College Admissions Cheating Racket

[*bfine32*]

(03-14-2019, 12:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

Thanks for making it simple enough for me to understand. 

So white males can be celebrities.

I got it the second you posted it. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2019, 10:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably not (I'm not Fred so I can't say for sure) 

That's when I stopped

[*michaelsean*]

I just got to see a few clips and read a little about Olivia Jade.  Was it worth it, Lori?

[GMDino]

(03-14-2019, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: That's when I stopped

That's a shame. 

I'll have to remember that small response.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2019, 12:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.


Nah, no maybe, just a hard no.

Well then Fred is right you just choose to paint a group with a broad brush and ignore any other group they belong to.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2019, 11:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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}

"Thrash about in anger". You must live in a weird world where a true comment on a message board makes you think that. I was ever "angry" I'd be sure to let you know. That's too funny.




[quote='Sociopathicsteelerfan' pid='691873' dateline='1552532191']
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?

Oooohhhh...you almost had it.

I related the story someone who was rich and a celebrity who also was charged with fraud (though not bribery) involving a college who did not do any time...it was what we lesser people call "an example". "Whataboutism" is not that at all. I didn't use DJT as an EXCUSE for why what they did was good or bad. I used DJT as an EXAMPLE of someone in the same situation and what happened to them.

(03-13-2019, 11:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Seven years for the first time getting caught. I'm not as familiar with the penal codes as I am sure you are but does the sentence matter more about the crime(s) committed or the number of times caught committing the crimes? If I robbed eight banks but only get caught and go through trial once (even though all eight are brought up in the trial) should I get a lighter sentence as a "first time offender"?

Manafort didn't get charged with one count in one instance.

As to the case at hand I suppose if there was another high profile case involving fraud and colleges that popped easily into everyone's mind I could have used that too. But since that one was just two years ago and this IS a political message board it served its purpose.

[BmorePat87]

As someone who proctors SAT's, I can tell you that it would be incredibly easy for a site coordinator to fix scores. They have access to the test ahead of time and access to the completed tests afterwards.

ETS (they run the SAT) should have had red flags going up over a Florida based test coordinator traveling to California to administer a test.

This leads us into the discussion of the for profit education and the push for college. It makes nearly twice as much a year as the NFL. We over test and then we over pay for these shitty tests. Then we tell kids that all that matters at the end is one more final shitty test to get into college.

Of course, for someone like Aunt Becky's shitty kid and her shitty youtube channel, college becomes a necessity to sell herself online. It can't be some basic af state college that will take her shitty scores, it has to be somewhere marketable.

[Belsnickel]

(03-14-2019, 10:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As someone who proctors SAT's, I can tell you that it would be incredibly easy for a site coordinator to fix scores. They have access to the test ahead of time and access to the completed tests afterwards.

ETS (they run the SAT) should have had red flags going up over a Florida based test coordinator traveling to California to administer a test.

This leads us into the discussion of the for profit education and the push for college. It makes nearly twice as much a year as the NFL. We over test and then we over pay for these shitty tests. Then we tell kids that all that matters at the end is one more final shitty test to get into college.

Of course, for someone like Aunt Becky's shitty kid and her shitty youtube channel, college becomes a necessity to sell herself online. It can't be some basic af state college that will take her shitty scores, it has to be somewhere marketable.

There is some hope in this realm, at least, that there will be a trend coming of universities making the ACT/SAT thing optional. University of Chicago made the announcement that they were going that route, last year, and The Chronicle put up an article talking about the potential implications. I don't know how long this trend will take to get solid traction or even if it will, but I think there would be a tremendous benefit in going that route.

We, at JMU, assess the shit out of everything. I mean, between out Office of Institutional Research and our Center for Assessment & Research Studies, we are constantly testing things out in an effort to improve education. I am someone that loves quantifying anything I can because I understand that sort of data better. But even I understand that you the sort of testing that is done by the ACTs/SATs is a poor representation of the what sort of student the person is. The university recognizes these flaws as well and does not require the test scores for admission.

Throw in on top of that fraud risks involved and the inadequate control mechanisms and it really is just sickening. Even more so for public institutions that have a responsibility to the public beyond that of private institutions.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2019, 10:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As someone who proctors SAT's, I can tell you that it would be incredibly easy for a site coordinator to fix scores. They have access to the test ahead of time and access to the completed tests afterwards.

ETS (they run the SAT) should have had red flags going up over a Florida based test coordinator traveling to California to administer a test.

This leads us into the discussion of the for profit education and the push for college. It makes nearly twice as much a year as the NFL. We over test and then we over pay for these shitty tests. Then we tell kids that all that matters at the end is one more final shitty test to get into college.

Of course, for someone like Aunt Becky's shitty kid and her shitty youtube channel, college becomes a necessity to sell herself online. It can't be some basic af state college that will take her shitty scores, it has to be somewhere marketable.

Our daughter didn't go to college.  She got her certificate at the tech school with her high school and got a job.  Our son will go in two years, but he has opted for the local campus to save money on travel and room & board.  But he isn't stressing about it.  He knows he will get the education he needs for his career path.

Long ago I told them both that college isn't for everyone and that a skill can be better.  I also told them they didn't have to be number one in their class and involved to the gills to get into a good college but that I would rather they learned something and tried their best and did things they enjoyed in high school rather than kill themselves over it.  One of the few things they listened to me about!  

That some colleges now(I graduated almost 30 years ago) are this ridiculous to even apply for is sad to me.  I didn't even need my SAT to get in back then.  the school I applied to (I applied to the one school I wanted to go to) only looked at SATs if they have an overload of applicants.  I took it anyway, but even that I didn't go to the training classes and all that crap.  I suppose higher education is just ANOTHER aspect of American society that has gotten out of hand due to the money to be made by some.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-14-2019, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: Our daughter didn't go to college.  She got her certificate at the tech school with her high school and got a job.  Our son will go in two years, but he has opted for the local campus to save money on travel and room & board.  But he isn't stressing about it.  He knows he will get the education he needs for his career path.

Long ago I told them both that college isn't for everyone and that a skill can be better.  I also told them they didn't have to be number one in their class and involved to the gills to get into a good college but that I would rather they learned something and tried their best and did things they enjoyed in high school rather than kill themselves over it.  One of the few things they listened to me about!  

That some colleges now(I graduated almost 30 years ago) are this ridiculous to even apply for is sad to me.  I didn't even need my SAT to get in back then.  the school I applied to (I applied to the one school I wanted to go to) only looked at SATs if they have an overload of applicants.  I took it anyway, but even that I didn't go to the training classes and all that crap.  I suppose higher education is just ANOTHER aspect of American society that has gotten out of hand due to the money to be made by some.

My son is doing some ACT training, but it's basically because that's how a lot of the scholarships/grants are awarded.  We didn't do it with my daughterand she didn't score too well.  But she did graduate cum laude which shows you a little something about the tests.  My son either way will most assuredly score higher, maybe much higher, on the test and will probably not graduate with honors.  A lot of college has to do with the work you put in.  I remember she said she was at the library studying on a Sunday from 9am to 7 pm.  I didn't study that much in a semester.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2019, 08:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well then Fred is right you just choose to paint a group with a broad brush and ignore any other group they belong to.

No, he's not.  I mean, it's not like I couldn't cite numerous other instances of the Hollywood elite behaving in a reprehensible fashion could I?

(03-14-2019, 09:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oooohhhh...you almost had it.

I related the story someone who was rich and a celebrity who also was charged with fraud (though not bribery) involving a college who did not do any time...it was what we lesser people call "an example".  "Whataboutism" is not that at all.  I didn't use DJT as an EXCUSE for why what they did was good or bad.  I used DJT as an EXAMPLE of someone in the same situation and what happened to them.

Yeah, that's called whataboutism.  I guess I did have it.

Quote:Seven years for the first time getting caught.  I'm not as familiar with the penal codes as I am sure you are but does the sentence matter more about the crime(s) committed or the number of times caught committing the crimes?  If I robbed eight banks but only get caught and go through trial once (even though all eight are brought up in the trial) should I get a lighter sentence as a "first time offender"?

 
The number of offenses will matter, but generally, if it's your first time before the court you're going to catch a break.  Of course, there is a tipping point, but it's not strictly defined.  As I said, I've seen numerous instances of a serial burglar, part of a flocking crew" get away with a minimal custodial sentence.  Much less than Manafort's seven years.

Quote:Manafort didn't get charged with one count in one instance.  

Yes, I am obviously aware of that.

Quote:As to the case at hand I suppose if there was another high profile case involving fraud and colleges that popped easily into everyone's mind I could have used that too.  But since that one was just two years ago and this IS a political message board it served its purpose.

If the purpose was to bring up Trump, then sure.  This thread is about rich people bribing their kid's way into college.  Trump University is a comparison only in so far as the word University is used.  It's not a direct, or even a good, comparison.  But it did allow you to bring up Trump, which I'm sure is quite the release.  In any event, maybe you could cease your defense of rich celebrities engaged in bribery and join us all in condemning them?

[fredtoast]

I can't tell you how pleased this string of arrests makes me.  I consistently point out to people that white males lecturing people about morality is like OJ being a domestic violence counselor.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2019, 11:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't tell you how pleased this string of arrests makes me.  I consistently point out to people that white males lecturing people about morality is like OJ being a domestic violence counselor.

Yes, equating an entire race and gender with a negative is quite the same thing as doing so with a micro subset of humanity easily distinguishable from everyone else.  I've never beheld such caustic wit outside of a British comedy.  I do enjoy how you've made a thread about rampant corruption into a defense of the Hollywood elite.  I suppose it's not the message but the messenger, eh Fred?  I'll leave you to continue entertaining yourself. 

[GMDino]

(03-14-2019, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, he's not.  I mean, it's not like I couldn't cite numerous other instances of the Hollywood elite behaving in a reprehensible fashion could I?

Sure you could. You could also assign those reprehensible actions to any other group they belong too: Men, women, americans, rich people, people with brown hair. that just a few of the people involved in this were celebrities and that you assigned your happiness to those few getting caught says more about what you "mean".

(03-14-2019, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, that's called whataboutism.  I guess I did have it.

So much for you saying "I can admit when I'm wrong".


The number of offenses will matter, but generally, if it's your first time before the court you're going to catch a break.  Of course, there is a tipping point, but it's not strictly defined.  As I said, I've seen numerous instances of a serial burglar, part of a flocking crew" get away with a minimal custodial sentence.  Much less than Manafort's seven years.[/quote]

And in the case of Manafort he had a lifetime of "gaming the system" plus he behavior within this trial (according to the judge in this trial) that resulted in his sentencing. Versus the other judge who seemed to think Manafort got caught once doing one thing in an "otherwise blameless life". Don'tcha just hate "activist" judges?

(03-14-2019, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I am obviously aware of that.

(03-14-2019, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If the purpose was to bring up Trump, then sure.  This thread is about rich people bribing their kid's way into college.  Trump University is a comparison only in so far as the word University is used.  It's not a direct, or even a good, comparison.  But it did allow you to bring up Trump, which I'm sure is quite the release.  In any event, maybe you could cease your defense of rich celebrities engaged in bribery and join us all in condemning them?

No, the purpose was to compare rich celebrities that get away with lesser sentences than other people...DJT being a good example that everyone knows about.

Weird that I wasn't "defending" them as much as saying that it happens that rich people get away with more. But I guess you didn't have anything else to argue with me about?

[Millhouse]

(03-13-2019, 11:28 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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.

If she have said Michigan, I would have understood. But I dont know much about ASU, but I'm assuming it's a nice warm weather school with hot chicks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2019, 11:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure you could.  You could also assign those reprehensible actions to any other group they belong too: Men, women, americans, rich people, people with brown hair.  that just a few of the people involved in this were celebrities and that you assigned your happiness to those few getting caught says more about what you "mean".

I suppose you and Fred are having the same difficulty realizing I'm discussing a micro subset of humanity, easily distinguishable from others by choice, not by genetic trait.

Quote:So much for you saying "I can admit when I'm wrong".  

I'd have to be wrong first.

Quote:And in the case of Manafort he had a lifetime of "gaming the system" plus he behavior within this trial (according to the judge in this trial) that resulted in his sentencing.  Versus the other judge who seemed to think Manafort got caught once doing one thing in an "otherwise blameless life".

 
Was he charged with a "lifetime of gaming the system"?

Quote:Don'tcha just hate "activist" judges?  

You often get confused when talking to someone you perceive to be the opposition as you frequently ascribe positions to them that they have not taken.  I have, on numerous occasions, pointed out that judicial discretion is important but that it will, on occasion lead to a sentence you perceive as unjust.  Mandatory minimums have the exact same effect in a different way.  Given the choice I'll err on the side of judicial discretion for the same reason I'd want a bench trial if I was charged with a crime I did not commit.

Quote:No, the purpose was to compare rich celebrities that get away with lesser sentences than other people...DJT being a good example that everyone knows about.

Outstanding, given that wasn't at all what I was talking about I suppose my follow up question would be why you felt the need to make the point in response to me?

Quote:Weird that I wasn't "defending" them as much as saying that it happens that rich people get away with more.  But I guess you didn't have anything else to argue with me about?

I'm not arguing with you about anything, I made a point and you started in with me.  Was my first post in this thread a response to you? No.  I made a point about the general amorality of the Hollywood elite and you felt the need to charge in with a reply about Trump banging a porn star.  You frequently bemoan the tenor of the conversation around here and I've pointed this out before; you're just as much an offender in this regard as anyone.  Given that this conversation has completely gone off topic I will now cease engaging in it.  If you feel the need to get in that last word, please feel free to do so.

[Vas Deferens]

usual predictable back and forth aside...  ^^



I can't help but feel a little giddy when I think about the disappointment, shame and general loss of self-worth washing over all this rich prick kids right about now.  And honestly, I don't care that its a bad look on my part.  Basking in their misfortune right now. 

**** 'em

[*michaelsean*]

(03-14-2019, 12:00 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: usual predictable back and forth aside...  ^^



I can't help but feel a little giddy when I think about the disappointment, shame and general loss of self-worth washing over all this rich prick kids right about now.  And honestly, I don't care that its a bad look on my part.  Basking in their misfortune right now. 

**** 'em

One of the schools was Texas.  "You had to cheat to get into Texas?"

[Benton]

(03-14-2019, 12:00 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: usual predictable back and forth aside...  ^^



I can't help but feel a little giddy when I think about the disappointment, shame and general loss of self-worth washing over all this rich prick kids right about now.  And honestly, I don't care that its a bad look on my part.  Basking in their misfortune right now. 

**** 'em

Id be surprised if they really realized much. Their parents probably told them that's the way it's always been, the socialists just changed the rules all the sudden for quotas. 

[*Nately120*]

Does this mean Aunt Becky is off Fuller House?