[Mick]

On the issue of who tipped off investigators, the conspiracy was gigantic. Spanned from coast to coast. You have to talk with a lot of people to find school and test administrators who will go along with such blatant fraud.

Along the way you probably have to talk with a lot of people who say no to the scheme when approached by someone about participating.  I'll guess that one or more of those people who thought it was wrong went to the authorities and that's what started the investigation.

I would imagine that it raised eyebrows and red flags at the Internal Revenue Service as well.

That pre-supposes that there is anyone left in the IRS to audit potentially fraudulent returns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/busin...audit.html

BC

Meant the flagging of $10k deposits, which is automated. I wonder how these people received these funds without at least getting an automated letter now...

---

The big news - the sailing program somehow got another $500k from the scheme, though we don't know how yet (and didn't learn through the feds...I suspect by reviewing gifts to the sailing team. It somehow involved an applicant who was admitted and IS a student now, but with no recommendation from the sailing coach and no sailing team connection. The Pres sounds genuinely puzzled. 

He does support the current sailing team (every sailing team member going back to before the scam started has been checked and none were based on phony recommendations). I've got to think, though, that $770k would be a of immense proportions chunk of the team's budget.

Wait, what?  The sailing team got another 500k for a student that was admitted, but the sailing coach did tout in a word for that student?  That sounds... fishy.

BC

Two thoughts:

1)  Non-revenue sports live in perpetual shortages of funds, yet they still have to compete with other programs, and of course, the coaches want to win and do well.  If they live at "threat" level, meaning the program is at risk of complete de-funding from the University, the coaches could find themselves out of a job when the program loses its budget.  Therefore, even if a coach doesn't receive the funds personally, they need to ensure that sufficient donations come in to ensure themselves a job (or a raise).  Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it were in the contracts of some of these coaches.

2)  I'd spoken at length with the AAD at one of the Ivies (not Princeton).  It was pretty clear that they had an enormous amount of power and leverage to bring students into the school.  It never crossed my mind that a coach would actually do this; the down side is too brobdingnagian.  No one will ever hire you, ever again.  

As for the Stanford sailing program, [erhaps a "back door" donor earmarked part of his donation for the sailing program, accounting for the extra $500k.

[Mick]

On the issue of who tipped off investigators, the conspiracy was gigantic. Spanned from coast to coast. You have to talk with a lot of people to find school and test administrators who will go along with such blatant fraud.

Along the way you probably have to talk with a lot of people who say no to the scheme when approached by someone about participating.  I'll guess that one or more of those people who thought it was wrong went to the authorities and that's what started the investigation.

I would imagine that it raised eyebrows and red flags at the Internal Revenue Service as well.

That pre-supposes that there is anyone left in the IRS to audit potentially fraudulent returns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/busin...audit.html

BC

Meant the flagging of $10k deposits, which is automated. I wonder how these people received these funds without at least getting an automated letter now...

---

The big news - the sailing program somehow got another $500k from the scheme, though we don't know how yet (and didn't learn through the feds...I suspect by reviewing gifts to the sailing team. It somehow involved an applicant who was admitted and IS a student now, but with no recommendation from the sailing coach and no sailing team connection. The Pres sounds genuinely puzzled. 

He does support the current sailing team (every sailing team member going back to before the scam started has been checked and none were based on phony recommendations). I've got to think, though, that $770k would be a of immense proportions chunk of the team's budget.

Wait, what?  The sailing team got another 500k for a student that was admitted, but the sailing coach did tout in a word for that student?  That sounds... fishy.

BC

Two thoughts:

1)  Non-revenue sports live in perpetual shortages of funds, yet they still have to compete with other programs, and of course, the coaches want to win and do well.  If they live at "threat" level, meaning the program is at risk of complete de-funding from the University, the coaches could find themselves out of a job when the program loses its budget.  Therefore, even if a coach doesn't receive the funds personally, they need to ensure that sufficient donations come in to ensure themselves a job (or a raise).  Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it were in the contracts of some of these coaches.

2)  I'd spoken at length with the AAD at one of the Ivies (not Princeton).  It was pretty clear that they had an enormous amount of power and leverage to bring students into the school.  It never crossed my mind that a coach would actually do this; the down side is too brobdingnagian.  No one will ever hire you, ever again.  

As for the Stanford sailing program, [erhaps a "back door" donor earmarked part of his donation for the sailing program, accounting for the extra $500k.

[82lsju]

The Journal reports that Morrie Tobin, an L.A. financial executive with close ties to Yale University, was the tipster who set the entire investigation into motion. Tobin, who attended Yale and has a daughter who graduated from the university, was being investigated in a securities-fraud case when he offered a tip to federal authorities in an effort to obtain leniency in his own case.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/college-a...tobin.html

[82lsju]

The Journal reports that Morrie Tobin, an L.A. financial executive with close ties to Yale University, was the tipster who set the entire investigation into motion. Tobin, who attended Yale and has a daughter who graduated from the university, was being investigated in a securities-fraud case when he offered a tip to federal authorities in an effort to obtain leniency in his own case.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/college-a...tobin.html

[ColoradoTree]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

[ColoradoTree]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

[82lsju]

Manuel Henriquez has resigned as CEO of Hercules Capital, and private equity firm TPG executive William McGlashan and Willkie Farr & Gallagher co-chairman Gordon Caplan have been placed on leave after they were accused in a scam to help their children get into top colleges.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/business...-scam.html

Hercules said Wednesday that Henriquez will still hold a seat on the board and will serve as an adviser.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/13/college-admissions-scandal-hedge-fund-ceo-manuel-henriquez-steps-down/

[82lsju]

Manuel Henriquez has resigned as CEO of Hercules Capital, and private equity firm TPG executive William McGlashan and Willkie Farr & Gallagher co-chairman Gordon Caplan have been placed on leave after they were accused in a scam to help their children get into top colleges.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/business...-scam.html

Hercules said Wednesday that Henriquez will still hold a seat on the board and will serve as an adviser.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/13/college-admissions-scandal-hedge-fund-ceo-manuel-henriquez-steps-down/

[2006alum]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

[2006alum]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

[rudruff]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

I sit adjacent to a decision maker in a very different part of education. Part of the frustration you are feeling is pretty common when you are arguing "common sense" vs regulation. We deal with a number of regulatory agencies in our business and their rules often run counter to helpful suggestions provided by teachers. Because no one from the agency is standing there to say "no" that task gets handed to the senior administrator. What seems to be "top down" is usually legal advice combined with finding a workable solution and then not letting people stray from that solution so you don't need your legal team on speed dial every time someone comes up with a new proposal. 

My suggestion is to voice your opinion up your chain, but provide a written argument. Also, instead of asking for a follow-up to your written argument just ask that it be available whenever the organization meets to address the issue. It is unlikely that your position will change your organization's ADA policy, but if the organization is meeting to review ADA policy, it is nice to have some options to look through.

[rudruff]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

I sit adjacent to a decision maker in a very different part of education. Part of the frustration you are feeling is pretty common when you are arguing "common sense" vs regulation. We deal with a number of regulatory agencies in our business and their rules often run counter to helpful suggestions provided by teachers. Because no one from the agency is standing there to say "no" that task gets handed to the senior administrator. What seems to be "top down" is usually legal advice combined with finding a workable solution and then not letting people stray from that solution so you don't need your legal team on speed dial every time someone comes up with a new proposal. 

My suggestion is to voice your opinion up your chain, but provide a written argument. Also, instead of asking for a follow-up to your written argument just ask that it be available whenever the organization meets to address the issue. It is unlikely that your position will change your organization's ADA policy, but if the organization is meeting to review ADA policy, it is nice to have some options to look through.

[Bruce Wang]

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

Only if the employee disclosed such a disability prior to employment.  (The lawyers here can correct me if this is not the case).  I ran into this situation when somebody got reassigned to my team.  He was smart, hardworking, and a fun colleague.  He was a terrific project manager, mostly because of how stubborn and shameless he was.  He could not turn in a Powerpoint without massive numbers of typos.  I tried to coach him up with various techniques (e.g. proofread backwards, when you think you are done, walk to my office and turn around and not come back until you find another typo).  Powerpoint is a core basic skill set in a corporate environment. It was so frustrating I talked to him about putting him on a formal corrective action plan.  That's when he told me he was dyslexic.  God I felt like such an @$$hole.  I went back to his previous boss and asked her if she knew.  She said yes and that we could fire him, which she looked into and could because he did not disclose the disability. Anyways, I decided to just suck it up and tolerate the last remaining typos and fix themselves going forward.

[Bruce Wang]

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

Only if the employee disclosed such a disability prior to employment.  (The lawyers here can correct me if this is not the case).  I ran into this situation when somebody got reassigned to my team.  He was smart, hardworking, and a fun colleague.  He was a terrific project manager, mostly because of how stubborn and shameless he was.  He could not turn in a Powerpoint without massive numbers of typos.  I tried to coach him up with various techniques (e.g. proofread backwards, when you think you are done, walk to my office and turn around and not come back until you find another typo).  Powerpoint is a core basic skill set in a corporate environment. It was so frustrating I talked to him about putting him on a formal corrective action plan.  That's when he told me he was dyslexic.  God I felt like such an @$$hole.  I went back to his previous boss and asked her if she knew.  She said yes and that we could fire him, which she looked into and could because he did not disclose the disability. Anyways, I decided to just suck it up and tolerate the last remaining typos and fix themselves going forward.

[BostonCard]

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

Only if the employee disclosed such a disability prior to employment.  (The lawyers here can correct me if this is not the case).  I ran into this situation when somebody got reassigned to my team.  He was smart, hardworking, and a fun colleague.  He was a terrific project manager, mostly because of how stubborn and shameless he was.  He could not turn in a Powerpoint without massive numbers of typos.  I tried to coach him up with various techniques (e.g. proofread backwards, when you think you are done, walk to my office and turn around and not come back until you find another typo).  Powerpoint is a core basic skill set in a corporate environment. It was so frustrating I talked to him about putting him on a formal corrective action plan.  That's when he told me he was dyslexic.  God I felt like such an @$$hole.  I went back to his previous boss and asked her if she knew.  She said yes and that we could fire him, which she looked into and could because he did not disclose the disability. Anyways, I decided to just suck it up and tolerate the last remaining typos and fix themselves going forward.

You might want to have your employee install this font:  https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/typeface/

The font is designed to help make it easier for people with dyslexia to read, by making commonly confused letters (b, p, q, d) asymmetric, and doing a whole bunch of other stuff to make it easier to read.

BC

[BostonCard]

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

Only if the employee disclosed such a disability prior to employment.  (The lawyers here can correct me if this is not the case).  I ran into this situation when somebody got reassigned to my team.  He was smart, hardworking, and a fun colleague.  He was a terrific project manager, mostly because of how stubborn and shameless he was.  He could not turn in a Powerpoint without massive numbers of typos.  I tried to coach him up with various techniques (e.g. proofread backwards, when you think you are done, walk to my office and turn around and not come back until you find another typo).  Powerpoint is a core basic skill set in a corporate environment. It was so frustrating I talked to him about putting him on a formal corrective action plan.  That's when he told me he was dyslexic.  God I felt like such an @$$hole.  I went back to his previous boss and asked her if she knew.  She said yes and that we could fire him, which she looked into and could because he did not disclose the disability. Anyways, I decided to just suck it up and tolerate the last remaining typos and fix themselves going forward.

You might want to have your employee install this font:  https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/typeface/

The font is designed to help make it easier for people with dyslexia to read, by making commonly confused letters (b, p, q, d) asymmetric, and doing a whole bunch of other stuff to make it easier to read.

BC

[TreesAndBirds]

From a college counselor writing in the Palo Alto newspaper

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2...sity-blues


“Operation Varsity Blues is not going to be the only college admissions scam – in fact, I think this is the first of many college admissions scams that will surface in due time. To be honest, I am glad this scandal has come to light, because maybe now we can make real change in the college admissions process. Maybe now, we can finally find an ethical, equitable way to get all students, regardless of financial status, accepted to their best fit colleges.”

[TreesAndBirds]

From a college counselor writing in the Palo Alto newspaper

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2...sity-blues


“Operation Varsity Blues is not going to be the only college admissions scam – in fact, I think this is the first of many college admissions scams that will surface in due time. To be honest, I am glad this scandal has come to light, because maybe now we can make real change in the college admissions process. Maybe now, we can finally find an ethical, equitable way to get all students, regardless of financial status, accepted to their best fit colleges.”

[stupac2]

Well unless the Stanfords of the world want to triple class sizes, there are more worthy students than there are spots and there's not a lot you can do to change that. What would be more worth doing is attacking the idea that admissions to these schools are so important, as though the education you get at Stanford is necessarily worlds better than Sac State (to say nothing of UCLA). The status granted by the degree is out of proportion to the achievement, and that's the real problem. None of these parents would do this if they thought that going to UC Irvine was a worthy accomplishment for their kids.

[stupac2]

Well unless the Stanfords of the world want to triple class sizes, there are more worthy students than there are spots and there's not a lot you can do to change that. What would be more worth doing is attacking the idea that admissions to these schools are so important, as though the education you get at Stanford is necessarily worlds better than Sac State (to say nothing of UCLA). The status granted by the degree is out of proportion to the achievement, and that's the real problem. None of these parents would do this if they thought that going to UC Irvine was a worthy accomplishment for their kids.

[TreesAndBirds]

A thought.....if elite universities could double (or triple) their class size with no reduction in quality (I dont know if thats true, but I’ve heard that), then how about taking that final group (all those that are “equal”) and just randomly selecting the final admittees. And sending a letter to the half of the final group that didnt get admitted that they qualified for admission but weren't admitted due to class size constraints. That would have numerous effects....including devaluing the elite degree by a small amount, and increasing the value of a degree from the next tier of schools a small amount, thereby lessening a bit the disappointment of missing out on getting into an elite school, etc. 

Not sure I’m completely serious about this proposal, in part because I wouldnt expect the elite schools to act against their own interest, and in part because I’m not sure I believe that the admittee pool could be doubled with no dimunition in quality, but this is a Stanford board so I assume crazy ideas are expected :)

[TreesAndBirds]

A thought.....if elite universities could double (or triple) their class size with no reduction in quality (I dont know if thats true, but I’ve heard that), then how about taking that final group (all those that are “equal”) and just randomly selecting the final admittees. And sending a letter to the half of the final group that didnt get admitted that they qualified for admission but weren't admitted due to class size constraints. That would have numerous effects....including devaluing the elite degree by a small amount, and increasing the value of a degree from the next tier of schools a small amount, thereby lessening a bit the disappointment of missing out on getting into an elite school, etc. 

Not sure I’m completely serious about this proposal, in part because I wouldnt expect the elite schools to act against their own interest, and in part because I’m not sure I believe that the admittee pool could be doubled with no dimunition in quality, but this is a Stanford board so I assume crazy ideas are expected :)

[82lsju]

Among the 50 individuals implicated in a nationwide college admissions scandal is David Sidoo — a Vancouver businessman and prominent figure in the University of British Columbia athletics program — who allegedly paid a test-taker to sit his son’s SAT exam to help him gain admission to UC Berkeley
....
Sidoo allegedly paid a total of $200,000 through wire transfer for someone to take SAT tests in place of his two sons in 2011 and 2012. Sidoo’s younger son then allegedly sent the false test scores to Yale University, Georgetown University and UC Berkeley, the latter of which he enrolled at in 2014.

http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/13/fathe...n-scandal/

[82lsju]

Among the 50 individuals implicated in a nationwide college admissions scandal is David Sidoo — a Vancouver businessman and prominent figure in the University of British Columbia athletics program — who allegedly paid a test-taker to sit his son’s SAT exam to help him gain admission to UC Berkeley
....
Sidoo allegedly paid a total of $200,000 through wire transfer for someone to take SAT tests in place of his two sons in 2011 and 2012. Sidoo’s younger son then allegedly sent the false test scores to Yale University, Georgetown University and UC Berkeley, the latter of which he enrolled at in 2014.

http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/13/fathe...n-scandal/

[oldalum]

Below, if you're interested, is Yale's president's statement sent out today. They plan to look more broadly at the practices of commercial admissions consultants. He also addresses the value of athletics to the Yale community as a whole and to the student-athletes in particular. It's a well-written statement. (the contrast with USC's "we're the victims" statement is evident)


To the Yale Community,

I am writing about the actions I have taken in the wake of revelations regarding an ongoing FBI investigation into an admissions fraud scheme that targeted universities nationwide, including Yale. Dozens of people have been charged with federal crimes. These individuals allegedly bribed athletic coaches and standardized testing officials, or accepted the bribes, to deceive the admissions offices of universities. These dishonest and criminal actions are an affront to our community’s deeply held values of fairness, inclusion, and honesty. I am therefore initiating a number of actions to make sure we understand the full impact of this criminal scheme on our university and to protect our admissions processes in the future.

The FBI investigation has revealed that a Yale coach gave bogus athletic endorsements to two students, one of whom was admitted to Yale College. (For more information, please see this FAQ.) When applicants sign their applications, they attest that the contents are true and complete. Although I do not comment on specific disciplinary actions taken with respect to an individual student, our longstanding policy is to rescind the admission of students who falsified their Yale College applications.

The ongoing federal investigation has publicized wrongdoing by one Yale coach who participated in this scheme; however, I have decided that we must conduct our own searching review in order to learn whether others have been involved in activities that have corrupted the athletic recruitment and admissions process. We will retain external advisors to assist us. They will be asked to recommend changes that will help us detect and prevent efforts to defraud our admissions process. As part of this review, we will specifically examine the practices of commercial admissions consultants, whose work is conducted out of the view of admissions officers.

Since her arrival on July 1, 2018, and before we knew of the federal investigation or its findings, Director of Athletics Victoria Chun independently had begun to put in place new policies and procedures regarding the oversight and assessment of our coaching staff. The goals of her initiatives are to ensure that student-athletes receive an excellent education at Yale and to enhance the quality of our athletic programs. In addition, going forward, Ms. Chun will conduct a review of coaches’ proposed rosters of recruits before they are sent to the admissions office, and situations in which a recruited athlete fails to make a team will receive close scrutiny. These measures will help prevent opportunities for undermining the fairness and integrity of the Yale College admissions process.

Ms. Chun is working with Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeremiah Quinlan to implement a code of conduct for athletic recruitment. They also will design even more robust training for all coaches to ensure they understand our recruitment procedures and the ethical expectations involved in supporting student-athletes in our admissions process.

Athletics is part of the educational mission of Yale College. Under the Ivy League model, those who play on our varsity teams are student-athletes, and “student” comes first. Our sports teams engender pride among our whole community, and I have often said that we bask in their reflected glory, bringing the Yale College community closer together. The athletics program, including the varsity teams, is also an important part of the Yale College educational experience; students better themselves by playing their sport. They learn self-discipline, how to work as part of a team, how to subordinate individual ambition to a group accomplishment, and how to be resilient in the face of failure. These skills are important in every area of life, including academics.

As we proceed with these first steps, we may find that more actions are necessary. I will not spare our university any scrutiny that will help us to be better and bolster the integrity of our community. 

Sincerely,

Peter Salovey
President
Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology

[oldalum]

Below, if you're interested, is Yale's president's statement sent out today. They plan to look more broadly at the practices of commercial admissions consultants. He also addresses the value of athletics to the Yale community as a whole and to the student-athletes in particular. It's a well-written statement. (the contrast with USC's "we're the victims" statement is evident)


To the Yale Community,

I am writing about the actions I have taken in the wake of revelations regarding an ongoing FBI investigation into an admissions fraud scheme that targeted universities nationwide, including Yale. Dozens of people have been charged with federal crimes. These individuals allegedly bribed athletic coaches and standardized testing officials, or accepted the bribes, to deceive the admissions offices of universities. These dishonest and criminal actions are an affront to our community’s deeply held values of fairness, inclusion, and honesty. I am therefore initiating a number of actions to make sure we understand the full impact of this criminal scheme on our university and to protect our admissions processes in the future.

The FBI investigation has revealed that a Yale coach gave bogus athletic endorsements to two students, one of whom was admitted to Yale College. (For more information, please see this FAQ.) When applicants sign their applications, they attest that the contents are true and complete. Although I do not comment on specific disciplinary actions taken with respect to an individual student, our longstanding policy is to rescind the admission of students who falsified their Yale College applications.

The ongoing federal investigation has publicized wrongdoing by one Yale coach who participated in this scheme; however, I have decided that we must conduct our own searching review in order to learn whether others have been involved in activities that have corrupted the athletic recruitment and admissions process. We will retain external advisors to assist us. They will be asked to recommend changes that will help us detect and prevent efforts to defraud our admissions process. As part of this review, we will specifically examine the practices of commercial admissions consultants, whose work is conducted out of the view of admissions officers.

Since her arrival on July 1, 2018, and before we knew of the federal investigation or its findings, Director of Athletics Victoria Chun independently had begun to put in place new policies and procedures regarding the oversight and assessment of our coaching staff. The goals of her initiatives are to ensure that student-athletes receive an excellent education at Yale and to enhance the quality of our athletic programs. In addition, going forward, Ms. Chun will conduct a review of coaches’ proposed rosters of recruits before they are sent to the admissions office, and situations in which a recruited athlete fails to make a team will receive close scrutiny. These measures will help prevent opportunities for undermining the fairness and integrity of the Yale College admissions process.

Ms. Chun is working with Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeremiah Quinlan to implement a code of conduct for athletic recruitment. They also will design even more robust training for all coaches to ensure they understand our recruitment procedures and the ethical expectations involved in supporting student-athletes in our admissions process.

Athletics is part of the educational mission of Yale College. Under the Ivy League model, those who play on our varsity teams are student-athletes, and “student” comes first. Our sports teams engender pride among our whole community, and I have often said that we bask in their reflected glory, bringing the Yale College community closer together. The athletics program, including the varsity teams, is also an important part of the Yale College educational experience; students better themselves by playing their sport. They learn self-discipline, how to work as part of a team, how to subordinate individual ambition to a group accomplishment, and how to be resilient in the face of failure. These skills are important in every area of life, including academics.

As we proceed with these first steps, we may find that more actions are necessary. I will not spare our university any scrutiny that will help us to be better and bolster the integrity of our community. 

Sincerely,

Peter Salovey
President
Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology

[cardcrimson]

Below, if you're interested, is Yale's president's statement sent out today. They plan to look more broadly at the practices of commercial admissions consultants. He also addresses the value of athletics to the Yale community as a whole and to the student-athletes in particular. It's a well-written statement. (the contrast with USC's "we're the victims" statement is evident)


To the Yale Community,

I am writing about the actions I have taken in the wake of revelations regarding an ongoing FBI investigation into an admissions fraud scheme that targeted universities nationwide, including Yale. Dozens of people have been charged with federal crimes. These individuals allegedly bribed athletic coaches and standardized testing officials, or accepted the bribes, to deceive the admissions offices of universities. These dishonest and criminal actions are an affront to our community’s deeply held values of fairness, inclusion, and honesty. I am therefore initiating a number of actions to make sure we understand the full impact of this criminal scheme on our university and to protect our admissions processes in the future.

The FBI investigation has revealed that a Yale coach gave bogus athletic endorsements to two students, one of whom was admitted to Yale College. (For more information, please see this FAQ.) When applicants sign their applications, they attest that the contents are true and complete. Although I do not comment on specific disciplinary actions taken with respect to an individual student, our longstanding policy is to rescind the admission of students who falsified their Yale College applications.

The ongoing federal investigation has publicized wrongdoing by one Yale coach who participated in this scheme; however, I have decided that we must conduct our own searching review in order to learn whether others have been involved in activities that have corrupted the athletic recruitment and admissions process. We will retain external advisors to assist us. They will be asked to recommend changes that will help us detect and prevent efforts to defraud our admissions process. As part of this review, we will specifically examine the practices of commercial admissions consultants, whose work is conducted out of the view of admissions officers.

Since her arrival on July 1, 2018, and before we knew of the federal investigation or its findings, Director of Athletics Victoria Chun independently had begun to put in place new policies and procedures regarding the oversight and assessment of our coaching staff. The goals of her initiatives are to ensure that student-athletes receive an excellent education at Yale and to enhance the quality of our athletic programs. In addition, going forward, Ms. Chun will conduct a review of coaches’ proposed rosters of recruits before they are sent to the admissions office, and situations in which a recruited athlete fails to make a team will receive close scrutiny. These measures will help prevent opportunities for undermining the fairness and integrity of the Yale College admissions process.

Ms. Chun is working with Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeremiah Quinlan to implement a code of conduct for athletic recruitment. They also will design even more robust training for all coaches to ensure they understand our recruitment procedures and the ethical expectations involved in supporting student-athletes in our admissions process.

Athletics is part of the educational mission of Yale College. Under the Ivy League model, those who play on our varsity teams are student-athletes, and “student” comes first. Our sports teams engender pride among our whole community, and I have often said that we bask in their reflected glory, bringing the Yale College community closer together. The athletics program, including the varsity teams, is also an important part of the Yale College educational experience; students better themselves by playing their sport. They learn self-discipline, how to work as part of a team, how to subordinate individual ambition to a group accomplishment, and how to be resilient in the face of failure. These skills are important in every area of life, including academics.

As we proceed with these first steps, we may find that more actions are necessary. I will not spare our university any scrutiny that will help us to be better and bolster the integrity of our community. 

Sincerely,

Peter Salovey
President
Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology

Agree. Very well written and seems to right on the mark. Boola boola. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Below, if you're interested, is Yale's president's statement sent out today. They plan to look more broadly at the practices of commercial admissions consultants. He also addresses the value of athletics to the Yale community as a whole and to the student-athletes in particular. It's a well-written statement. (the contrast with USC's "we're the victims" statement is evident)


To the Yale Community,

I am writing about the actions I have taken in the wake of revelations regarding an ongoing FBI investigation into an admissions fraud scheme that targeted universities nationwide, including Yale. Dozens of people have been charged with federal crimes. These individuals allegedly bribed athletic coaches and standardized testing officials, or accepted the bribes, to deceive the admissions offices of universities. These dishonest and criminal actions are an affront to our community’s deeply held values of fairness, inclusion, and honesty. I am therefore initiating a number of actions to make sure we understand the full impact of this criminal scheme on our university and to protect our admissions processes in the future.

The FBI investigation has revealed that a Yale coach gave bogus athletic endorsements to two students, one of whom was admitted to Yale College. (For more information, please see this FAQ.) When applicants sign their applications, they attest that the contents are true and complete. Although I do not comment on specific disciplinary actions taken with respect to an individual student, our longstanding policy is to rescind the admission of students who falsified their Yale College applications.

The ongoing federal investigation has publicized wrongdoing by one Yale coach who participated in this scheme; however, I have decided that we must conduct our own searching review in order to learn whether others have been involved in activities that have corrupted the athletic recruitment and admissions process. We will retain external advisors to assist us. They will be asked to recommend changes that will help us detect and prevent efforts to defraud our admissions process. As part of this review, we will specifically examine the practices of commercial admissions consultants, whose work is conducted out of the view of admissions officers.

Since her arrival on July 1, 2018, and before we knew of the federal investigation or its findings, Director of Athletics Victoria Chun independently had begun to put in place new policies and procedures regarding the oversight and assessment of our coaching staff. The goals of her initiatives are to ensure that student-athletes receive an excellent education at Yale and to enhance the quality of our athletic programs. In addition, going forward, Ms. Chun will conduct a review of coaches’ proposed rosters of recruits before they are sent to the admissions office, and situations in which a recruited athlete fails to make a team will receive close scrutiny. These measures will help prevent opportunities for undermining the fairness and integrity of the Yale College admissions process.

Ms. Chun is working with Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Jeremiah Quinlan to implement a code of conduct for athletic recruitment. They also will design even more robust training for all coaches to ensure they understand our recruitment procedures and the ethical expectations involved in supporting student-athletes in our admissions process.

Athletics is part of the educational mission of Yale College. Under the Ivy League model, those who play on our varsity teams are student-athletes, and “student” comes first. Our sports teams engender pride among our whole community, and I have often said that we bask in their reflected glory, bringing the Yale College community closer together. The athletics program, including the varsity teams, is also an important part of the Yale College educational experience; students better themselves by playing their sport. They learn self-discipline, how to work as part of a team, how to subordinate individual ambition to a group accomplishment, and how to be resilient in the face of failure. These skills are important in every area of life, including academics.

As we proceed with these first steps, we may find that more actions are necessary. I will not spare our university any scrutiny that will help us to be better and bolster the integrity of our community. 

Sincerely,

Peter Salovey
President
Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology

Agree. Very well written and seems to right on the mark. Boola boola. . . .

[GK3]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

In the case in question from Colorado, I have to wonder is it the stress of dealing with the test alone that inhibits the person, or is it everything that has a deadline.  If the it is the stress of performing on the test that is the major inhibitor, then that might not inhibit the individual from performing normal legal projects at a high level.

[GK3]

That parents have apparently participated in falsifying disabilities to get their children extra time on standardized testing is abhorrent. Not only because it inflates those students' scores, but also because it leads some people (including some people on this board) to call into question the entire idea of providing additional time to students with certain conditions such as ADHD, and that if kids can't do well in the time allotted, they're not going to succeed in life anyway, so let's just not worry about them. 

I'll admit, I used to be skeptical of ADHD, and parroted common lines that it was overdiagnosed, and most of these kids were probably fine, etc.  And then I had a kid with severe ADHD. He is smart, creative, and a joy to be around, but his brain is different. He has a wiring problem such that he simply cannot focus on certain tasks and bring them to completion in the same timeframe as others. He is highly distractable. That doesn't mean he lacks the intellectual horsepower to answer the questions on the test or to do well at a place like Stanford, or that with further therapy and the greater executive functioning that comes with adulthood he won't be able to better manage his ADHD to minimize its effects on his daily life. But if he's not given the opportunity to show what his brain can do in a modified testing environment, then we're setting kids like him back and putting a ceiling on where they'll be allowed to attend college. 

And sure, there will be work environments that will be better for him than others. He'll have to be mindful of that when he decides on his life's path. But he'll still need a good college degree to work at one of those better environments, too. 

I'm guessing most of us on this board have been blessed with neurotypical minds along with high native intelligence. And that's great for us. But not everyone is like that, and there are some creative, keen minds out there who have the capability to do the work well but for whom the testing environment is an exceedingly high barrier. (One of the smartest thinkers I knew in law school had terrible test anxiety but did wonderfully in all other aspects of law school, but she was not granted any testing accommodations, and her grades suffered to the point that she struggled to get a good job and no longer practices law. She was brilliant; that's a loss for all of us.) That some parents abuse the accommodation system should mean that we crack down on the cheaters, not that we end testing accommodations. In our rush to rightfully condemn those who have cheated the system, let's not lose sight of empathy for those for whom the system was devised.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colorado, and appreciate you sharing your personal journey with us. I may have overstated things a bit in my prior posts, and you're absolutely right when it comes to methods of assessment to test for mastery of the materials, etc. And for certain kinds of accommodations for tests, I think that's spot on.

What frustrates me is that I've had experiences being required to provide extended deadline accommodations (sometimes announced at the last minute, not weeks in advance where we could have planned together) for assignments that are identical to the kinds of work product produced in my field. And the student is entitled to basically turn things in whenever they feel they are ready. I think you're absolutely right that timed, closed book law school tests are a somewhat arbitrary metric to assess ability to be a good lawyer. But if, to take a hypothetical, a law student needs twice as much time for every brief-writing assignment as every other student, and/or can't reliably say when they will be able to turn the assignment in, how is that preparing them for life as an associate who needs to meet rapid deadlines and can't expect 2x time and flexible deadlines on every research project? 

That kind of accommodation is akin to the kind I've found myself in, and why I wonder whether it's counterproductive. My sense is that most law firm partners wouldn't be able to accommodate an associate who needed twice as much time for every research project, because they'd effectively be paying the same for half the output, and unable to assign them to any important cases where meeting rapid client deadlines is crucial. As it is, I've known associates who have been canned simply for being 10% slower/worse. And I guess maybe the problem in some fields is that time management and ability to produce under deadline are the skill that need to be tested for, rather than brilliance, creativity, etc., so accommodations as to that component are the whole ball of wax.

I'm sure there's an ideal point that provides sufficient accommodations without undermining the purpose of the assessment in the first place, but in my case, for the field I'm in, I feel like it may not be serving my students well in the long term. And maybe the real fault here isn't with the idea of accommodations in general, but rather with how my university has implemented them, which is very top-down and without any engagement with the instructor.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective and first-hand experience.

In the case in question from Colorado, I have to wonder is it the stress of dealing with the test alone that inhibits the person, or is it everything that has a deadline.  If the it is the stress of performing on the test that is the major inhibitor, then that might not inhibit the individual from performing normal legal projects at a high level.

[fullmetal]

I do think it's true that you could fill two incoming Stanford classes with highly-qualified students.  That doesn't mean that Student #2n will have as shiny of a resume as Student #1 (assuming you could actually quantify ranks), but #2n's resume would be show more than enough qualification to handle a Stanford academic workload and also show promise of high achievement.  I've seen some extremely qualified high school applicants (via alumni interview process) get rejected, and I've been crushed that such high achievers were denied admission.

You cannot randomize the final pool and tell incoming kids that they were the product of random selection.  Terrible idea.  It means a lot to all of us alumni to think or know that we were selected by admissions to attend on the basis of our qualifications. 

I hope the Stanford sailing team continues its successful ways -- losing a head coach means losing administrative knowledge, connections within the sailing world, and a whole host of institutional responsibilities that now need to be distributed among the assistant coaches.  The program must be resilient.

Admissions probably relies on athletics coaches to vet each recruit's athletic bonafides.  To remove that trust is to put a larger burden on the admissions office...which might be necessary now.

[fullmetal]

I do think it's true that you could fill two incoming Stanford classes with highly-qualified students.  That doesn't mean that Student #2n will have as shiny of a resume as Student #1 (assuming you could actually quantify ranks), but #2n's resume would be show more than enough qualification to handle a Stanford academic workload and also show promise of high achievement.  I've seen some extremely qualified high school applicants (via alumni interview process) get rejected, and I've been crushed that such high achievers were denied admission.

You cannot randomize the final pool and tell incoming kids that they were the product of random selection.  Terrible idea.  It means a lot to all of us alumni to think or know that we were selected by admissions to attend on the basis of our qualifications. 

I hope the Stanford sailing team continues its successful ways -- losing a head coach means losing administrative knowledge, connections within the sailing world, and a whole host of institutional responsibilities that now need to be distributed among the assistant coaches.  The program must be resilient.

Admissions probably relies on athletics coaches to vet each recruit's athletic bonafides.  To remove that trust is to put a larger burden on the admissions office...which might be necessary now.

[M T]

Admissions probably relies on athletics coaches to vet each recruit's athletic bonafides.  To remove that trust is to put a larger burden on the admissions office...which might be necessary now.

I expect many sports have lists that rank athletes, either in their high school class, or as part of a larger group.   I can easily find out where, say, my grand-niece ranks in swimming.   The college coaches can work together as a group and create such a list.  As a public list, there'd be little chance to blatantly cheat to add a non-participant as a ranked athlete.  The NCAA could even support this effort, in order to avoid these scandals.   That would minimize work by the admissions office.

However, foreign athletes would be problematic.  How would the admissions office know whether a person from Yugoslavia was a good water polo player?     I suppose the NCAA could require that all (including) athletes considered for athletic scholarships be put on a public list.

Maybe it is the candidates who put themselves on this list, publicly for all to see.

Then you're left with sports that aren't NCAA sports.   And what about walk-ons?

[M T]

Admissions probably relies on athletics coaches to vet each recruit's athletic bonafides.  To remove that trust is to put a larger burden on the admissions office...which might be necessary now.

I expect many sports have lists that rank athletes, either in their high school class, or as part of a larger group.   I can easily find out where, say, my grand-niece ranks in swimming.   The college coaches can work together as a group and create such a list.  As a public list, there'd be little chance to blatantly cheat to add a non-participant as a ranked athlete.  The NCAA could even support this effort, in order to avoid these scandals.   That would minimize work by the admissions office.

However, foreign athletes would be problematic.  How would the admissions office know whether a person from Yugoslavia was a good water polo player?     I suppose the NCAA could require that all (including) athletes considered for athletic scholarships be put on a public list.

Maybe it is the candidates who put themselves on this list, publicly for all to see.

Then you're left with sports that aren't NCAA sports.   And what about walk-ons?

[Snorlax94]

As for the idea of randomly selecting admits from the pool of qualified candidates, I couldn’t help chuckling in my mind and mentally calling it the Thanos Proposal — randomly selecting a chosen few and wiping out the rest. But I like the motivation behind it — admissions can feel arbitrary and unfair, and it can feel impossible for people who weren’t admitted to prove their abilities and get deserved career opportunities. I think a partial solution may exist in the software field — certifications. Any time in your career you can learn and prove mastery in high demand specialized subjects. If more people could prove their merits throughout their career in more fields, it could help take the stakes off of college admissions.

[Snorlax94]

As for the idea of randomly selecting admits from the pool of qualified candidates, I couldn’t help chuckling in my mind and mentally calling it the Thanos Proposal — randomly selecting a chosen few and wiping out the rest. But I like the motivation behind it — admissions can feel arbitrary and unfair, and it can feel impossible for people who weren’t admitted to prove their abilities and get deserved career opportunities. I think a partial solution may exist in the software field — certifications. Any time in your career you can learn and prove mastery in high demand specialized subjects. If more people could prove their merits throughout their career in more fields, it could help take the stakes off of college admissions.

[qwerty49]

Time for a collegiate draft.  'Bama and Clemson are gonna love the 117th and 118th football picks.

[qwerty49]

Time for a collegiate draft.  'Bama and Clemson are gonna love the 117th and 118th football picks.

[fullmetal]

I think a partial solution may exist in the software field — certifications.

Part of the appeal of top tier university alumni is that there's a perception that such alumni are quick, critical thinkers and quick learners.  One might also assume that such alumni are good communicators, high achievers, and insightful.  A lot of that comes from having a well-rounded life and education experience.

[fullmetal]

I think a partial solution may exist in the software field — certifications.

Part of the appeal of top tier university alumni is that there's a perception that such alumni are quick, critical thinkers and quick learners.  One might also assume that such alumni are good communicators, high achievers, and insightful.  A lot of that comes from having a well-rounded life and education experience.