FBI reveals massive college admissions fraud.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Yeah, yeah, Dwight Eisenhower = Mao Tse-Tung.

Exactly, why Nixon only went to china to try to defect! Crazy socialist with talk of universal health care!

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Oh, but you must.

Except you can't. It's an essential part of the equation.

Quote:

But wanting a better education for your kids is no different from wanting anything superior for your kids. You work for it, help them at the library, whatever you can do. You do not lie and steal from others, even in the 'victimless' embezzling sense.

So you do whatever you can...and you don't?

Quote:

Absolutely essential. A better one is something you might have to pay for. Sitting back and lying to provide better for your kids is wrong on a couple levels. Not to say I don't sympathize. I do. My bigger concern is actually what they are teaching those kids by example

The system sucks, no one is going to help you, you have to take what you can. In other words, valuable lessons.

Certainly better than shut up and accept your fate like good livestock.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Cain

Elite education is a positional good. More people earning degrees could only intensify the need to distinguish oneself by attending a highly selective institution.

Or by there being a level playing field and getting better grades than the other fellow.

Isn't that the point of receiving a grade?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Kind of, yes. But as Cain points out, it's kind of a positional good. Rather than giving everyone free college, I'd give everyone free access to a short and rotating list of practical trade and degree programs. Teaching credentials, nursing programs, welder's and electrician's certs, STEM degrees... That sort of thing to start. If someone wants to add yet another Underwater Basketweaving PhD to the world, let them do it on their own dime.

No, send everyone that wants to go. Grade them from A to Z.

That way it's no longer a positional good - as Cain rightly describes it - it's suddenly an education system.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Perhaps someday humans will evolve to the point that we have the capacity to be concerned about multiple things at once.

But until then, your argument is staggering in its insight and brilliance.

This seems like an irrelevant point. I'm not saying one cannot care about 2 things at once. I'm saying that if you can't take care of your kids then "risking jail time" vs just about any other alternative should be a pretty clear choice.

I understand this is easier said than done (who wants to give up their kids, even if only temporarily assuming things improve?) but we're talking about well-being of children, here.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Bob001

An alternative would be to provide modest housing for families who can't afford it, which would certainly be cheaper and more effective than seizing the kids into foster care and locking up the parents. And that is generally the principle under which welfare offices operate, except they don't have the resources to provide housing to everybody who needs it. Unless they are severely disturbed -- for which there should be a different set of services -- nobody, and certainly no parent of young children, would choose to be homeless.

I agree entirely.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Let's remember that as recently as the '80s, state colleges were cheap enough that kids could work their way through with summer jobs, and some systems were actually tuition-free. Five- and six-figure college loan balances are a relatively new development. Free community college and trade school, and affordable advanced education, is not some wild socialist fantasy.

IT was possible to work your way through a good state school as late as the 2000s.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Anyone who believes Affrimative Action is screwing them over is being fed lies by the people who are actually screwing them over.

Point is they get screwed regardless of affirmative action and when they point that out, for the most part they just get told that white people have no reason to complain.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by 3point14

No, send everyone that wants to go. Grade them from A to Z.

That way it's no longer a positional good - as Cain rightly describes it - it's suddenly an education system.

No

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Here's a side question.

If you're like stupidly rich, and assuming you're not going to cut your kids out of the money entirely, what's the point of them going to college?

Nobody's gone to college just to learn since the internet was invented. If you're going to college it's to make money.

And of course to build up your network of peers that you will be able to rely on for the rest of your life.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

You think? I think this is bobbins, I'm afraid. The most successful people lie and cheat. Just look at those that inhabit the corridors of power in the US and the UK. Look at the man in charge in the US.



Try being honest at a job interview and see how far that gets you.



Lying and cheating are the recipe for success in the modern world, just doin't get caught.



Look at the massive advantages these mothers tried to secure for their children - How different do you think their life would be if they'd succeeded.



The modern, western world is a partyground for liars and cheats. We can teach our kids to be honest or teach them to be succesful - pick one.











No, that's not. Society frowns on that (being more alongside the idea of embezzlement), but people lie, successful people lie more often and better.

And of course it being "white collar" crimes and fraud it should not be treated as serious as a kid being raised by an single parent on benefits shoplifting some expensive shampoo.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

To meet a suitable spouse

I think you meant "tax efficient partnership".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I was going to post the same thing. 500,000 in a trust fund combined with 2 years in a community college and 2 more at a state college is probably as good as a USC degree.

I know in the UK putting the "right" school and university on your CV helps to open doors.

I've actually had post interview discussions about who to employ and had back "wasnt the best interview but he did go to Slough grammar school".

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Point is they get screwed regardless of affirmative action and when they point that out, for the most part they just get told that white people have no reason to complain.

I feel sympathy for these fictional people you’ve manufactured to make a point.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

It would depend on the laws of your place of residence. You certainly don't get to lie to choose your school for free.



How would this compare to an honest working class family that cannot afford to live in the superior school district? Should the honest workers lie and steal too, if it gets them a cheaper education?

A homeless person by definition does not have a place of residence so which laws apply?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Hey, I wanna attend the Oxford! I'll just lie about my residency and have someone else's taxes foot the bill! While we are endorsing lying and fraud, let's doctor up an athletic scholarship and fake the grades!

It's just "Oxford" no "the", and residency is not used to determine who is offered a place.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You’re the one introducing the terms “noble” and “applauded” into the discussion, so what do you say you drag that poorly-constructed straw man back to the cornfield where it belongs?

No one is celebrating what these women did. We’re lamenting the fact that this is what it came to for them.

These examples are to point out the gross inequities in a very broken system.

No one should have to risk jail time just for trying to give their children a better life.

For me it's the ridiculous sentencing, totally and utterly unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by pharphis

I'm confused. There are homeless children and one's worry is that their education isn't good enough? Maybe if someone can't house their child their child should be in foster care or something until their life is in order. That's probably harsh but if you care about your kids and their upbringing I'd think one would try to put their care first.

Can this not be done without "risking jail time"?

Homeless does not always mean sleeping under a bridge.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by pharphis

This seems like an irrelevant point. I'm not saying one cannot care about 2 things at once. I'm saying that if you can't take care of your kids then "risking jail time" vs just about any other alternative should be a pretty clear choice.

I understand this is easier said than done (who wants to give up their kids, even if only temporarily assuming things improve?) but we're talking about well-being of children, here.

Well, we’re actually talking about our broken education system.

If you want to bring up tangential issues, so be it.

But maybe don’t couch it in “Yeah, but what about this” rhetoric. That usually comes across as disingenuous.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You’re the one introducing the terms “noble” and “applauded” into the discussion, so what do you say you drag that poorly-constructed straw man back to the cornfield where it belongs?

No one is celebrating what these women did. We’re lamenting the fact that this is what it came to for them.

These examples are to point out the gross inequities in a very broken system.

No one should have to risk jail time just for trying to give their children a better life.

Maybe I'm not following(?) -- I've come to expect you to make sense but this doesn't. I don't have sympathy for a rich person who is cheating the system in such a way that denies an opportunity to a more deserving student. And nor should the justice system.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Darat

I know in the UK putting the "right" school and university on your CV helps to open doors.

I've actually had post interview discussions about who to employ and had back "wasnt the best interview but he did go to Slough grammar school".

It's a pervasive, circular problem. The hiring manager doesn't want to get blamed for making a mistake, so he can always point to somebody's prestigious paper credentials as his justification, even if the hire is a dud. The cliche is that an Ivy League degree only helps you get your first job but doesn't give you an advantage forever. But that first job is the foundation for everything that follows.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Maybe I'm not following(?) -- I've come to expect you to make sense but this doesn't. I don't have sympathy for a rich person who is cheating the system in such a way that denies an opportunity to a more deserving student. And nor should the justice system.

I think that reference was to the homeless Mom who used someone else's address to send her kids to school. She went to jail.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Well, we’re actually talking about our broken education system.

If you want to bring up tangential issues, so be it.

But maybe don’t couch it in “Yeah, but what about this” rhetoric. That usually comes across as disingenuous.

I didn't bring up any of this. I was talking about criminal behavior that others brought up. This whole thing is a tangent I don't care enough to comment further on.


edit: and fair point Darat

[Mumbles]

The nasty part - some of these parents got their kids in by pushing the line that they had a disability, when they didn't. Which is why, for the rest of us, these exemptions are very difficult to get for any subject - particularly if you have a learning disability but do very well by simply working a lot harder than most others would - like myself when it comes to essay writing or trying to learn another language.

By the way, I'd like to generously give two extended middle fingers to any parent that bribed their way into a disability exemption.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Here's a side question.

If you're like stupidly rich, and assuming you're not going to cut your kids out of the money entirely, what's the point of them going to college?

Nobody's gone to college just to learn since the internet was invented. If you're going to college it's to make money.

There's much to be said for, say, access to a fully-stocked lab, for many lines of study - or access to journals and databases.

But really, why are they bribing and lying just to get their kids into the "elite" schools? Because they're the "elite" schools, that's why. You'd be surprised at how many of these parents worry about the percentage of kids at their child's grade schools graduate from an Ivy League school. And I mean, like K-8, not even high schools - and I mean *other* peoples' kids, not their own. At my private high school, a few parents were worried when three of the people in my graduating class (out of 45 total!) were going to attend - gasp - the public system's flagship campus.

Keep in mind, everyone was going to a 4-year college, but the three from the poorest background - myself included - decided we'd prefer not to take on heavy debts and enter the work-study system, and the state flagship gave us all generous scholarships.

Originally Posted by Bob001

An alternative would be to provide modest housing for families who can't afford it, which would certainly be cheaper and more effective than seizing the kids into foster care and locking up the parents. And that is generally the principle under which welfare offices operate, except they don't have the resources to provide housing to everybody who needs it. Unless they are severely disturbed -- for which there should be a different set of services -- nobody, and certainly no parent of young children, would choose to be homeless.

This, right here. Putting the kids into the local foster care system isn't just mean to the parent, it's disruptive to the kids - and given that both the percentage of homeless parents, *and* the kids that have the worst chances of finding foster families, are racial minorities...you're just going to make a problem worse. Basic housing, where the parent can have a stable address, phone #, and so forth, is far less expensive, and keeps the disruption to the child's life to a minimum.

(Of course, we could also discuss the way we fund public schools - the fact that teachers are going on strike because their textbooks list GWB at the current president and there are no nurses is absurd - but that's a side topic, isn't it?)

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

....
By the way, I'd like to generously give two extended middle fingers to any parent that bribed their way into a disability exemption.
....

That's pretty much granted on request, no bribe required. Little documentation, let alone bribes, required.

Quote:

In a new statement, David Coleman, president and chief executive of the College Board, said: “Educators, students, and families have asked us to simplify our process, and we’ve listened. The school staff knows their students best, and we want to cut down on the time and paperwork needed to submit a testing accommodations request.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f5bdd3461ff7

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Cain

She's pretty and popular, so who cares? At the end of the day, knowing how to paint your face is far more important than knowing about the theories of Max Weber.

It got Kylie Jenner to the Youngest Billionaire slot.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Originally Posted by Giordano

Private Ivy-League colleges have always had affirmative action programs: for the wealthy and influential.

This is about actual bribes to officials, faking exam results, etc., not just legacy preference.

Bad enough that they can't even manage with all the advantages that the schools already give to the rich, they have to break those rules too.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Bad enough that they can't even manage with all the advantages that the schools already give to the rich, they have to break those rules too.

Western society is set up to the advantage of the rich. Nothing new here.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Bad enough that they can't even manage with all the advantages that the schools already give to the rich, they have to break those rules too.

One interesting matter - so-called "legacy admissions", at some universities (I know Howard does this) are granted to anyone who had a parent work at the university, not just attend and graduate. And that can extend to janitors, cooks, and the like, not just professors - although these days when these services are often given to companies like Aramark, I don't know how well it works out.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by qayak

Western society is set up to the advantage of the rich. Nothing new here.

So is pretty much every society. Nothing new anywhere.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You’re the one introducing the terms “noble” and “applauded” into the discussion, so what do you say you drag that poorly-constructed straw man back to the cornfield where it belongs?

The title of the first article you posted is 'Mom jailed for sending kids to better school district'. This is not only an outright lie about what she was jailed for, but is obviously intended to read as a noble mother doing the best she can for her children. A child would even understand how this was portrayed. You seriously don't?

Quote:

No one is celebrating what these women did...

You forgot to read your posted articles, which cite the support the women got. Applause, even.

Quote:

...We’re lamenting the fact that this is what it came to for them. These examples are to point out the gross inequities in a very broken system.

No, they don't. Both women had their own districts to send their kids to. They both felt entitled to flip everyone off and do what they wanted, illegally and fraudulently. The homeless woman could have even gone to live in the district of her choosing, lacking a permanent home and presumably with nothing to lose by doing so (she had a car for transportation).

Quote:

No one should have to risk jail time just for trying to give their children a better life.

Agreed. And in both the cases you cited, these women had legal alternatives for public education. They chose to flip them off.

Giving your children a better life means raising them to be ethical, for starters. Not a point you would evidently agree with.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

"Homeless" people are living somewhere, even if it's a shelter or a parked car or an alley. That's where their kids should be able to attend school, and appropriate accommodations should be made. It's not like somebody from South Central trying to sneak into Beverly Hills High. A basic premise of public education is that the society benefits when all children receive a basic education. If you want to argue that only taxpayers are entitled to send their kids to school, you are pretty much ruling out the unemployed, people who don't own property, people who live on welfare or disability benefits, etc. Is that really the argument you wanna make?

Wut? I'm making no such argument. At all. Even a little.

I said the taxpayers are the ones being defrauded, full stop. Absolutely, unequivocally, I did not say only taxpayers are entitled to send their kids to school, or anything remotely like that. That's a pretty warped thing to say, and I have not the foggiest idea how you construed any post I made to infer that. Pretty insulting, tbh.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Wut? I'm making no such argument. At all. Even a little.

I said the taxpayers are the ones being defrauded, full stop. Absolutely, unequivocally, I did not say only taxpayers are entitled to send their kids to school, or anything remotely like that. That's a pretty warped thing to say, and I have not the foggiest idea how you construed any post I made to infer that. Pretty insulting, tbh.

Not to mention the unemployed, people who don't own property, and those collecting welfare and disability benefits all pay taxes.

As do resident aliens attending universities.

ETA: Basically it would be a remarkable feat to attend college in the U.S. (including covering most of the first 2 layers of maslow's hierarchy for 4 years) and somehow not pay taxes.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Donal

Except you can't. It's an essential part of the equation.

The 'equation' is the bigger picture, which I agree needs an overhaul. I am very much in favor of dispensing tax dollars equally in public school districts, and those with the luxury of affording better can pay additionally for private schooling (or who achieve to the point of earning scholarships).

Quote:

So you do whatever you can...and you don't?

You do whatever you can within the bounds of law and ethics. What you don't do is lie, cheat, and steal, claiming it is for the betterment of your kid as an excuse.

Quote:

The system sucks, no one is going to help you, you have to take what you can. In other words, valuable lessons.

Certainly better than shut up and accept your fate like good livestock.

Listen to what you are saying: it sounds like gang logic. 'Take what you can?' Really? Machiavelli got nothing on you, dog.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

A homeless person by definition does not have a place of residence so which laws apply?

Fortunately, my beloved Garden State and in fact all the States do not agree with you. You can reside somewhere, anywhere, without a deed or lease. If you live under a boardwalk or overpass, you reside there.

Which laws apply, you ask? See link below for the laws regarding the education of homeless children of New Jersey, USA. A quick quip about how we differ with your odd interpretation of residence:

Originally Posted by NJAC 6A 17

(c) The district board of education identified in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 as the school district of residence for a homeless child shall be the school district of residence until the parent establishes a permanent residence.

https://nj.gov/education/code/curren...e6a/chap17.pdf

Originally Posted by Darat

It's just "Oxford" no "the", and residency is not used to determine who is offered a place.

Um...a post that starts 'Hey, I wanna attend the Oxford!' should maybe, I dunno...be taken a little facetiously?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Not to mention the unemployed, people who don't own property, and those collecting welfare and disability benefits all pay taxes.

As do resident aliens attending universities.

ETA: Basically it would be a remarkable feat to attend college in the U.S. (including covering most of the first 2 layers of maslow's hierarchy for 4 years) and somehow not pay taxes.

That's true, if you consume or spend anything you are contributing taxes one way or the other. But schools are funded primarily via local property taxes, which are paid either by owners, mortgagees, or renters (indirectly). And every child, regardless of their parent's status, is entitled to drink from that pool and receive a free public education. But like any other member of such a social contract, they should stay within the bounds of law and ethics while doing so. The meta battle of how tax dollars should fund schools is not a Robin Hood-esque excuse to defraud your way into abusing that free education.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The title of the first article you posted is 'Mom jailed for sending kids to better school district'. This is not only an outright lie about what she was jailed for, but is obviously intended to read as a noble mother doing the best she can for her children. A child would even understand how this was portrayed. You seriously don't?

That is exactly what she was arrested for, her prison sentence though was unrelated.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Wut? I'm making no such argument. At all. Even a little.

I said the taxpayers are the ones being defrauded, full stop. Absolutely, unequivocally, I did not say only taxpayers are entitled to send their kids to school, or anything remotely like that. That's a pretty warped thing to say, and I have not the foggiest idea how you construed any post I made to infer that. Pretty insulting, tbh.

But you never gave any guide for where the worthless kids should be sent to school. Clearly the segregated schools for worthless kids like your wife works at.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But you never gave any guide for where the worthless kids should be sent to school. Clearly the segregated schools for worthless kids like your wife works at.

Your words...no one elses.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

I provided a link for how my State provides immediate district placement for homeless children, and I believe the mothers in the articles respective States have similar provisions. If they are homeless in a given district, they enroll in school in that district. My beloved NJ further provides funds and programs to assist in finding housing for the family, once identified.

It's really not that complicated.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That is exactly what she was arrested for, her prison sentence though was unrelated.

Actually it wasnt she (from the quote in the Snopes article ) ".... was sentenced to five years in prison and another five years of probation after pleading guilty to drug and larceny charges...." The larceny charge was the charge about her sending her kids to the wrong school.

[BobTheCoward]

My bet is USC bends every rule to keep those kids enrolled. They are pissed they didn't get a cut of the 500k and want their share.