Wait, hold on. There is sleeze in college admissions? Oh no, my heart is broken. Shocked I am, just shocked (here's your winnings, sir). Next you'll tell me there is no tooth fairy.

Not sure when the breaking point was, but sometime in the past few years, colleges (and many other charities) transformed from noble enterprises (I suspect many will say they never were) to money hoarding, you take care of me I will take care of you, building facilities to satisfy already overinflated egos enterprises that are not too many notches below Bernie Madoff, Enron and Theranos. Bowl game "charities"-John Junker-600k salary for one game/year and travel to scout participants, when the bowl organizers have nothing to do with who plays. Wounded warriors. I'm sure i can go on for pages.

It really comes down to the old saying but replacing "power" with "money". Money corrupts and big money corrupts absolutely.

(03-13-2019 07:24 AM)Foff Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:52 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 11:15 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 09:52 AM)07owl Wrote:  Somehow involving Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, as well as several D-1 coaches, according to this tweet: https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/11...4686236672

What will happen next on Wisteria Lane?

So 2 actresses known for their political activism in supporting the politics of making things fair and tearing down the wealthy for their privilege just... exercised their privilege for their own children in a big way. Do what I say, but not what I do. Hypocrites of epic dimension.

What in Sam Hill are you talking about?

Yeah, this Lori Loughlin interview with the frickin 700 Club sure paints her as a liberal bomb thrower: http://www1.cbn.com/700club/actress-lori...and-career

And her husband's political donations to Romney in 2012 and Rocking in 2016, that's because they're unrepentant Socialists I'm sure.

Haha.

I’m glad someone actually looked into the claim in that post.

(03-13-2019 09:04 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Wait, hold on. There is sleeze in college admissions? Oh no, my heart is broken. Shocked I am, just shocked (here's your winnings, sir). Next you'll tell me there is no tooth fairy.

Not sure when the breaking point was, but sometime in the past few years, colleges (and many other charities) transformed from noble enterprises (I suspect many will say they never were) to money hoarding, you take care of me I will take care of you, building facilities to satisfy already overinflated egos enterprises that are not too many notches below Bernie Madoff, Enron and Theranos. Bowl game "charities"-John Junker-600k salary for one game/year and travel to scout participants, when the bowl organizers have nothing to do with who plays. Wounded warriors. I'm sure i can go on for pages.

It really comes down to the old saying but replacing "power" with "money". Money corrupts and big money corrupts absolutely.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.

The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

(03-13-2019 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.
The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

At this point I thinks that is generally correct, and I would reject any notion to link with left or right political ideologies.

(03-13-2019 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:04 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Wait, hold on. There is sleeze in college admissions? Oh no, my heart is broken. Shocked I am, just shocked (here's your winnings, sir). Next you'll tell me there is no tooth fairy.

Not sure when the breaking point was, but sometime in the past few years, colleges (and many other charities) transformed from noble enterprises (I suspect many will say they never were) to money hoarding, you take care of me I will take care of you, building facilities to satisfy already overinflated egos enterprises that are not too many notches below Bernie Madoff, Enron and Theranos. Bowl game "charities"-John Junker-600k salary for one game/year and travel to scout participants, when the bowl organizers have nothing to do with who plays. Wounded warriors. I'm sure i can go on for pages.

It really comes down to the old saying but replacing "power" with "money". Money corrupts and big money corrupts absolutely.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.

The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

I thought the same (thinking it was unaffiliated people relating to testing) originally.

What is the difference between the actual school and an official for the actual school? If the AD or coach cheats while employed at a school with the intent of getting players at that school - thats a school problem too.

Bear with me here . . .

Premises:
- One of the reasons for increasing the "sticker price" tuition over the last several years is to get more revenue from families who are not price-sensitive, thus enabling greater discounts for families who are.
- This latest story proves that there is a set of consumers who are willing to pay not just sticker price, but an order of magnitude more, for admissions.
- At selective universities, the number of applicants admitted is a fraction of the number who are academically prepared to do the work and could succeed. That's one reason why selective universities are comfortable awarding a certain number of spots to students who may have a lower academic profile than the other admits, but who are still prepared enough to succeed and who have other desirable qualities or talents.

So what if a university decided to systematize all this by explicitly setting aside, say, 1% of its admits for admission by auction. Just like students with other talents, the auction students would need to have sufficient qualifications to suggest that they could succeed academically -- but there are tons of applicants like that already, more than can be admitted. Applicants who meet that threshold could bid for one of the auction spots, and the top bidders are in.

It's sort of like theory behind legalizing marijuana: if the transactions are going to happen anyway, bring them out of the underground and into the light, where at least there is honest accountability. And auctioning is a well-established way of allocating a scarce commodity. (When I went to the US Open in 2015, I bought VIP tickets through an auction, which worked out great.)

On second thought, it is conceivable that creating an explicit, above-ground admissions economy might NOT be a revenue boon: it may be that currently, an importance source of university revenue is donations by people who believe that their donations will help their kids get admitted in the future. As we know, a great many of those kids end up not being admitted, but by then the donations have already been made. So replacing the current system of soft, unstated, and often unfulfilled expectations with an explicit system that ties donations to admission at the time of application might actually decrease donations over the long run. If so, it would be a textbook example of the fact that whereas scruples against open marketization in certain fields are usually thought of as "protecting" consumers, it is often the sellers rather than the consumers who benefit most from lack of openness.

(03-12-2019 08:06 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  .... It's the academic equivalent of a fully able person parking in a handicap spot.

... or your daddy getting a doc to say you have bone spurs to get you a 4F draft classification?

(03-13-2019 09:23 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:04 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Wait, hold on. There is sleeze in college admissions? Oh no, my heart is broken. Shocked I am, just shocked (here's your winnings, sir). Next you'll tell me there is no tooth fairy.

Not sure when the breaking point was, but sometime in the past few years, colleges (and many other charities) transformed from noble enterprises (I suspect many will say they never were) to money hoarding, you take care of me I will take care of you, building facilities to satisfy already overinflated egos enterprises that are not too many notches below Bernie Madoff, Enron and Theranos. Bowl game "charities"-John Junker-600k salary for one game/year and travel to scout participants, when the bowl organizers have nothing to do with who plays. Wounded warriors. I'm sure i can go on for pages.

It really comes down to the old saying but replacing "power" with "money". Money corrupts and big money corrupts absolutely.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.

The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

I thought the same (thinking it was unaffiliated people relating to testing) originally.

What is the difference between the actual school and an official for the actual school? If the AD or coach cheats while employed at a school with the intent of getting players at that school - thats a school problem too.

Based on what we know from this story, it's not a school problem because I don't believe anyone in the administration or admissions was in on the game. These were primarily coaches abusing their position to personally enrich themselves through fraud.

Universities have a lot more to worry about than what walk-on a coach wants for the crew team, so my guess is they assume a coach is actually requesting a spot for a qualified candidate for their team, and I doubt that any of the admins even thought twice about following up on whether the athlete was actually rowing for the crew team.

I bet now that will change, though.

Regardless of this, I'm sure universities themselves are involved in similar methods of admittance - they just involve capital projects and the like.

I know that, at least for UCLA, coaches have a certain quota they are allowed to use for admission preference. The student still has to meet the academic requirements.

(03-13-2019 01:07 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 08:06 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  .... It's the academic equivalent of a fully able person parking in a handicap spot.

... or your daddy getting a doc to say you have bone spurs to get you a 4F draft classification?

or arranging for you to get in the Air National Guard to guard the Texas Coast from whooping cranes?

(03-13-2019 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Bear with me here . . .

Premises:
- One of the reasons for increasing the "sticker price" tuition over the last several years is to get more revenue from families who are not price-sensitive, thus enabling greater discounts for families who are.
- This latest story proves that there is a set of consumers who are willing to pay not just sticker price, but an order of magnitude more, for admissions.
- At selective universities, the number of applicants admitted is a fraction of the number who are academically prepared to do the work and could succeed. That's one reason why selective universities are comfortable awarding a certain number of spots to students who may have a lower academic profile than the other admits, but who are still prepared enough to succeed and who have other desirable qualities or talents.

So what if a university decided to systematize all this by explicitly setting aside, say, 1% of its admits for admission by auction. Just like students with other talents, the auction students would need to have sufficient qualifications to suggest that they could succeed academically -- but there are tons of applicants like that already, more than can be admitted. Applicants who meet that threshold could bid for one of the auction spots, and the top bidders are in.

It's sort of like theory behind legalizing marijuana: if the transactions are going to happen anyway, bring them out of the underground and into the light, where at least there is honest accountability. And auctioning is a well-established way of allocating a scarce commodity. (When I went to the US Open in 2015, I bought VIP tickets through an auction, which worked out great.)

On second thought, it is conceivable that creating an explicit, above-ground admissions economy might NOT be a revenue boon: it may be that currently, an importance source of university revenue is donations by people who believe that their donations will help their kids get admitted in the future. As we know, a great many of those kids end up not being admitted, but by then the donations have already been made. So replacing the current system of soft, unstated, and often unfulfilled expectations with an explicit system that ties donations to admission at the time of application might actually decrease donations over the long run. If so, it would be a textbook example of the fact that whereas scruples against open marketization in certain fields are usually thought of as "protecting" consumers, it is often the sellers rather than the consumers who benefit most from lack of openness.

I would normally agree with this, but I think this would salvo universities’ abilities to maintain that they take the “best/brightest/most deserving/insert other adjective here” for admission to their university, which I think is a false ideal that they view as sacrosanct. A university putting an auction policy like this out in the public for the media to excoriate would be absurdly damaging to this aforementioned “ideal”. Ignorance is bliss, at least IMO

Or community organizing and not even giving a thought about serving in the military?

Cmon people, keep politics off this thread.

(03-13-2019 02:27 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Bear with me here . . .

Premises:
- One of the reasons for increasing the "sticker price" tuition over the last several years is to get more revenue from families who are not price-sensitive, thus enabling greater discounts for families who are.
- This latest story proves that there is a set of consumers who are willing to pay not just sticker price, but an order of magnitude more, for admissions.
- At selective universities, the number of applicants admitted is a fraction of the number who are academically prepared to do the work and could succeed. That's one reason why selective universities are comfortable awarding a certain number of spots to students who may have a lower academic profile than the other admits, but who are still prepared enough to succeed and who have other desirable qualities or talents.

So what if a university decided to systematize all this by explicitly setting aside, say, 1% of its admits for admission by auction. Just like students with other talents, the auction students would need to have sufficient qualifications to suggest that they could succeed academically -- but there are tons of applicants like that already, more than can be admitted. Applicants who meet that threshold could bid for one of the auction spots, and the top bidders are in.

It's sort of like theory behind legalizing marijuana: if the transactions are going to happen anyway, bring them out of the underground and into the light, where at least there is honest accountability. And auctioning is a well-established way of allocating a scarce commodity. (When I went to the US Open in 2015, I bought VIP tickets through an auction, which worked out great.)

On second thought, it is conceivable that creating an explicit, above-ground admissions economy might NOT be a revenue boon: it may be that currently, an importance source of university revenue is donations by people who believe that their donations will help their kids get admitted in the future. As we know, a great many of those kids end up not being admitted, but by then the donations have already been made. So replacing the current system of soft, unstated, and often unfulfilled expectations with an explicit system that ties donations to admission at the time of application might actually decrease donations over the long run. If so, it would be a textbook example of the fact that whereas scruples against open marketization in certain fields are usually thought of as "protecting" consumers, it is often the sellers rather than the consumers who benefit most from lack of openness.

I would normally agree with this, but I think this would salvo universities’ abilities to maintain that they take the “best/brightest/most deserving/insert other adjective here” for admission to their university, which I think is a false ideal that they view as sacrosanct. A university putting an auction policy like this out in the public for the media to excoriate would be absurdly damaging to this aforementioned “ideal”. Ignorance is bliss, at least IMO

Your premises are spot-on.

It is funny, but I think colleges prices and prescription drug prices are following a similar model: the retail price is going up dramatically, but the average price is going down, because fewer and fewer people are paying full retail. The cost of college full-boat is straight on scary, but a very large majority of students on that campus are on scholarships; grants; and other packages.

(03-13-2019 03:04 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 02:27 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Bear with me here . . .

Premises:
- One of the reasons for increasing the "sticker price" tuition over the last several years is to get more revenue from families who are not price-sensitive, thus enabling greater discounts for families who are.
- This latest story proves that there is a set of consumers who are willing to pay not just sticker price, but an order of magnitude more, for admissions.
- At selective universities, the number of applicants admitted is a fraction of the number who are academically prepared to do the work and could succeed. That's one reason why selective universities are comfortable awarding a certain number of spots to students who may have a lower academic profile than the other admits, but who are still prepared enough to succeed and who have other desirable qualities or talents.

So what if a university decided to systematize all this by explicitly setting aside, say, 1% of its admits for admission by auction. Just like students with other talents, the auction students would need to have sufficient qualifications to suggest that they could succeed academically -- but there are tons of applicants like that already, more than can be admitted. Applicants who meet that threshold could bid for one of the auction spots, and the top bidders are in.

It's sort of like theory behind legalizing marijuana: if the transactions are going to happen anyway, bring them out of the underground and into the light, where at least there is honest accountability. And auctioning is a well-established way of allocating a scarce commodity. (When I went to the US Open in 2015, I bought VIP tickets through an auction, which worked out great.)

On second thought, it is conceivable that creating an explicit, above-ground admissions economy might NOT be a revenue boon: it may be that currently, an importance source of university revenue is donations by people who believe that their donations will help their kids get admitted in the future. As we know, a great many of those kids end up not being admitted, but by then the donations have already been made. So replacing the current system of soft, unstated, and often unfulfilled expectations with an explicit system that ties donations to admission at the time of application might actually decrease donations over the long run. If so, it would be a textbook example of the fact that whereas scruples against open marketization in certain fields are usually thought of as "protecting" consumers, it is often the sellers rather than the consumers who benefit most from lack of openness.

I would normally agree with this, but I think this would salvo universities’ abilities to maintain that they take the “best/brightest/most deserving/insert other adjective here” for admission to their university, which I think is a false ideal that they view as sacrosanct. A university putting an auction policy like this out in the public for the media to excoriate would be absurdly damaging to this aforementioned “ideal”. Ignorance is bliss, at least IMO

Your premises are spot-on.

It is funny, but I think colleges prices and prescription drug prices are following a similar model: the retail price is going up dramatically, but the average price is going down, because fewer and fewer people are paying full retail. The cost of college full-boat is straight on scary, but a very large majority of students on that campus are on scholarships; grants; and other packages.

Anywhere else other than these industries, it's called a kickback or corruption and likely lands you in jail.

(03-13-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:23 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:04 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Wait, hold on. There is sleeze in college admissions? Oh no, my heart is broken. Shocked I am, just shocked (here's your winnings, sir). Next you'll tell me there is no tooth fairy.

Not sure when the breaking point was, but sometime in the past few years, colleges (and many other charities) transformed from noble enterprises (I suspect many will say they never were) to money hoarding, you take care of me I will take care of you, building facilities to satisfy already overinflated egos enterprises that are not too many notches below Bernie Madoff, Enron and Theranos. Bowl game "charities"-John Junker-600k salary for one game/year and travel to scout participants, when the bowl organizers have nothing to do with who plays. Wounded warriors. I'm sure i can go on for pages.

It really comes down to the old saying but replacing "power" with "money". Money corrupts and big money corrupts absolutely.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.

The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

I thought the same (thinking it was unaffiliated people relating to testing) originally.

What is the difference between the actual school and an official for the actual school? If the AD or coach cheats while employed at a school with the intent of getting players at that school - thats a school problem too.

Based on what we know from this story, it's not a school problem because I don't believe anyone in the administration or admissions was in on the game. These were primarily coaches abusing their position to personally enrich themselves through fraud.

Universities have a lot more to worry about than what walk-on a coach wants for the crew team, so my guess is they assume a coach is actually requesting a spot for a qualified candidate for their team, and I doubt that any of the admins even thought twice about following up on whether the athlete was actually rowing for the crew team.

I bet now that will change, though.

Regardless of this, I'm sure universities themselves are involved in similar methods of admittance - they just involve capital projects and the like.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. David Bliss and Art Briles were a Baylor problem. Greenspan and Sampson were an IU problem. In none of these cases (or really any) is there a true university wide BOT sanctioned action to cheat. It occurs because a coach or an AD does it, and others don't look hard enough.

Admissions is rarely involved in a scandal at a university. It isn't a top down sanctioned activity.

(03-13-2019 03:44 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:23 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:04 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Wait, hold on. There is sleeze in college admissions? Oh no, my heart is broken. Shocked I am, just shocked (here's your winnings, sir). Next you'll tell me there is no tooth fairy.

Not sure when the breaking point was, but sometime in the past few years, colleges (and many other charities) transformed from noble enterprises (I suspect many will say they never were) to money hoarding, you take care of me I will take care of you, building facilities to satisfy already overinflated egos enterprises that are not too many notches below Bernie Madoff, Enron and Theranos. Bowl game "charities"-John Junker-600k salary for one game/year and travel to scout participants, when the bowl organizers have nothing to do with who plays. Wounded warriors. I'm sure i can go on for pages.

It really comes down to the old saying but replacing "power" with "money". Money corrupts and big money corrupts absolutely.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.

The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

I thought the same (thinking it was unaffiliated people relating to testing) originally.

What is the difference between the actual school and an official for the actual school? If the AD or coach cheats while employed at a school with the intent of getting players at that school - thats a school problem too.

Based on what we know from this story, it's not a school problem because I don't believe anyone in the administration or admissions was in on the game. These were primarily coaches abusing their position to personally enrich themselves through fraud.

Universities have a lot more to worry about than what walk-on a coach wants for the crew team, so my guess is they assume a coach is actually requesting a spot for a qualified candidate for their team, and I doubt that any of the admins even thought twice about following up on whether the athlete was actually rowing for the crew team.

I bet now that will change, though.

Regardless of this, I'm sure universities themselves are involved in similar methods of admittance - they just involve capital projects and the like.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. David Bliss and Art Briles were a Baylor problem. Greenspan and Sampson were an IU problem. In none of these cases (or really any) is there a true university wide BOT sanctioned action to cheat. It occurs because a coach or an AD does it, and others don't look hard enough.

Admissions is rarely involved in a scandal at a university. It isn't a top down sanctioned activity.

For Baylor, university officials were informed of what was going on and failed to act, which is why that scandal crept up and up and up.

I don't believe any serious punishment was levied against IU because it was an issue isolated to the Athletic Department, which is why the coach and AD were fired.

If university officials did not know about these bribes, there's no reason they should be held accountable. The athletic director, on the other hand...

(03-13-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 03:44 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:23 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but so far, none of this implicates the actual schools - but rather officials, primarily in athletics, or people in the testing industries, committing bribery and fraud.

The issues you’re talking about are real - but not the focus of this investigation.

I thought the same (thinking it was unaffiliated people relating to testing) originally.

What is the difference between the actual school and an official for the actual school? If the AD or coach cheats while employed at a school with the intent of getting players at that school - thats a school problem too.

Based on what we know from this story, it's not a school problem because I don't believe anyone in the administration or admissions was in on the game. These were primarily coaches abusing their position to personally enrich themselves through fraud.

Universities have a lot more to worry about than what walk-on a coach wants for the crew team, so my guess is they assume a coach is actually requesting a spot for a qualified candidate for their team, and I doubt that any of the admins even thought twice about following up on whether the athlete was actually rowing for the crew team.

I bet now that will change, though.

Regardless of this, I'm sure universities themselves are involved in similar methods of admittance - they just involve capital projects and the like.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. David Bliss and Art Briles were a Baylor problem. Greenspan and Sampson were an IU problem. In none of these cases (or really any) is there a true university wide BOT sanctioned action to cheat. It occurs because a coach or an AD does it, and others don't look hard enough.

Admissions is rarely involved in a scandal at a university. It isn't a top down sanctioned activity.

For Baylor, university officials were informed of what was going on and failed to act, which is why that scandal crept up and up and up.

I don't believe any serious punishment was levied against IU because it was an issue isolated to the Athletic Department, which is why the coach and AD were fired.

If university officials did not know about these bribes, there's no reason they should be held accountable. The athletic director, on the other hand...

Yes, the higher it goes, the worse it is. But a coach, especially a head coach, is not some low level volunteer staffer. they are high enough on the chain (and in the case of FB and MBB, higher on the chain than anyone in several cases), that their indiscretions are the universities problem.

Greenspan was 100% on Leebron and the BOT. They knew enough to not make this decision. That he was an uneducated corrupt imbecile that resulted in everyone leaving - it wasn't like he acted out of character and on his own. We knew he was a grade A shitbag (as was Morcos) and we hired them anyway.

As a well paid representative of the University, your actions relating to the university program are the problem of the university. We can't draw the legal wall of separation between the two.

(03-13-2019 04:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 03:44 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 09:23 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I thought the same (thinking it was unaffiliated people relating to testing) originally.

What is the difference between the actual school and an official for the actual school? If the AD or coach cheats while employed at a school with the intent of getting players at that school - thats a school problem too.

Based on what we know from this story, it's not a school problem because I don't believe anyone in the administration or admissions was in on the game. These were primarily coaches abusing their position to personally enrich themselves through fraud.

Universities have a lot more to worry about than what walk-on a coach wants for the crew team, so my guess is they assume a coach is actually requesting a spot for a qualified candidate for their team, and I doubt that any of the admins even thought twice about following up on whether the athlete was actually rowing for the crew team.

I bet now that will change, though.

Regardless of this, I'm sure universities themselves are involved in similar methods of admittance - they just involve capital projects and the like.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. David Bliss and Art Briles were a Baylor problem. Greenspan and Sampson were an IU problem. In none of these cases (or really any) is there a true university wide BOT sanctioned action to cheat. It occurs because a coach or an AD does it, and others don't look hard enough.

Admissions is rarely involved in a scandal at a university. It isn't a top down sanctioned activity.

For Baylor, university officials were informed of what was going on and failed to act, which is why that scandal crept up and up and up.

I don't believe any serious punishment was levied against IU because it was an issue isolated to the Athletic Department, which is why the coach and AD were fired.

If university officials did not know about these bribes, there's no reason they should be held accountable. The athletic director, on the other hand...

Yes, the higher it goes, the worse it is. But a coach, especially a head coach, is not some low level volunteer staffer. they are high enough on the chain (and in the case of FB and MBB, higher on the chain than anyone in several cases), that their indiscretions are the universities problem.

Greenspan was 100% on Leebron and the BOT. They knew enough to not make this decision. That he was an uneducated corrupt imbecile that resulted in everyone leaving - it wasn't like he acted out of character and on his own. We knew he was a grade A shitbag (as was Morcos) and we hired them anyway.

As a well paid representative of the University, your actions relating to the university program are the problem of the university. We can't draw the legal wall of separation between the two.

I guess we should clarify what a "school's problem" even means. When I used that term, I was talking about academic administrators - people like Dean's, provosts, presidents, etc.

I don't see how this scandal implicates any of them, or is a problem for them, outside of it being bad PR for the school, and identifying an area that needs to be corrected in the future.

(03-13-2019 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 03:44 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on what we know from this story, it's not a school problem because I don't believe anyone in the administration or admissions was in on the game. These were primarily coaches abusing their position to personally enrich themselves through fraud.

Universities have a lot more to worry about than what walk-on a coach wants for the crew team, so my guess is they assume a coach is actually requesting a spot for a qualified candidate for their team, and I doubt that any of the admins even thought twice about following up on whether the athlete was actually rowing for the crew team.

I bet now that will change, though.

Regardless of this, I'm sure universities themselves are involved in similar methods of admittance - they just involve capital projects and the like.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. David Bliss and Art Briles were a Baylor problem. Greenspan and Sampson were an IU problem. In none of these cases (or really any) is there a true university wide BOT sanctioned action to cheat. It occurs because a coach or an AD does it, and others don't look hard enough.

Admissions is rarely involved in a scandal at a university. It isn't a top down sanctioned activity.

For Baylor, university officials were informed of what was going on and failed to act, which is why that scandal crept up and up and up.

I don't believe any serious punishment was levied against IU because it was an issue isolated to the Athletic Department, which is why the coach and AD were fired.

If university officials did not know about these bribes, there's no reason they should be held accountable. The athletic director, on the other hand...

Yes, the higher it goes, the worse it is. But a coach, especially a head coach, is not some low level volunteer staffer. they are high enough on the chain (and in the case of FB and MBB, higher on the chain than anyone in several cases), that their indiscretions are the universities problem.

Greenspan was 100% on Leebron and the BOT. They knew enough to not make this decision. That he was an uneducated corrupt imbecile that resulted in everyone leaving - it wasn't like he acted out of character and on his own. We knew he was a grade A shitbag (as was Morcos) and we hired them anyway.

As a well paid representative of the University, your actions relating to the university program are the problem of the university. We can't draw the legal wall of separation between the two.

I guess we should clarify what a "school's problem" even means. When I used that term, I was talking about academic administrators - people like Dean's, provosts, presidents, etc.

I don't see how this scandal implicates any of them, or is a problem for them, outside of it being bad PR for the school, and identifying an area that needs to be corrected in the future.

But that's true for most of these scandals. Baylor, UNC and Penn State being the exceptions. The rest of the schools that readily admit people that can't read are making decisions far below the level of the president and the deans. I'm sure the top people aren't oblivious to the shenanigans, but they likely don't pay much attention.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for true institutional control lies with the top brass. If we exclude the cases where the top wasn't involved, you'd be able to count them on 2 hands.

(03-13-2019 05:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 03:44 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand the difference. David Bliss and Art Briles were a Baylor problem. Greenspan and Sampson were an IU problem. In none of these cases (or really any) is there a true university wide BOT sanctioned action to cheat. It occurs because a coach or an AD does it, and others don't look hard enough.

Admissions is rarely involved in a scandal at a university. It isn't a top down sanctioned activity.

For Baylor, university officials were informed of what was going on and failed to act, which is why that scandal crept up and up and up.

I don't believe any serious punishment was levied against IU because it was an issue isolated to the Athletic Department, which is why the coach and AD were fired.

If university officials did not know about these bribes, there's no reason they should be held accountable. The athletic director, on the other hand...

Yes, the higher it goes, the worse it is. But a coach, especially a head coach, is not some low level volunteer staffer. they are high enough on the chain (and in the case of FB and MBB, higher on the chain than anyone in several cases), that their indiscretions are the universities problem.

Greenspan was 100% on Leebron and the BOT. They knew enough to not make this decision. That he was an uneducated corrupt imbecile that resulted in everyone leaving - it wasn't like he acted out of character and on his own. We knew he was a grade A shitbag (as was Morcos) and we hired them anyway.

As a well paid representative of the University, your actions relating to the university program are the problem of the university. We can't draw the legal wall of separation between the two.

I guess we should clarify what a "school's problem" even means. When I used that term, I was talking about academic administrators - people like Dean's, provosts, presidents, etc.

I don't see how this scandal implicates any of them, or is a problem for them, outside of it being bad PR for the school, and identifying an area that needs to be corrected in the future.

But that's true for most of these scandals. Baylor, UNC and Penn State being the exceptions. The rest of the schools that readily admit people that can't read are making decisions far below the level of the president and the deans. I'm sure the top people aren't oblivious to the shenanigans, but they likely don't pay much attention.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for true institutional control lies with the top brass. If we exclude the cases where the top wasn't involved, you'd be able to count them on 2 hands.

I'm all for holding schools accountable for lack of institutional control but it's too much of a stretch to link these two types of scandals. Cheating occurs where resources are scarce. In athletics, it's the universities who are competing for -- and often cheating to obtain or retain -- relatively scarce resources (athletic talent). In this admissions scandal, however, the universities hold the resource that is considered scarce (admissions slots), so the incentive to cheat is totally with the consumers (parents) competing for those resources. Basically all those consumers are using money to compete amongst themselves, and some of it found its way to some dishonest gatekeepers. But the universities themselves aren't really benefited when Coach X takes $400K to designate Richie Rich as a preferred walk-on and get him into school, or when an admissions officer takes a bribe to let someone in, because that commodity is entirely fungible: in the absence of that cheating, the spot simply would have gone to the next person on the wait list. Whereas universities are most certainly benefited when Coach X or Admissions Officer Y cheats to get Talented Jock into school -- thus making it entirely appropriate to hold the institution accountable (which I think we all can agree is not done nearly enough) when that happens.