer is in the ability to give a leg up to the wealthy, which brings its own financial benefits. But of course such people never need to recognise that they were given a little leg up, and they can spend their lives convinced of how they got where they did on merit, and look down their noses at people who didn't get those opportunities, or worse still, the dreaded affirmative action students.

/rant

Many universities have football scholarships. Universities offer no athletic scholarships for sailing.

It’s important to be aware that the Inter-Collegiate Sailing Association (ICSA) doesn’t allow for college and university sailing competitors to receive scholarships or financial aid based on sailing ability. So, if you plan to compete at the collegiate level, you’ll need to look into college scholarships based on other qualities, like academic achievement, financial need, volunteer service, and other characteristics.

https://www.unigo.com/scholarships/athletic/sailing-scholarships

Realt Dearg Sec · 02-05-2019 12:25am

I didn't say they did. I said that one's sailing credentials can be, and are, used as the basis for admission to elite colleges, for no good reason. I think that's a bigger scandal than someone faking sailing credentials.

764dak · 02-05-2019 12:47am

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I didn't say they did. I said that one's sailing credentials can be, and are, used as the basis for admission to elite colleges, for no good reason. I think that's a bigger scandal than someone faking sailing credentials.

If two people have similar grades they would pick the one with more extracurricular activities. It just something they just do.

Realt Dearg Sec · 02-05-2019 1:07am

764dak wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I didn't say they did. I said that one's sailing credentials can be, and are, used as the basis for admission to elite colleges, for no good reason. I think that's a bigger scandal than someone faking sailing credentials.

If two people have similar grades they would pick the one with more extracurricular activities. It just something they just do.

Thats not how their recruitment policy works. Extra curricular activities are not just used to separate otherwise equal candidates, they can significantly leverage an application. I've mentioned this earlier but Harvard for instance, grades people on a six point scale. People with a four usually get accepted at a rate less than one per cent. This jumps to 33% for people coming in to play several prestige sports. The way you are portraying it is that grades come first then other things are factored in afterwards. It is not done that way, a huge amount rides on things like legacy candidacy, application essays, campus interviews etc.

Even setting all that aside though, the argument that it is something they just do isn't very convincing when my problem to begin with is the fact that it is something they just do.

764dak · 02-05-2019 1:56am

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Thats not how their recruitment policy works. Extra curricular activities are not just used to separate otherwise equal candidates, they can significantly leverage an application. I've mentioned this earlier but Harvard for instance, grades people on a six point scale. People with a four usually get accepted at a rate less than one per cent. This jumps to 33% for people coming in to play several prestige sports. The way you are portraying it is that grades come first then other things are factored in afterwards. It is not done that way, a huge amount rides on things like legacy candidacy, application essays, campus interviews etc.

Even setting all that aside though, the argument that it is something they just do isn't very convincing when my problem to begin with is the fact that it is something they just do.

https://www.shemmassianconsulting.com/blog/extracurricular-activities

Realt Dearg Sec · 02-05-2019 2:06am

Sorry, I'm not sure what the point of the link you've posted is, it's very long. What I've read seems to bare out what I'm saying.

764dak · 02-05-2019 2:39am

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not sure what the point of the link you've posted is, it's very long. What I've read seems to bare out what I'm saying.

It says they want interesting people especially ones with high achievements besides grades.

An old article about college admissions corruption:
http://www.internationalcounselor.org/archives/2606

This Harvard professor says the admissions people don't want one-dimensional dweebs: https://newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-league-should-judge-students-standardized-tests

Realt Dearg Sec · 02-05-2019 3:43am

764dak wrote: »

It says they want interesting people especially ones with high achievements besides grades.

An old article about college admissions corruption:
http://www.internationalcounselor.org/archives/2606

This Harvard professor says the admissions people don't want one-dimensional dweebs: https://newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-league-should-judge-students-standardized-tests

But that's what I was saying: they don't just use extra-curricular activities to make split decisions between two people with the same grades, as you claimed. It is part of a much more all-round evaluation of the applicant as a person.

One problem with all this (and again this is repeating stuff from earlier in the thread) is that the extra-curricular activities that are privileged in the admissions process are disproportionately those only really open to people who are very wealthy. The "one-dimensional dweebs" may often be people who didn't have the money to get sailing credentials, for instance. Or people who had to work at Burger King (which doesn't tend to be of much help in the application) on the weekends instead of doing volunteer work for a charity or playing lacrosse (which does).

So again, my problem is that they weigh your ability to participate in expensive activities as part of the process, alongside (and in many cases overriding) your grades. Originally you said they use extra-curricular stuff to make decisions between people with equal grades. I pointed out that this is wrong and you corroborated that with the above link. Your position seems to be that I'm wrong about the admissions process, but I'm not sure what part I've gotten wrong. As someone working in American academia I'm already familiar with the admissions process, so it doesn't need to be explained to me, my point is that the system is terrible.

764dak · 02-05-2019 5:05am

The last article I submitted had this:

So why aren’t creative alternatives like this even on the table? A major reason is that popular writers like Stephen Jay Gould and Malcolm Gladwell, pushing a leftist or heart-above-head egalitarianism, have poisoned their readers against aptitude testing. They have insisted that the tests don’t predict anything, or that they do but only up to a limited point on the scale, or that they do but only because affluent parents can goose their children’s scores by buying them test-prep courses.

Many Americans are against standardized testing.

Candamir · 02-05-2019 5:54am

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I think in Ireland we actually have the balance right on this front: sport is important in the identity of the college, and there are even scholarships for folks to participate in them, but you don't get admitted into the place for the ability to play.

Actually that’s not quite true. Many Irish universities gives sports scholarships with reduced points requirement for college entry.
Achieving at a high level in sport requires a huge amount of dedication and commitment, and these same traits transfer well to the academic sphere. I do think that’s a good balance.

c.p.w.g.w · 02-05-2019 6:28am

764dak wrote: »

This Harvard professor says the admissions people don't want one-dimensional dweebs: https://newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-league-should-judge-students-standardized-tests

Or Asian students

Irish Guitarist · 02-05-2019 7:11am

This man using the phrase 'killing it' is the most shocking part of the story.

Doc07 · 02-05-2019 8:37am

Candamir wrote: »

Actually that’s not quite true. Many Irish universities gives sports scholarships with reduced points requirement for college entry.
Achieving at a high level in sport requires a huge amount of dedication and commitment, and these same traits transfer well to the academic sphere. I do think that’s a good balance.

Have you any examples? Genuine Qs. The course I lecture on does not have such a discretion for sport but interested in what courses might and for which sports.

Candamir · 02-05-2019 8:51am

Doc07 wrote: »

Have you any examples? Genuine Qs. The course I lecture on does not have such a discretion for sport but interested in what courses might and for which sports.

NUIG, DCU, and many of the ITs for sure.

steddyeddy · 02-05-2019 9:04am

I hate the term "elite" when used in reference to this story. A person bribing people to send their at best mediocre kid to an average university isn't what I'd call elite. Just call them rich and stop equating wealth with predominance.

Realt Dearg Sec · 02-05-2019 12:52pm

Candamir wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I think in Ireland we actually have the balance right on this front: sport is important in the identity of the college, and there are even scholarships for folks to participate in them, but you don't get admitted into the place for the ability to play.

Actually that’s not quite true. Many Irish universities gives sports scholarships with reduced points requirement for college entry.
Achieving at a high level in sport requires a huge amount of dedication and commitment, and these same traits transfer well to the academic sphere. I do think that’s a good balance.

You're quite right, I stand corrected, I know a guy who got into dcu on the reduced points scheme.

JP Liz V1 · 07-05-2019 11:01pm

A tv series in the works

https://tvline.com/2019/05/07/college-admissions-scandal-tv-series-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin/

Realt Dearg Sec · 08-05-2019 12:25am

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

A tv series in the works

https://tvline.com/2019/05/07/college-admissions-scandal-tv-series-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin/

Handy job for the casting director...

steddyeddy · 08-05-2019 7:39pm

Interesting article in the Guardian on the role of private schools in British education. A study commissioned by the Independent Schools Council indicates that these schools save the taxpayer billions. It's an interesting point if true but it comes after a parliamentary group in the UK want to phase out public schools like the Finnish system.

The heads of Britain’s private schools are really feeling the pressure. How else do you explain their desperate plea to be left alone because super-rich parents are saving the taxpayer billions of pounds a year by sending their offspring to Eton and Harrow? This self-serving study in public school economics published by the Independent Schools Council (ISC) was given pride of place in at least two national newspapers last week. It’s an old argument that was first shot down in 1968 by a panel of academics and private school leaders set up to “integrate the public schools with the state system”. The Public Schools Commission found the claim that parents who chose to pay for their child’s education were being hit with a double taxation “unimpressive”, likening it to a childless couple asking for a tax rebate because they weren’t drawing any benefit from the schools system.

Similarly, the Charity Commission in 2009 considered the same contention to be specious when it was challenged by private headteachers over plans to make their schools perform their charitable function. A more modern analogy might be a Russian oligarch boasting that, by using his helicopter to get to work, he is saving the British taxpayer thousands in road maintenance.

The Guardian view on private schools: motors of unfairness
Read more
But in its latest report, the ISC has gone even further by claiming that the “induced impact” of its schools boosts the country’s GDP by a massive £13.7bn. This figure includes the employment of armies of teachers, grounds staff, caretakers and catering staff, together with all their personal expenditure. The misplaced assumption seems to be that, should the private schools pass into state ownership, they would stop making a contribution to the national coffers. Of course they wouldn’t.

This is desperate stuff. But perhaps the schools feel they have their backs to the wall. Heaving into view is the very real prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn government and a pledge to impose VAT on private school fees – a tax that would make a genuine £1.5bn contribution to the national coffers. Even the Tories, once loyal friends of independent schools, have vowed to remove charitable status from those that continue to do nothing charitable.

I’ve been told that next month a newly formed parliamentary group will call for the phasing-out of our private schools. The group wants to replicate what Finland managed in the 1970s when all-party support was gained for creating a national education system – under which its children continue to dominate the OECD education outcome tables.

If the cold winds of change are blowing in the direction of the independent school sector, then its headteachers only have themselves to blame. The writing was on the wall as long ago as 1940; when Winston Churchill called on the president of the Board of Education to fill public schools with “bursary boys”. Since then the sector has had countless opportunities to reconnect with local communities. Instead, today just 6,000 (one in 100) privately educated pupils are on 100% bursaries

ILoveYourVibes · 08-05-2019 7:50pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Interesting article in the Guardian on the role of private schools in British education. A study commissioned by the Independent Schools Council indicates that these schools save the taxpayer billions. It's an interesting point if true but it comes after a parliamentary group in the UK want to phase out public schools like the Finnish system.

I don't have anything against private schools. That is not the issue here.

I do have something against people using bribery or contacts to get their kid into college when i killed myself getting the points for subject that was competitive when i was coming from a class where i was literally the ONLY one who went to college.

I met my guidance councellor a few years later ...she said 'so what are you doing'

I said i am finishing a degree in law and philosophy. Her jaw DROPPED.

She said 'i never thought you would.'

No one believed in me in my school not even the teachers when i was handing in homework every day and coming in everyday and getting good grades. Everyone else around me had really high truancy and BIG social or home problems.

But my parents are very supportive and i had a good support network outside of school who constantly told me i was smart enough to go.

If you went to private school etc i am sure you worked as hard as i did to get to college in Ireland and earned your place as much as me.

But people BRIBING and cheating etc when they are rich its so so unfair.

I don't think people who sent their kids to private schools realize in a state school in particularly a bad area ...EVEN YOUR TEACHERS DO NOT BELIEVE YOU WILL AMOUNT TO ANYTHING.

JP Liz V1 · 13-09-2019 11:16pm

Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in jail

Purple Mountain · 13-09-2019 11:22pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in jail

Haha. That's just like a mini break really.

JP Liz V1 · 10-10-2019 1:15pm

https://tvline.com/2019/10/09/felicity-huffman-desperate-housewives-feud-ricardo-chavira-white-privilege/

https://tvline.com/2019/09/07/eva-longoria-desperate-housewives-bullied-co-star/

Eva Longoria supporting Felicity Huffman but Ricardo Chavira not so much

JP Liz V1 · 21-08-2020 5:09pm

Lori's husband going to jail now too

US College Bribery Scandal

Comments