College Admissions Cheating Racket

[Dill]

(03-13-2019, 08:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do you mean to tell me that wealthy kids have advantages that I don't, and that their not subject to being scrutinized upon the same standards as I?  

Should they have advantages that you don't, when it comes to access to higher education?

[Benton]

(03-13-2019, 03:04 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with most of this. Though if I were hiring a lawyer though, especially for a law firm, I would expect a better product from Yale than most other schools in the lower three quartiles, if only because the get the cream to work with in the first place, and then expose them to first rate professors.

The articles, I think, connect wealth to governance via access to elite schools. That is not the only route, of course, the most direct being to simply pay lobbyists and contribute to campaigns.  When it comes to distributing ambassadorships--both sides do it.

All people don't buy the "rich=smart" equation. But certainly enough did in the last election to make it a serious problem. 
I wonder if there is any other country on earth where the rich are so admired by the not-so-rich.

I agree with that as a general idea from the last couple centuries. But today, I think, we just flaunt it out there that if you're wealthy, you're better and therefore you should be in charge. From the Kardashian mindset to the elevation of guys like Trump, we don't really care how you got rich and famous, only that you are. And if you are, then you should continue to be elevated because you "got yours" and we expect to "get ours" whenever we get there.

And there's the flaw. The American dream is that we all get there. Except we don't teach about generational poverty and how difficult it is to escape and ... more importantly... how to escape.

[Dill]

(03-13-2019, 03:31 PM)Benton Wrote: I agree with that as a general idea from the last couple centuries. But today, I think, we just flaunt it out there that if you're wealthy, you're better and therefore you should be in charge. From the Kardashian mindset to the elevation of guys like Trump, we don't really care how you got rich and famous, only that you are. And if you are, then you should continue to be elevated because you "got yours" and we expect to "get ours" whenever we get there.

And there's the flaw. The American dream is that we all get there. Except we don't teach about generational poverty and how difficult it is to escape and ... more importantly... how to escape.

LOL the only episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians that I watched revolved around two events:

1) Kim, in Hollywood, wanted to take friends to Louisiana to treat them to Cajun food, so she flew a group down there to a restaurant.

2) There is a hotel in Paris that makes THE BEST cheesecake, so she flew there to have some.  She was pregnant so this was treated as a craving. (Still, that is a 13 hr flight at least, so she was somewhat inconvenienced by distance.)

These events were sandwiched between the most ordinary discussions of breaking relationships and fashion sense. Middle school level.

Does this ever raise the question in viewers' minds--what do I do with wealth once I have it?  Is existence more meaningful once I can fly to Paris for a snack? Maybe it is absence of meaning, or of any ability to frame life in meaningful terms, that makes wealth for its own sake a default goal and symbol of "achievement."  

[Benton]

(03-13-2019, 03:44 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL the only episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians that I watched revolved around two events:

1) Kim, in Hollywood, wanted to take friends to Louisiana to treat them to Cajun food, so she flew a group down there to a restaurant.

2) There is a hotel in Paris that makes THE BEST cheesecake, so she flew there to have some.  She was pregnant so this was treated as a craving. (Still, that is a 13 hr flight at least, so she was somewhat inconvenienced by distance.)

These events were sandwiched between the most ordinary discussions of breaking relationships and fashion sense. Middle school level.

Does this ever raise the question in viewers' minds--what do I do with wealth once I have it?  Is existence more meaningful once I can fly to Paris for a snack? Maybe it is absence of meaning, or of any ability to frame life in meaningful terms, that makes wealth for its own sake a default goal and symbol of "achievement."  

We've devolved into a highlight society. We don't really focus on the details, we just think about the snapshots.

I do a lot of sports photography for work. People always talk about a shot in particular or ask for tips on how to get so many good ones. But the truth is, it's just the highlights. I've got a decent camera and a huge memory card. Out of 300 shots, I get maybe 10 good ones and 3-5 print worthy ones. But people don't see the 297 discarded photos, they only want to know how they can get more like the three.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2019, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't tell you how pleased this string of arrests makes me.  I consistently point out to people that Hollywood celebrities lecturing people about morality is like OJ being a domestic violence counselor. 

I thought this scandal involved a lot of different rich people and not just Hollywood celebrities.

In fact I believe that Hollywood celebrities only make up a small percentage of the people charged.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2019, 08:44 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So, like...in all honesty...did people think rich people DIDN'T do something like this to get their kids into schools that they wouldn't normally qualify for?

You would be amazed at the number of people who post here that claim everyone has equal opportunity in the United States and that poor people are just lazy and jealous of the rich who work so hard for their money.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2019, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought this scandal involved a lot of different rich people and not just Hollywood celebrities.

In fact I believe that Hollywood celebrities only make up a small percentage of the people charged.

Cool.  My point still stands.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2019, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool.  My point still stands.

No, I don't think so.

Just want to remind you that some of the people involved in this scandal were white males, so any judgement you want to pass on Hollywood stars because of this also has to be applied equally to white males.

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2019, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, I don't think so.

Just want to remind you that some of the people involved in this scandal were white males, so any judgement you want to pass on Hollywood stars because of this also has to be applied equally to white males.

Is it your assertion that white males cannot be Hollywood stars?

[Dill]

(03-13-2019, 12:08 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: "Rich folk cheat to get their kids in better schools." - Pretty much a non-story, IMO. The only reason this is in the news is because they did not take the traditional and accepted route of just buying a new building for a school in exchange for admission. Instead, they went through the testing services. Next year, the testing services will probably have 100 times as many offers to do this now that people realize this could happen for their kids.

Ain't that America. Wealth privilege, which is acceptable because the goal in this country is to envy and try to achieve wealth. If you are not trying to attain that goal, then you are a communist, socialist, subversive terrorist. The continuing bifurcation of society into 'haves' and 'have nots' is appropriate, because our society tells us it is. So wave the dam flag and shut the hell up about it.

Not all rich people can afford to buy buildings.  For low end millionaires, I'll bet 15-20,000 in test bribes is quite a bit to shell out.  They'll already be on the hook for over a quarter mill for four years of tuition and board at an elite private school. If you live in CA or MI, better to angle for Berkeley or Michigan, where the cost of elite education is socialized. In those places 4 years of tuition = 1 year at Yale or Stanford or Harvard.

But they are soooo selective.

[Dill]

(03-13-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: fredtoast Wrote: No, I don't think so.

Just want to remind you that some of the people involved in this scandal were white males, so any judgement you want to pass on Hollywood stars because of this also has to be applied equally to white males.

Is it your assertion that white males cannot be Hollywood stars?

I think he was asserting that white males belong to the general category "individuals involved in the scandal." But the term WM remained undistributed, so no exclusion from the subcategory "Hollywood stars."

His point is that judgment passed upon Hollywood stars because they belonged in the scandal category would, without other qualification, apply to all in that category--including white males, stars or not.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-13-2019, 03:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Should they have advantages that you don't, when it comes to access to higher education?

When it comes to access to?  No.  Their only advantage should be in being able to pay cash, rather than having to take out student loans.  I can even accept the principal of nepotism, as in "Four generations of family "X" have upheld a tradition of excellence at "X" University, we see no reason to believe that generation 5 should be any different".  But using direct bribery and going to the lengths of faking identities and such?  That's just a bit too far, even for flexing of one's "wealth privilege".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2019, 06:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, I don't think so.

Yes, I do think so.

Quote:Just want to remind you that some of the people involved in this scandal were white males, so any judgement you want to pass on Hollywood stars because of this also has to be applied equally to white males.

Ahh, you seem to be laboring under the illogical delusion that the group engaging in this activity must be completely homogeneous for anyone to be able to make a point about them.  That seems rather small minded and bigoted of you, Fred.

(03-13-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it your assertion that white males cannot be Hollywood stars?

It would appear so.  Fred must not be well educated on the history of cinema.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2019, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't tell you how pleased this string of arrests makes me.  I consistently point out to people that Hollywood celebrities lecturing people about morality is like OJ being a domestic violence counselor.

Like when a reality television star who rawdogged a porn star right after his third wife had a baby signs bibles for people?

Or isn't he enough of a celebrity?

(03-13-2019, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As far as consequences go, I think they'll be far more serious than some of you seem to think.  If the information I've heard is accurate one of the issues was that the payments were made to a charitable foundation, hence they were tax deductible.  If that's the case then everyone is looking at tax fraud in addition to anything else connected to this scam.  If true then I hope some people are going to get custodial sentences. 

DJT created his own (fake) university with his own name on it and ripped people off and got a fine and pay pay "some" of their money back.

I mean I'd LIKE to see them face some serious consequences but since when has that seriously happened to a rich person? Manafort had a judge say he lead an "otherwise blameless life" when sentencing him.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it your assertion that white males cannot be Hollywood stars?

Probably not (I'm not Fred so I can't say for sure) but couldn't it be that white men and white women are more likely to do this rather than just "hollywood celebrities"?  Or rich people?

Maybe SSF was just using "hollywood elites" to imply "liberals"?  I mean I know he's just conservative for where he lives in the country so maybe he just doesn't like Californian rich people?

Maybe....

[Bengalzona]

(03-13-2019, 07:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Not all rich people can afford to buy buildings.  For low end millionaires, I'll bet 15-20,000 in test bribes is quite a bit to shell out.  They'll already be on the hook for over a quarter mill for four years of tuition and board at an elite private school. If you live in CA or MI, better to angle for Berkeley or Michigan, where the cost of elite education is socialized. In those places 4 years of tuition = 1 year at Yale or Stanford or Harvard.

But they are soooo selective.

One of the women indicted claimed they "had" to do it so that her kid wouldn't end up at a school "like ASU".

She's an asshat.

[Beaker]

(03-13-2019, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You would be amazed at the number of people who post here that claim everyone has equal opportunity in the United States and that poor people are just lazy and jealous of the rich who work so hard for their money.

I know a guy who paid someone $300 to take the SAT for his kid. So you're right fred, they are taken advantage of just because they had more money. They should have had the equal opportunity to pay $300 just like the middle class people. They were forced to pay exorbitantly more for the same service simply because they were rich. That's not fair.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2019, 10:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like when a reality television star who rawdogged a porn star right after his third wife had a baby signs bibles for people?

Or isn't he enough of a celebrity?

Sure.  I think you may be confusing me for someone who's touted Trump as a paragon of morality.  Mayhap you thrash about in anger striking the unintended?

Quote:DJT created his own (fake) university with his own name on it and ripped people off and got a fine and pay pay "some" of their money back.

Wait, is this thread about Donald Trump now?  Maybe Bfine was right, you may not be capable of having a conversation without bringing up Trump.  Remember that comment on whataboutism in your thread earlier this week?  Maybe it wasn't enough about you?

Quote:I mean I'd LIKE to see them face some serious consequences but since when has that seriously happened to a rich person?  Manafort had a judge say he lead an "otherwise blameless life" when sentencing him.

I don't know, seven years in prison sounds like a serious consequence for a first time offender.  I've personally witnessed many people involved in a string of serial burglaries or GBI assault receive less.  I am pleased that we agree that the rich and privileged should receive just punishment for breaking the law.  I guess I just kind of hoped you'd be able to make this a non-partisan issue.  I suppose in this day and age that was too much to ask.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2019, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe SSF was just using "hollywood elites" to imply "liberals"?  I mean I know he's just conservative for where he lives in the country so maybe he just doesn't like Californian rich people?

Nope, I'm generally a person who says what they mean.  Seeing as I have several friends who would be considered "California rich people" I must state that your postulation is entirely inaccurate.

Quote:Maybe....

Nah, no maybe, just a hard no.

[fredtoast]

(03-13-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it your assertion that white males cannot be Hollywood stars?

No.  Not at all. Let me make it simple enough for you to understand. 

SSF was passing harsh judgment on an entire group of people based on some of them being involved in this scandal.  So I was merely pointing out that his harsh judgement would also apply to white makes like himself because some of the people involved were white males.

Get it now?