More scandal and corruption from that university - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: More scandal and corruption from that university (/thread-18054.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: More scandal and corruption from that university (/thread-18054.html)
More scandal and corruption from that university - BostonCard - 09-03-2019
Topical since we play them...
https://apple.news/A3S5CbOmhSB2ksLKzkaqpBg
Of course, while perhaps not quite as nakedly craven as USC, I would be surprised if Stanford didn’t have some alternate admissions review to VIP’s so The stones im throwing aren’t too big.
BC
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - OutsiderFan - 09-03-2019
USC wants to be taken seriously as a an academic institution. It then sells some admission slots to lesser students to maximize revenue generation. Then it uses those funds to hire the best researchers. Of course, they do this while denying they do.
Why not just say publicly that they in fact do sell admission to unqualified students and be honest about it? Is it because doing that would damage their academic reputation? If this is the case, how come they don't lose their accredidation?
They are after all, committing fraud.
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - washingtonismoney - 09-03-2019
(09-03-2019, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Why not just say publicly that they in fact do sell admission to unqualified students and be honest about it?
It's for the students. Some things in life can't be bought; some rich people would like to try anyway. Abandoning the official story breaks the dichotomy.
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - Mick - 09-03-2019
(09-03-2019, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: USC wants to be taken seriously as a an academic institution. It then sells some admission slots to lesser students to maximize revenue generation. Then it uses those funds to hire the best researchers. Of course, they do this while denying they do.
They are after all, committing fraud.
I recall Hahvahd's Business School accepting an average academic light who happened to be the son of the Chair of one of the largest family owned businesses in the United States. The President of HBS publicly stated that it was their duty to educate that man to the best of their abilities because he would one day end up running that company. It would, in fact, be irresponsible NOT to admit him, reasoned the HBS Prez.
(09-03-2019, 05:11 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Why not just say publicly that they in fact do sell admission to unqualified students and be honest about it? Is it because doing that would damage their academic reputation? If this is the case, how come they don't lose their accredidation?
All candor, all the time, in all situations. I like it.
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - 2006alum - 09-04-2019
I'd say those in glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones. The extent, degree, and blatantness of what's happening down south is perhaps worse than anything happening on Galvez Street, but if you don't think these same kinds of activities are happening at Stanford, well, I've got an arctic glacier to sell you. For the extremely wealthy and well-connected legacy candidates, $$$ absolutely influences admissions decisions at Stanford; Stanford just covers its tracks better. But don't think every single LSJU alumnus was admitted on pure virtue alone!
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - OutsiderFan - 09-04-2019
(09-04-2019, 01:17 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd say those in glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones. The extent, degree, and blatantness of what's happening down south is perhaps worse than anything happening on Galvez Street, but if you don't think these same kinds of activities are happening at Stanford, well, I've got an arctic glacier to sell you. For the extremely wealthy and well-connected legacy candidates, $$$ absolutely influences admissions decisions at Stanford; Stanford just covers its tracks better. But don't think every single LSJU alumnus was admitted on pure virtue alone!
Which makes the IMO, excessive admissions hoops for athletes all the more distasteful. It seems likely that some of these legacy/bought in students would have lesser academic profiles than some athletes who were denied admission. So far he has been kind of a bust in football, but it sure seems a guy like Demetria Robertson, who killed himself trying to get admitted to Stanford, would have succeeded just on the basis of how bad he wanted it and should have gotten in because of that.
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - 2006alum - 09-04-2019
(09-04-2019, 02:22 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Which makes the IMO, excessive admissions hoops for athletes all the more distasteful. It seems likely that some of these legacy/bought in students would have lesser academic profiles than some athletes who were denied admission. So far he has been kind of a bust in football, but it sure seems a guy like Demetria Robertson, who killed himself trying to get admitted to Stanford, would have succeeded just on the basis of how bad he wanted it and should have gotten in because of that.I don't think "excessive admissions hoops" is an accurate characterization of the process for athletes - there is no question that top recruited athletes have a gilded pathway to admissions that almost all other applicants lack, and I suspect most of the ultra-wealthy of connected-legacy admits still have meaningfully better admissions stats (GPA, APs, SATs, etc.) than recruited athletes that get Door 1'd. Josh Childress got admitted to Stanford with an 1100 SAT score. His score was approximately one standard deviation above the SAT mean, while the median Stanford matriculant scores almost three standard deviations above the mean (1465). Short of being an Arrillaga offspring, I suspect the folks we're talking about were in the 1200-1300 range, and thus solid, but not admissible but for their connections/wealth.
And trust me when I say this: there are thousands and thousands of applicants who get rejected from Stanford every year who worked just as hard as Demetrius Robertson and wanted it just as bad. They just don't entertain us every Saturday in the fall, so we're less sympathetic. But they are absolutely no less worthy. Every one of us who is fortunate to call LSJU our alma mater is living a life of constantly cashing in the spoils of a lottery ticket that happened to have winning numbers the day our ticket got considered.
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - Mick - 09-04-2019
(09-04-2019, 01:17 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd say those in glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones. The extent, degree, and blatantness of what's happening down south is perhaps worse than anything happening on Galvez Street, but if you don't think these same kinds of activities are happening at Stanford, well, I've got an arctic glacier to sell you. For the extremely wealthy and well-connected legacy candidates, $$$ absolutely influences admissions decisions at Stanford; Stanford just covers its tracks better. But don't think every single LSJU alumnus was admitted on pure virtue alone!
I suspect that's true, based upon what I've heard.
On the other end of the spectrum, the less-than-intelligent admissions staff at my alma mater rejected the daughter of a very well known billionaire and owner of a local sports franchise. Yay, integrity! Yay, small endowment (by Stanford standards).
RE: More scandal and corruption from that university - BostonCard - 09-04-2019
(09-04-2019, 01:17 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd say those in glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones. The extent, degree, and blatantness of what's happening down south is perhaps worse than anything happening on Galvez Street, but if you don't think these same kinds of activities are happening at Stanford, well, I've got an arctic glacier to sell you. For the extremely wealthy and well-connected legacy candidates, $$$ absolutely influences admissions decisions at Stanford; Stanford just covers its tracks better. But don't think every single LSJU alumnus was admitted on pure virtue alone!
That’s why I wrote the following...
Quote:Of course, while perhaps not quite as nakedly craven as USC, I would be surprised if Stanford didn’t have some alternate admissions review to VIP’s so The stones im throwing aren’t too big.
BC