Massive Cheating Scandal to Get Children Admitted to Elite Colleges

Let's ask Lizzie about this wrote:

Racial preferences are a far more significant deviation from academic meritocracy than legacy preferences, which are not even implicated in the current scandal. An underreported but salient detail in the Singer scam [i.e., the Varsity Blues case] is that he “falsified students’ ethnicities,” according to the New York Times, because “some families and students perceive their racial backgrounds can hurt or aid their chances of getting in to schools that consider race in their admissions decisions.” This is not a mere perception; it is the truth.

https://www.city-journal.org/college-admissions-cheating-scandal

the next scandal should be catching the people pretending to be Hispanic or other favored minority status to have a few hundred SAT points tossed onto their score.

Two kids I know did this, and got into ivies.

At Harvard, legacies are better candidates on average than other students, (2011 interview, William FitzSimmons) The point being, including the "diversity" crowd (women/minorities) lowers the average so much, that even so-called "legacy" candidates become above average.

The University of Michigan in 2003 gave racial minorities 20 extra admission points; legacies got four extra points. A 1990 federal investigation of Harvard’s admission practices found that the SAT scores of legacies were 120 points above those of black students admitted.

More Actual Facts wrote:

At Harvard, legacies are better candidates on average than other students, (2011 interview, William FitzSimmons)

The point being, including the "diversity" crowd (women/minorities) lowers the average so much, that even so-called "legacy" candidates become above average.

.

[/quote]

You didn't vote for Trump by any chance, did you?

I voted for Obama and still regret it.

stabinthedark wrote:

I voted for Obama and still regret it.

I voted for Trump and I am a proud racist !

Perhaps Beto can debate Lieawatha Fauxcahontas on the topic.

The "Wrong People" got paid wrote:

http://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1105505421249445895

Heh, NCAA/Onion agrees.

If your grades are mediocre you can still get into the Ivies.

On your essay, just claim you had a grandparent in the Holocaust and bingo, you're in

not named helen wrote:

https://twitter.com/USC/status/1107853815179403264

So the parents and the school behaved badly, and the kids are getting punished...

One can see this trend amid the booming college consulting industry, where consultants seek to do everything legally possible to get their client’s child into the best-name colleges.

The number of professional college consultants among the nation’s elite has jumped from 2,000 to 5,000 in recent years. Nowadays, 26 percent of the students who got into the 70th percentile or higher on the SAT had some form of private college consulting help.

Alternatively, Imagine if you could get a degree from Georgetown University without attending any classes. Now imagine you could take every class at Georgetown without getting a degree. Which option would you choose? Most likely, the one that signals value—the former.

The irony is that the signaling value of elite colleges is quite misplaced: if your child is smart enough to get into an elite college, but chose not to go, he or she will still end up making approximately the same as a similarly qualified applicant who did go to an elite college.

Elizabeth Warren says the recent college admissions scandal highlights wealthy Americans playing by a different set of rules and "we have to put a stop to that."

Army Officer asks Warren about committing racial fraud. Her answer: "I learned about my family from my family and, based on that, that's just kinda who I am."

Hopefully, the current batch of "college-admitted students" won't learn from their families about Fraud exploitation.

I don;t think that's completely what it said. I believe that what you said was found to be true in many cases except in the case of minorities or under-served populations, - in which case, the degree did markedly increase their earnings. All of which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

That is unquestionably false. Good luck getting an analyst position at Goldman after you decide to pass on going to Harvard. Can you get the same job waiting on tables or working in construction if you pass on going to Harvard (and college altogether?), sure, but you are insane if you think that going to a top school has no impact on getting a top job or into a top grad school.

Varsity Blues wrote:

degrees 4 $ale wrote:

The irony is that the signaling value of elite colleges is quite misplaced: if your child is smart enough to get into an elite college, but chose not to go, he or she will still end up making approximately the same as a similarly qualified applicant who did go to an elite college.

That is unquestionably false. Good luck getting an analyst position at Goldman after you decide to pass on going to Harvard. Can you get the same job waiting on tables or working in construction if you pass on going to Harvard (and college altogether?), sure, but you are insane if you think that going to a top school has no impact on getting a top job or into a top grad school.

Actual Research (NBER) says otherwise...

when we adjust for unobserved student ability by controlling for the average SAT score of the colleges that students applied to, our estimates of the return to college selectivity fall substantially and are generally indistinguishable from zero.

They do discuss "notable exceptions for certain subgroups", which includes (surprise!) blacks, Hispanics, etc. (but not legacies). So only if you are poor, black, or Hispanic in the first place, will getting a novelty degree actually matter.

Did you bother to read even the intro of the paper you linked? It states:

This paper replicates and extends earlier work that examined the relationship between the college that students attended in 1976 and the earnings they reported in 1995 in the C&B follow-up survey (Dale and Krueger 2002) in important respects.

The paper did NOT compare kids who didn't go to college versus kids who went to Harvard. It analyzed exclusively kids who WENT to college and concluded that the cache of the degree was not correlated to earnings. In other words, a really smart kid who goes to his state school earns the same as the kid with the same credentials who went to an Ivy league school. Again, your original post that wrongly claimed that a kid who turns down, say Harvard, to go work, has the same earning potential as the Harvard kid. That statement is FALSE.

It was a sad day in this country when the TBTF Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and AIG were bailed out and not flushed down the toilet 10 years ago.