Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 294 posts

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#101

Post by munk-a »

manfredo wrote: post #65
munk-a wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think building purchasing should even be allowed, remove all of the slippery slope and put students on equal footing.

One one hand, donating to improve the chances of one's kid getting admitted is kind of scummy. On the other hand, the immense amount of money that gets donated is why elite schools are able to give very generous financial aid. Stanford doesn't even charge tuition if parents make less than $125,000 per year. On principle I'm adverse to wealthy people buying opportunities, but if buying opportunities creates more of th…

If the school would benefit from that building why should it be dependent on a rich kid needing to get in to secure that funding?

If that rich family didn't end up having a kid that needed to get into that school then the building would never be built - but the family is certainly able to afford funding the construction of that building. I think that's unfair in it's own way on all parties involved.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#102

Post by HighValuation »

cletus wrote: post #56

Honestly, I really don't understand the motivations for some of these parents. Take Lori Loughlin. $500,000? For USC? For two daughters, one of whom clearly isn't that interested, isn't particularly academic and isn't particularly athletic? Like... why? I can understand if someone bribes their kid into, say, Harvard or Yale Law School. There's a career where going to a good school matters. But this? It just makes no…

If you aren’t familiar with the US education system, it’s a school ranked in the top 20 with an 11% acceptance rate, only twice as high as Stanford’s with a body 4x as large. It's a large school with a massively beneficial and incestuous network. Based on LinkedIn numbers, 1 out of 4 people in SV that didn't graduate from Stanford went to USC. Go around talking misinformation about that school in particular and see what wonders it does for your career.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#103

Post by munk-a »

olliej wrote: post #54
munk-a wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think building purchasing should even be allowed, remove all of the slippery slope and put students on equal footing.

You still get the wondrous private institution problem of hereditary entry (which is a great example of something that isn't explicitly racist still resulting in a fundamentally and uncorrectable racist result)

I agree, and I wish this came up more in discussions around this scandal.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#104

Post by WillPostForFood »

dvt wrote: post #68
cletus wrote: post #56

Honestly, I really don't understand the motivations for some of these parents. Take Lori Loughlin. $500,000? For USC? For two daughters, one of whom clearly isn't that interested, isn't particularly academic and isn't particularly athletic? Like... why? I can understand if someone bribes their kid into, say, Harvard or Yale Law School. There's a career where going to a good school matters. But this? It just makes no…

USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast ( especially in Southern California). It's obviously not on the same academic level as UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford/Caltech, but it's still very much an exclusive brand. You don't get it because you don't live here and aren't surrounded by wealthy 16-year olds that yearn to go to USC (often times over UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford). (Disclaimer: I'm a UCLA alum.)

These three are clearly at the same academic level. Way below Stanford and Caltech though.

19: UCLA 22: Berkeley (tie) 22: USC (tie)

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#105

Post by tlrobinson »

chaostheory wrote: post #71
darawk wrote: post #57

The actual problem here is not the bribery. The problem is that those bribes are being captured by random 3rd parties, rather than by the school itself. The correct way to implement college admissions is this: Charge a sliding scale fee based on application quality, and then use the excess revenue generated to subsidize poor kids tuition. Your kid has a 2.5 GPA and wants to go to Harvard? Great, that'll be a million…

I feel that your idea is already reality. It's just not official. The issue is that the people caught up in this scandal aren't wealthy enough to fund a building or even a building wing, or they would just go through the more acceptable route.

William Rick Singer, the guy at the center of this, said exactly that:

"There is a front door which means you get in on your own. The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in"

(unfortunately for him, he said it on a wiretapped phone call...)

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#106

Post by electricslpnsld »

dvt wrote: post #68
cletus wrote: post #56

Honestly, I really don't understand the motivations for some of these parents. Take Lori Loughlin. $500,000? For USC? For two daughters, one of whom clearly isn't that interested, isn't particularly academic and isn't particularly athletic? Like... why? I can understand if someone bribes their kid into, say, Harvard or Yale Law School. There's a career where going to a good school matters. But this? It just makes no…

USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast ( especially in Southern California). It's obviously not on the same academic level as UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford/Caltech, but it's still very much an exclusive brand. You don't get it because you don't live here and aren't surrounded by wealthy 16-year olds that yearn to go to USC (often times over UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford). (Disclaimer: I'm a UCLA alum.)

> USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast (especially in Southern California). > it's still very much an exclusive brand

I would say weirdly exclusively in Southern California. I can’t think of a school with more regional status and less national status than USC. Maybe some of the bespoke NYC schools? Hell, I’ve worked with folks in Oregon and Washington who have thrown out resumes because they went to USC.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#107

Post by dvt »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #104
dvt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast ( especially in Southern California). It's obviously not on the same academic level as UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford/Caltech, but it's still very much an exclusive brand. You don't get it because you don't live here and aren't surrounded by wealthy 16-year olds that yearn to go to USC (often times over UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford). (Disclaimer: I'm a UCLA alum.)

These three are clearly at the same academic level. Way below Stanford and Caltech though. 19: UCLA 22: Berkeley (tie) 22: USC (tie) https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...

Just so you know, no one takes USNWR rankings seriously -- it's well-known that public schools are dinged due to lower endowments and higher student counts. To wit, the idea that Berkeley is academically comparable to USC is a joke.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#108

Post by willio58 »

rhegart wrote: post #49

Affirmative action on one side, cheaters on the other. At least a dozen people cheated on the SAT in my school and had the audacity to brag about it. Financial aid if you poor, paid for if you rich. Middle class honest kids hurt the most. Had top 1% scores, no ivies or UCLA for me (got UCB at least) and I’m Asian. My little cousin, same scores and rejected from UCSC 10 years later...much worse now than before

Two people in my high school told me they cheated on the SAT. They got _perfect_ scores and the high school actually bragged about them during graduation. They also happened to live across the street from each other in a relatively large town.

I’ve always wondered what they did to cheat, I wonder if they’d be as open about it now since they’re both graduating at MIT and Harvard soon.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#109

Post by jjeaff »

dvt wrote: post #68
cletus wrote: post #56

Honestly, I really don't understand the motivations for some of these parents. Take Lori Loughlin. $500,000? For USC? For two daughters, one of whom clearly isn't that interested, isn't particularly academic and isn't particularly athletic? Like... why? I can understand if someone bribes their kid into, say, Harvard or Yale Law School. There's a career where going to a good school matters. But this? It just makes no…

USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast ( especially in Southern California). It's obviously not on the same academic level as UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford/Caltech, but it's still very much an exclusive brand. You don't get it because you don't live here and aren't surrounded by wealthy 16-year olds that yearn to go to USC (often times over UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford). (Disclaimer: I'm a UCLA alum.)

And you can't forget that these wealthy parents have the same desire as many parents to keep their children close to them. So USC offers enough prestige while keeping their kids closer. It is also prestigious in that it is hard to get in and very expensive.

Re: L.A.’s Elite on Edge as Prosecutors Pursue More Parents in Admissions Scandal

#110

Post by cycrutchfield »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #104
dvt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USC is definitely a status symbol on the West Coast ( especially in Southern California). It's obviously not on the same academic level as UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford/Caltech, but it's still very much an exclusive brand. You don't get it because you don't live here and aren't surrounded by wealthy 16-year olds that yearn to go to USC (often times over UCLA/Berkeley/Stanford). (Disclaimer: I'm a UCLA alum.)

These three are clearly at the same academic level. Way below Stanford and Caltech though. 19: UCLA 22: Berkeley (tie) 22: USC (tie) https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...

As far as ranking the quality of colleges, USNews is about as garbage as you can get. Anybody with any shred of awareness of what those three schools are would not rank them anywhere near each other.
Post reply on HN