Isn't this just another way of turning the tables on "the rich?" It used to be that the ethnic kid or the inner city kid was looked upon and dismissed as an affirmative action admission. Now, the rich kid can be similarly dismissed.

Yes, kids get admitted when Mommy and/or Daddy donates a building. Kennedys at Harvard, anyone? Mommy or Daddy get immortality and Junior gets an acceptable alma mater.

The similarity ends at the first kid, however. Lori Loughlin bribed USC to get one kid in. Andre Young's donation of a building and his endowment of a college will get generations of Youngs into USC. Just ask the Lowells, the Mathers, the Prescotts, the Vanderbilts, et al how that works.

For the sake of being contrarian, I will point out the other side of that coin: a new building is something that presumably benefits all students, or at least a significant fraction of them. So at least it's a more productive use of the money than bribing a coach.

Buying buildings isn't the latest way to get your kid into college. As Conan points out it is the very very old way. The main difference between Dre and the 'cheaters' is Dre paid the full price. The problem with Huffman et al is they went cheap. Mossimo Giannulli paid $250k per kid. Dre paid $70 mil.

As for the fairness angle, life aint fair. Never has been.

As for the 'affirmative action admission' effect, that was baked in long ago. None of this is new. It's been going on since the founding of Harvard or Yale.

None of this is new. It is only surprising that someone actually got charged and convicted of something.

This is getting confusing. Can someone just tell me who I am supposed to hate? Bonus points if you can give me a pithy little sentence to use that a ton of people are already tweeting to express my manufactured hate.

The universities have always made room in their admissions for the offspring of large ($10,000,000+) donors. My grandfather donated a sports complex to a university, thereby guaranteeing university educations for 3 generations and counting of underachieving progeny. This current scandal of bribery for admissions is about the defendants stealing from the university, not from other applicants. It’s the universities that lose the opportunity to sell the spaces for millions of dollars. Anybody who believes the admissions process ever resembled a level playing field is seriously deluded.

"This is getting confusing. Can someone just tell me who I am supposed to hate?"

Easy, just go to my default setting. I hate everyone equally. Especially car-driving pirates.

Guess what? Rosemond's chiming in!

(I wish he'd "take requests" for his column more often...it would only be logical, if he really expects to become more popular in the 10-20 years he has left.)

https://www.arcamax.com/homeandleisure/parents/johnrosemond/s-2189597

First half:

o the many readers who recently asked: Yes, I do take requests, and yes, I will riff on the Perpetually Beautiful People Who Laid Out Mega-Bribes to Guarantee That Their Beautiful and Everlastingly Entitled Bratz Get into the College of Their Choice Scandal.

Why would anyone who’s been paying attention be surprised? When polls find that a majority of high school students believe that cheating on tests is acceptable if it means they might get into a better college, why would anyone be aghast at their parents paying big bucks to fudge transcripts and test results to guarantee their admission to said schools? And let’s face it, if more people made mega-bucks, this scandal would not be limited to people stalked by paparazzi.

There are three factors at work here (and I’ve already identified one of them): Entitlement, Self-Esteem, and Co-dependency. In order…

First, the parents and children in question come from two generations disproportionately populated by people who believe they are entitled…entitled to be entitled, even. The individuals in question believe three things that until recently were reserved to European royalty, toddlers, criminals, and career politicians:

1. What I want I deserve to have.

2. Because I deserve it, the ends justify the means.

3. The rules do not apply to me because I am special (semi-divine, if you must know).

This mentality, which defines a sociopath, began to spread in the 1970s as America’s collective parenting goal shifted from instilling self-responsibility and the work ethic – as in, preserving culture – to fostering success and happiness. That shift accounts for the dramatic increase over the same time period of children and teens in therapy and on psychiatric medications...

(snip)

Ben Says:

"As for the fairness angle, life aint fair. Never has been."

I know this is a popular usage, but I find it quite annoying when we confused "people" with "life".

The prospect of life not being fair should be reserved for situations where a hard working decent individual ends up getting brain cancer at a young age... that is an example of when life isn't fair.

When we have coordinated efforts of specific people to financially benefit while corrupting a system that is advertised as being fair... that isn't life being unfair... that is those specific people being unfair.

I don't like the idea of letting folks hide behind their own personal unfairness as if they were just a mindless tornado indiscriminately leveling the local hospital.

I suspect that USC's admissions office is loving all of the attention.

The thing is, while USC is a decent school, it's not hard to get into because of its academic standing, which isn't even in the top 20 for the US - it's competitive because it attracts kids from wealthy families in the US and abroad, including a lot of celebrity's children.

USC's cache is snob appeal and access to wealthy and well connected people. The fact that wealthy parents are willing to break the law to get their kids in only amplifies that perception.

I know this is a popular usage, but I find it quite annoying when we confused "people" with "life".
__________________________________

Have to say I agree.

In the 1950s, I'd bet plenty of anti-segregationists would have only been too glad to justify their stance by saying "life isn't fair."

Trouble is, little kids, in particular, think ANYTHING they don't like is automatically unfair. Since it's not practical to explain every little parental rule, one can't blame parents for falling back on that three-word declaration - regularly. The problem starts when parents start to call certain fair ideas "unfair." Such as parents paying for girls to go to college as well as boys - not so common, less than a century ago. Or, as professor Karen Lindsey wrote, when her parents took in foster babies when she was little, only SHE was expected to change diapers. Never her brothers. (Her mother firmly said "it wasn't fair" to expect boys to do that.)

It also reminds me of the hymn "All Things Bright and Beautiful."

That is, I've never heard that hymn performed in the U.S., but it seems that when people comment on it, it's because it's embarrassing today in more ways than one. This is the verse that typically gets quoted, by critics:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.


From The Telegraph, in 2007:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3668059/The-story-behind-the-hymn.html

"...It was written by Mrs Cecil Frances Alexander (1818-95), wife to the Archbishop of Armagh and Protestant Primate of Ireland, as a way of elucidating the opening of the Apostles’ Creed: 'I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.'

"A member of the Anglo-Irish establishment, Mrs Alexander clearly had no compunction about keeping the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate, but even before the age of political correctness, the offending third verse was usually omitted – the Inner London Education Authority positively banned it in 1982..."

This happens in Big Medical, too.

If your great-grandfather had endowed the Phineas Whirligig T. Alkon Wing of the local hospital, and if your family still had the stroke and the cosh to back it up, I'm quite sure you'd be receiving a different level of care than any other patient there: to paraphrase the old song, "you'll be having pheasant rather than dunking doughnuts with the peasants."

Can someone just tell me who I am supposed to hate? Bonus points if you can give me a pithy little sentence to use that a ton of people are already tweeting to express my manufactured hate.

White men. #YesAllWhiteMen

You're welcome.

Who the universities admit and why they do so is of no real concern to me. What should be a concern to the universities is if they promote thru classes people who shouldn't.

I think the upper echelons of administrative oversight understand that graduating just anyone with a prestigious major devalues the worth of attendance at that university.

If they're allowing them to wash out, or are shunting them into the *cough* less rigorous degree programs, then it is up to the potential employers to understand that a degree from Prestigious State University are of different levels of difficulty.

On the other hand, some kids do have the academic chops to handle difficulty degree programs at these high-end schools, they just don't have all the other bells and whistles that admissions officers look for, like all the social justice work and extracurriculars.

When we have coordinated efforts of specific people to financially benefit while corrupting a system that is advertised as being fair... that isn't life being unfair... that is those specific people being unfair.

Now do affirmative action admits!

Giving money to the school and giving money to an individual at the school is not the same thing.

Also, the kids still need to be strong. There are a lot of rich people who want to buy buildings to get their kids into school... their offers aren't all accepted.

"When we have coordinated efforts of specific people to financially benefit while corrupting a system that is advertised as being fair... that isn't life being unfair... that is those specific people being unfair." ~Arty

Ha ha ha ha! You thought college admission (and especially ivy ones) were fair? Man are you retarded. They never even claim to be fair. They are quite clear they are not fair or impartial. They are racist to the core and quite proud of it. Sexist too. And they are quite upfront about that. Same with 'legacy admissions'. Or athletics. If you thought getting into Harvard was 'fair' then you are dumb. If you thought it was advertised as fair you are delusional.

As I said above, this 'scandal' isn't about people buying their way unfairly into colleges. It is about corrupt college employees taking bribes to get people in instead of the standard practice of the college taking the bribe. The bribe isn't the problem it is that the employee is stealing income from his employer.

And too little at that. The going rate is $10 mill or more not 1/4 mil.

"Anybody who believes the admissions process ever resembled a level playing field is seriously deluded."

Yeah, I've seen two anonymously-written columns this week from college admission employees saying that there's no way the admissions offices of these schools didn't know what was going on. But admissions offices have always gamed things so that they can apply whatever criteria suits them, regardless of law or public relations. "Holistic" candidate evaluation, which is all the rage with admissions offices now, was invented pretty specifically to work around California's Prop-whatever initiative that banned consideration of race or sex in admissions decisions. And at that, it has succeeded.

"USC's cache is snob appeal and access to wealthy and well connected people. "

The ruling-elite class views college as basically finishing school. The purpose for their kids going there is to network with other elites, and by interaction learn the social standards, expectations and taboos of their class. They are going into a world where you you know, and your status signaling, is far more important than what you know, so actual education is beside the point.

""Holistic" candidate evaluation, which is all the rage with admissions offices now, was invented pretty specifically to work around California's Prop-whatever initiative that banned consideration of race or sex in admissions decisions."

I think it goes back further than this. The Ivy League colleges, prior to say the mid-1960s, were notorious for using subjective assessments of 'character' as a way to keep the Jews (mostly) out.

You wanna endow the college of your choice with millions of dollars in buildings, equipment, or scholarships, go for it, and I hope your kid gets a stellar education and can continue with endowing the college with more of the above - because in the long run, that benefits the student body as a whole. That's always been the "right" way to get your kid into an elite college, even if it is above their capabilities. But at least the parents didn't lie and inflate their kids intellect and/or ability to gain access to a school.

The root of this problem is that nearly all colleges receive federal tax funds, even though education is not on the list of Congress' enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Rule the Dept of Education and its budget unconstitutional, and while most colleges will still be corrupt, it won't matter to most people who will no longer be paying the bill.

Of course, this problem will sort itself out in time anyway, because nearly all colleges have so discredited themselves with PC SJW nonsense that if I were hiring, I wouldn't consider anyone who got a college degree after 1990. The market knows better and sooner or later, its will be done.

Ben Says:

"Ha ha ha ha! You thought college admission (and especially ivy ones) were fair? Man are you retarded. They never even claim to be fair."

Hold on one moment you thin skinned nitwit.

Aren't you the same little twerp who had this to say about our interactions last September:

"You on the other hand Artemis are regularly uncivil with pretty much everyone."

www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/07/trump-hearts-pu.html

Let's go back even further in history for a moment to get some further context into how you handle yourself on this blog:

"Sorry Patrick. If you are on Artemis's side you immediately lose. It's like argumentum ad hitlerum."

www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/03/the-babyificati.html

So let's consider the history in full context here... back in 2016 you jumped into a conversation you weren't even in to literally compare me to Hitler... that was your only purpose to join the conversation.

Then 2 years layer you bitch and moan that I am not being civil enough to you in discussions.

Now you jump into a conversation and immediately call me "retarded".

Good grief... what planet do you live on where you can just go around insulting people like that and still expect everyone to treat you like you are a tender and gentle little dove?

As usual you are an idiot who has jumped in beyond your ability to comprehend once more. I never stated that the admissions were fair... I stated that they were advertised as being fair. That is a critical difference when people pay to submit their admissions applications. They are accepting money from folks under false pretenses. That it wasn't actually fair isn't the issue... the perception they are trying to sell is.

You are the definition of someone who can dish it out but cannot take it. You whine and cry that people aren't treating you nicely enough as you are probably the most rude and obnoxious people to converse here. As I pointed out, you have a recorded history of jumping into conversations with no other purpose than to insult someone.

You need to toughen up or keep your mouth shut.

"I think it goes back further than this. The Ivy League colleges, prior to say the mid-1960s, were notorious for using subjective assessments of 'character' as a way to keep the Jews (mostly) out."

That is almost the exact same mechanism that they are using to keep Far East Asians out today.

In the 1950s, I'd bet plenty of anti-segregationists would have only been too glad to justify their stance by saying "life isn't fair."
____________________________________________

I slipped up - I meant segregationists. (I was thinking of something else and confused the two.)

Yes I am uncivil to you Arty. I've given up on you. You aren't worth the effort. You are still uncivil to everyone you come across. Just who you are apparently. I on the other hand am exactly what you said, uncivil to YOU.

Maybe you should stop dishing it out if you can't take it. And please point out all the places where college admissions are advertised as being fair.

Oh, and yes I 'jumped into a conversation' where you quoted me. Hell, I need to join the NBA with jumping skills like that.

Artemis hasn't been particularly uncivil to me.

Neither have you.

One thing I like about this board is actually how civil people are compared to other places. Sure we have disagreements. And sure insults and flames *sometimes* fly.

But by and large there's a reason I've been posting here since 2005.

> Hold on one moment you thin
> skinned nitwit.

Needs punctuation.

But this analysis is as coarse as the taunt it summoned:

> As for the fairness angle,
> life aint fair. Never has
> been.

> Can someone just tell me
> who I am supposed to hate?

Start with government, which taxes you a gunpoint to construct an enormous network of tubes and gutters washing your wealth into a similary-avaricious (and often selfsame) cluster of technocratic waste.

Etc.

There are too many hateful people to count in this story.

"USC's cache is snob appeal and access to wealthy and well connected people. The fact that wealthy parents are willing to break the law to get their kids in only amplifies that perception."

Hence, rich, connected people buying their kids admission only enhances the institution's net benefit for all students. The difference between an Ivy and many less prestigious schools is the networking opportunities. Which is going to open more doors for your kid, a brilliant roommate who scraped his way up from the hood, or a roommate whose parents are rich, connected celebrities? As others point out, the problem here is that by lowball bribing employees, these second-tier elites are diluting the networking pool, especially when the parents doing the bribing are rich and famous for nothing more than their good looks. Let's face it, a roommate whose parent is a Fortune 100 CEO is way more beneficial than one whose parent may owe her success to a tryst with Harvey Weinstein.

"You wanna endow the college of your choice with millions of dollars in buildings, equipment, or scholarships, go for it, and I hope your kid gets a stellar education and can continue with endowing the college with more of the above - because in the long run, that benefits the student body as a whole."

I couldn't agree more.

"I stated that they were advertised as being fair."

Please provide links to where universities explicitly make that claim.

I don't recall being uncivil to you either NicoleK. I'm pretty much uncivil to only two people on here, Arty and Crid for obvious reasons. Though I will admit I get a little short with Lenona some times and I probably shouldn't. I'm not always as good a person as I want to be.

We know.

And we want to be sympathetic...

Ben, you are also not uncivil to me! I said "Neither have you" in the post!

I wasn't trying to claim you said that NicoleK. But I do recognize times when I've been uncivil to people and they never noticed. Some times my searing wit can't light dry grass on fire. Someone else probably could have worded my earlier comment better.

I note it's been some time and ol'Arty hasn't provided any evidence that colleges actually claim to have fair admissions. Yet another example of his joy in the incorrect I guess.

Ben,

I lost interest in the discussion when you openly admitted that you actively choose to be uncivil while also expecting civility.

That being said... as usual you are wrong.

USC admissions:

https://admission.usc.edu/apply/our-admission-process/#/overview

"USC is need-blind in its admission process—a student’s financial need will never influence an admission decision."

The university flat out declares that the financial status of the applicants will have no bearing on the admissions decisions.

The fact that these universities have been caught letting folks in because they have been paid off by rich families demonstrates that the system does take the financial status of the applicant into consideration.

That is fraud.

And here is Stanford:

https://admission.stanford.edu/apply/

"We approach the admission process with sincere respect for you, and we will give your application serious consideration."

One is not shown "respect" or given "serious consideration" if they are competing against folks who guarantee admission by paying people off.

Keep in mind this is just a cursory search... this really isn't that difficult to find evidence of universities advertising ad admissions process that indicated that bribery isn't part of the system.