I can tell a lot of you haven't gone through the interview process right out of school in New York.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Totally agree. Basically this whole scandal should have been renamed "Operation USC".

I mean there's something about this that is just so very SC. An ideology that rules are for the little people, a belief on the individual level that for enough money you can buy personal excellence and on the institutional level that you can buy academic standing.

Something (well basically everything) about USC's meteoric climb up the USN&WR rankings has always rubbed me the wrong way. They were clearly gaming the system and everything they did was designed to boost those rankings. Nothing seemed to revolve around advancing science or medicine or the pursuit of learning. If designing a better tennis ball was more prestigious than curing cancer I think they'd take the tennis ball every time.

It's a soulless shell of an institution masquerading as an elite college. And this whole scandal is just the cherry on top of their blight and corruption.

Burn baby burn.

So Hanky is that better?

---

If I didn't love you enough, 100% this.

USC is wrotten to the core. What would be great to have happen is for that USC degree to really get devalued, as in people not hiring people because of it. I might write something about that. Great post Sebasta.

---

They've attracted better students and faculty, but the basic DNA of that school has not changed. They are Slytherin to the core.

socaliganbear said:

---

Based on line 4 of the passage, a fanatic is:
A) an enthusiastic supporter
B) a field of science
C) an appliance
D) a type of furniture

---

Answer; E) a BI poster

Btw while no one employed by Cal was involved with this scandal, one student with fraudulent test scores did make it in. Of course, that's 100% out of our control.

Now, will they be expelled?

socaliganbear said:

---

Btw while no one employed by Cal was involved with this scandal, one student with fraudulent test scores did make it in. Of course, that's 100% out of our control.

Now, will they be expelled?

---

Can we just focus on and mock the institutional and pervasive corruption at SC and Stanford without having to search to find the glass houses argument??? Is that honesty asking too much?

TheFiatLux said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Btw while no one employed by Cal was involved with this scandal, one student with fraudulent test scores did make it in. Of course, that's 100% out of our control.

Now, will they be expelled?

---

Can we just focus on and mock the institutional and pervasive corruption at SC and Stanford without having to search to find the glass houses argument??? Is that honesty asking too much?

---

Settle down.

socaliganbear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Btw while no one employed by Cal was involved with this scandal, one student with fraudulent test scores did make it in. Of course, that's 100% out of our control.

Now, will they be expelled?

---

Can we just focus on and mock the institutional and pervasive corruption at SC and Stanford without having to search to find the glass houses argument??? Is that honesty asking too much?

---

Settle down.

---

NEVER!

Local press rips U$C a new one...and yes, the article uses U$C, with the $.

LA Times: Forget incompetence, USC's athletic department is simply corrupt

Other stuff, reading about the SAT/ACT testing operation and the Silicon Valley VC guy, McGasihan and Singer the guy who ran the access scare. Caught on tape there's a discussion how to rig the test. Kid applies for a 2-day testing exemption, which requires a MD letter. Basically the kid can't sit for X hours and needs two days to take the test. Why two days? Then the guy Singer can "control the test center". I'm guessing McGasihan is done. Reports of other kids getting a 400 point bump in score.

71Bear said:

---

I am so disappointed. Cal is no longer considered an elite college. Heck, Cal can't even get celebs to cheat their way into Berkeley.

---

What would be the point of cheating to get admitted if your kid flunks out anyway?

BancroftSteps said:

---

71Bear said:

---

I am so disappointed. Cal is no longer considered an elite college. Heck, Cal can't even get celebs to cheat their way into Berkeley.

---

What would be the point of cheating to get admitted if your kid flunks out anyway?

---

Touche

Another Bear said:

---

Local press rips U$C a new one...and yes, the article uses U$C, with the $.

LA Times: Forget incompetence, USC's athletic department is simply corrupt

Other stuff, reading about the SAT/ACT testing operation and the Silicon Valley VC guy, McGasihan and Singer the guy who ran the access scare. Caught on tape there's a discussion how to rig the test. Kid applies for a 2-day testing exemption, which requires a MD letter. Basically the kid can't sit for X hours and needs two days to take the test. Why two days? Then the guy Singer can "control the test center". I'm guessing McGasihan is done. Reports of other kids getting a 400 point bump in score.

---

That was delicious.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/How-the-alleged-college-admissions-bribery-worked-13682904.php

The Chron dings LSJU......

socaliganbear said:

---

Btw while no one employed by Cal was involved with this scandal, one student with fraudulent test scores did make it in. Of course, that's 100% out of our control.

Now, will they be expelled?

---

The Sidoo allegations are hilarious. For the older kid, the ringer was told not to do too well, because the kid had already taken the SAT and scored 1460. The ringer got a 1670 and the kid ended up at Chapman.

The younger brother had not previously taken the SAT, so the ringer had free reign. The ringer scores a 2280 and the kid ends up at Cal.

The ringer was paid $100k for each kid.

Sebastabear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Totally agree. Basically this whole scandal should have been renamed "Operation USC".

I mean there's something about this that is just so very SC. An ideology that rules are for the little people, a belief on the individual level that for enough money you can buy personal excellence and on the institutional level that you can buy academic standing.

Something (well basically everything) about USC's meteoric climb up the USN&WR rankings has always rubbed me the wrong way. They were clearly gaming the system and everything they did was designed to boost those rankings. Nothing seemed to revolve around advancing science or medicine or the pursuit of learning. If designing a better tennis ball was more prestigious than curing cancer I think they'd take the tennis ball every time.

It's a soulless shell of an institution masquerading as an elite college. And this whole scandal is just the cherry on top of their blight and corruption.

Burn baby burn.

So Hanky is that better?

---

Then your granddaughter will tell you some time in the future that she wants to go to SC and be in a sorority, and we will be forced to attend your funeral. Happens every freaking year to someone we know down here in SoCal.

---

I'm not sure you are really fully embracing the theme here WIAF.

---

That's not fair. I fully embrace any jokes made at the expense of USC or anyone who named their daughter Jade.

Rushinbear said:

---

NVGolfingBear said:

---

Just out of curiosity, what are the tax consequences from all these donations being made to the non-profit foundations, payments to coaches and administrators... are these donations being reported to the IRS, either as donations to 501 c(3) or as income to the recipients.

This could go on for years...

---

Bingo! IRS involved.

---

Being somewhat repetitive so everyone gets my next paragraph. The money from parents often was paid to a charitable foundation, that then paid the coach or other school representative (look at the specifics of the Frud sailing coach). The parent then deducted the payments to a sham charitable foundation. This is the kinds of stuff that gets you many years in a non-Club Fed prison. Remember the old saying about pigs being slaughtered?



My sense is that the indictment having mostly just conspiracy charges is an attempt to undercharge the parents so that hey plead guilty and implicate others, with the threat of adding the tax charges if they don't.

socaliganbear said:

---

I can tell a lot of you haven't gone through the interview process right out of school in New York.

---

But NY isn't the rest of America.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

I can tell a lot of you haven't gone through the interview process right out of school in New York.

---

But NY isn't the rest of America.

---

And I never said it was.

Mercury News names local names...

Which rich Bay Area parents paid to grease their kids' entry to elite colleges?

Wacky detail pulled from article: The rigged SAT testing center was in West Hollywood, so these Bay Area kids would travel to take the rigged tests there. They had to figure out something was up, having to travel to SoCal for testing.

01Bear

Quote:

---

Actually, no. Test prep tutors/companies do not focus on teaching the material tested on the SAT/ACT as much as they teach how to find the right answers to the questions on the tests. It's a fine distinction, but it's significant.

Teaching the material on the test would be more in line with what you're suggesting: learning the actual material.

Teaching how to find the right answers teaches a different skillset.

For instance, a question asking a student to sefine the term "fanatic" is supposed to determine whether the test-taker knows what the term "fanatic" means in a given context. But if the student doesn't know what it means, but knows how to eliminate the possible wrong answer choices, he can still arrive at the right answer as follows:

Hypothetical question:
Based on line 4 of the passage, a fanatic is:
A) an enthusiastic supporter
B) a field of science
C) an appliance
D) a type of furniture

Given that the answers in C and D are almost interchangeable, the right answer is likely neither C nor D.

If the passage has nothing to do with science, then B would be a non sequitor. This would eliminate it as the right answer.

Test-taking skills, such as the foregoing, are what is taught by test prep schools/tutors. The definition of words is less relevant, (though vocabulary lists are often handed out for memorization, anyway).

---

For what it's worth, I think the example you gave is an example of critical thinking and problem solving skills which is a valid thing for an aptitude test to try to gauge and a valid thing for colleges to value. I don't see anything wrong in teaching or better preparing kids by empowering them with better critical thinking and analytical abilities. That is real-world preparation that's of value.

Wow, some of the stuff reported is crazy. The craziest stuff I read is regarding the test rigging.

A) one way to insure the test can be fixed is a kid applies for a 2-day test exemption, because they can't sit for that long. Requires MD note. This allows the test proctor to "fix" things.

B) The rigged test center is located in West Hollywood. Kids in the Bay Area traveled 300 miles to take a test...because it could fix tests.

C) People who took exams for kids, charged as much as $100k per test.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Totally agree. Basically this whole scandal should have been renamed "Operation USC".

I mean there's something about this that is just so very SC. An ideology that rules are for the little people, a belief on the individual level that for enough money you can buy personal excellence and on the institutional level that you can buy academic standing.

Something (well basically everything) about USC's meteoric climb up the USN&WR rankings has always rubbed me the wrong way. They were clearly gaming the system and everything they did was designed to boost those rankings. Nothing seemed to revolve around advancing science or medicine or the pursuit of learning. If designing a better tennis ball was more prestigious than curing cancer I think they'd take the tennis ball every time.

It's a soulless shell of an institution masquerading as an elite college. And this whole scandal is just the cherry on top of their blight and corruption.

Burn baby burn.

So Hanky is that better?

---

If I didn't love you enough, 100% this.

USC is wrotten to the core. What would be great to have happen is for that USC degree to really get devalued, as in people not hiring people because of it. I might write something about that. Great post Sebasta.

---

Back at ya baby. We definitely need less discussion of class bias, objective merits or standardized testing, etc. and more making fun of USC (with occasional shots at Taco-Bell U) in this thread. But I'm really loving all of the SC shade being thrown around. And to think these guys have been whining for a decade about how their controls are fine and they were "victimized" by the NCAA over the Reggie Bush saga. Child please. If anything Bush was the tip of the iceberg.

Another Bear said:

---

Wow, some of the stuff reported is crazy. The craziest stuff I read is regarding the test rigging.

A) one way to insure the test can be fixed is a kid applies for a 2-day test exemption, because they can't sit for that long. Requires MD note. This allows the test proctor to "fix" things.

B) The rigged test center is located in West Hollywood. Kids in the Bay Area traveled 300 miles to take a test...because it could fix tests.

C) People who took exams for kids, charged as much as $100k per test.

---

Re B, I believe Singer also rigged a test center in Houston. So his clients' kids would take the exam in Houston or West Hollywood.

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

01Bear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

01Bear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

I'm unclear as to why something like affirmative action would solve for this problem? Don't all these private schools mentioned like Furd and SC already practice a form of affirmative action?

---

What kind of affirmative action would that be? Lowered admission standards for the kids of the rich and powerful, especially the offspring of alumni (who are overwhelmingly white)?

---

There's obviously legacy bias, but they also are permitted to consider things like race in their admissions process as they aren't state schools, no? Isn't that what people who want to overturn Prop 209 want? To allow public schools to do the same kind of admissions review and consideration?

---

While consideration of race in admissions would be necessary, it's not sufficient to establish affirmative action. In other words, just because private achools may consider an applicant's race, that does not mean the school practices affirmative action. If anything, it appears that at many selective private universities, race is used as a barrier for applicants of certain races. Hence the lawsuits ginned up by the likes of Edward Blum designed to pit people of color against one another, while maintaining the systemic "imbalance" in the system that allows less qualified white kids into the selective schools.

---

I'm now genuinely curious how you would define affirmative action for schools if you had full control.You say that race (and let's include socioeconomic as well since I think you mention that later in the thread) would be considered in application. Assuming that's the baseline which you think is insufficient, what more is needed? I'm having a hard time imagining any more than just quotas straight up that schools would meet. If that's the case, what is the optimum #s that you think schools would strive for? And of course, if you're thinking of another system altogether than quotas then I'd like to hear it.

Another Bear said:

---

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

---

Yeah. But is that much better than the test cheating, athlete lies, and blatant bribery? It's a fine line.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

---

Yeah. But is that much better than the test cheating, athlete lies, and blatant bribery? It's a fine line.

---

At least it's above board and legal.

In any case, yes America has some odd and shady traditions, like lobbying which is basically legalized and institutionalized bribery.

Another Bear said:

---

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

---

Honestly that's the piece of this I'm struggling with. I mean Bill McGlashin has more money than God. Why would he (and these others) not just bribe the schools the old fashioned way?

Only possible explanations are:

(i) parents were cheap (seems possible, but less likely),

(ii) kids test scores were so far out of whack that even a big donation to the school couldn't have crossed the threshold (possible for some, but honestly at some of these schools, SC in particular, I'm pretty sure it's just a question of the Benjamins. To quote Dean Martin from "Back to School": "Phil, in Mr. Melon's defense it was a really big check."), or

(iii) the parents started off with thinking this was legitimate college counselling and started taking incremental steps that led them from pushing the envelope, to fraud, to criminality. I know some parents who met with this college counselor in Palo Alto who was at the heart of this operation. Apparently he kept saying stuff to them like "So you really want USC? Is that your top choice? Because I have connections and can make that happen." They got creeped out and walked away, but maybe others thought they were just dealing with a guy with "connections" and played along until they wound up on the front page of the New York Times (and not in a good way). I mean these people live their lives using their connections and they just thought this was another one.

Now please don't jump on me for saying I'm justifying this behavior. I am not. I'm just trying to understand how very wealthy, very accomplished people could do something this ridiculously stupid and unethical.

Sebastabear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

---

Honestly that's the piece of this I'm struggling with. I mean Bill McGlashin has more money than God. Why would he (and these others) not just bribe the schools the old fashioned way?

Only possible explanations are:

(i) parents were cheap (seems possible, but less likely),

(ii) kids test scores were so far out of whack that even a big donation to the school couldn't have crossed the threshold (possible for some, but honestly at some of these schools, SC in particular, I'm pretty sure it's just a question of the Benjamins. To quote Dean Martin from "Back to School": "Phil, in Mr. Melon's defense it was a really big check."), or

(iii) the parents started off with thinking this was legitimate college counselling and started taking incremental steps that led them from pushing the envelope, to fraud, to criminality. I know some parents who met with this college counselor in Palo Alto who was at the heart of this operation. Apparently he kept saying stuff to them like "So you really want USC? Is that your top choice? Because I have connections and can make that happen." They got creeped out and walked away, but maybe others thought they were just dealing with a guy with "connections" and played along until they wound up on the front page of the New York Times (and not in a good way). I mean these people live their lives using their connections and they just thought this was another one.

Now please don't jump on me for saying I'm justifying this behavior. I am not. I'm just trying to understand how very wealthy, very accomplished people could do something this ridiculously stupid and unethical.

---

Let me answer this for you with one word because it's textbook. ENTITLEMENT

If you have to pay for someone to literally show up and take your kid's test for them, it's because you've accepted that they're absolute morons and can't even entertain the idea that they might be passable, even with money.

Well, true dat. But that's also at the root of the old fashioned "buy a building for the school" way of handling things. Of course, I think ultimately it all comes back to the same thing: a belief that rules are for little people.

Ok, so this guy is now saying he helped more than 750 families with this scam. There are only about 50 currently charged. This is going to be like the Panama Papers. There have got to be a lot of nervous stomachs in Palo Alto. Wished I owned the Pepto Bismol franchise down here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/college-cheating-mastermind-says-he-helped-nearly-800-families-admissions-n982666

Sebastabear said:

---

Well, true dat. But that's also at the root of the old fashioned "buy a building for the school" way of handling things. Of course, I think ultimately it all comes back to the same thing: a belief that rules are for little people.

---

And they're generally right about the rules.

Sebastabear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

---

Honestly that's the piece of this I'm struggling with. I mean Bill McGlashin has more money than God. Why would he (and these others) not just bribe the schools the old fashioned way?

Only possible explanations are:

(i) parents were cheap (seems possible, but less likely),

(ii) kids test scores were so far out of whack that even a big donation to the school couldn't have crossed the threshold (possible for some, but honestly at some of these schools, SC in particular, I'm pretty sure it's just a question of the Benjamins. To quote Dean Martin from "Back to School": "Phil, in Mr. Melon's defense it was a really big check."), or

(iii) the parents started off with thinking this was legitimate college counselling and started taking incremental steps that led them from pushing the envelope, to fraud, to criminality. I know some parents who met with this college counselor in Palo Alto who was at the heart of this operation. Apparently he kept saying stuff to them like "So you really want USC? Is that your top choice? Because I have connections and can make that happen." They got creeped out and walked away, but maybe others thought they were just dealing with a guy with "connections" and played along until they wound up on the front page of the New York Times (and not in a good way). I mean these people live their lives using their connections and they just thought this was another one.

Now please don't jump on me for saying I'm justifying this behavior. I am not. I'm just trying to understand how very wealthy, very accomplished people could do something this ridiculously stupid and unethical.

---

OMG... I kid you not - i just had some water polo players over on Sunday for dinner and to watch Back to School!! (they loved it!!!). Dean Martin is played PERFECTLY. and oh

"I didn't see a thing.... YOU'RE PERFECT!"

Sebastabear said:

---

Ok, so this guy is now saying he helped more than 750 families with this scam. There are only about 50 currently charged. This is going to be like the Panama Papers. There have got to be a lot of nervous stomachs in Palo Alto. Wished I owned the Pepto Bismol franchise down here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/college-cheating-mastermind-says-he-helped-nearly-800-families-admissions-n982666

---

I am reluctant to get too holier-than-thou until I'm sure Cal doesn't show up in this 750 (and beyond). Have all our PWOs been "for real"? How do we know that? (Less likely for the revenue sports, but what about other sports where the coaches aren't making huge salaries?) There are other campus groups that can have a candidate's application "flagged" for slightly-preferential admissions.

Sebastabear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Another shocker: Aunt Becky and hubby Mossimo are worth an estimated $80m. I have to think U$C would have been very happy to partner with him on some kind of endowment, cross-branding, faculty position or something related to the design school. He gives $2m and his name to something, gets his kids in on the up and up...and their heirs. Instead, looks like prison time...or was he trying to save $$?

---

Honestly that's the piece of this I'm struggling with. I mean Bill McGlashin has more money than God. Why would he (and these others) not just bribe the schools the old fashioned way?

Only possible explanations are:

(i) parents were cheap (seems possible, but less likely),

(ii) kids test scores were so far out of whack that even a big donation to the school couldn't have crossed the threshold (possible for some, but honestly at some of these schools, SC in particular, I'm pretty sure it's just a question of the Benjamins. To quote Dean Martin from "Back to School": "Phil, in Mr. Melon's defense it was a really big check."), or

(iii) the parents started off with thinking this was legitimate college counselling and started taking incremental steps that led them from pushing the envelope, to fraud, to criminality. I know some parents who met with this college counselor in Palo Alto who was at the heart of this operation. Apparently he kept saying stuff to them like "So you really want USC? Is that your top choice? Because I have connections and can make that happen." They got creeped out and walked away, but maybe others thought they were just dealing with a guy with "connections" and played along until they wound up on the front page of the New York Times (and not in a good way). I mean these people live their lives using their connections and they just thought this was another one.

Now please don't jump on me for saying I'm justifying this behavior. I am not. I'm just trying to understand how very wealthy, very accomplished people could do something this ridiculously stupid and unethical.

---

I can see iii, things getting out of hand. I know this is a stereotype but people with so much wealth, people who have personal assistants, can sometimes be persuaded to take the easy/fast solution or let someone else handle things. You know, outsource it to an independent contractor.

Back in the day before USC went "legit" and upped it's academic rep, the common perspective in SoCal was...if you pay full tuition, anyone can get in.

McGlashan, that is a head scratcher...but he paid for someone to take the test for his kids. So that's ii. I assume he's a smart guy who did the calculus and took "appropriate" measures. My guess is he figured he could figure out which school but his kid still needed good scores. A VC guy would understand the need for a baseline standard.

One thing I've noticed with very succussful people. Sometimes they assume their success in one area automatically shifts or transfers over to all areas of life. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes not. When it's not, people look for a fix and given they can afford it, it can happen quick with many people willing to help and take your money...a slippery slope. The dicier part is when this shifts over to "rules don't apply to me".