This is a really weird story and it's being covered by most news stations and newspapers.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admission-cheating-scheme/index.html

I know both of them by name but not so much by the acting jobs. Makes you wonder why people with money always seem to have a need to cheat.

I saw this in our local paper a few minutes ago. Seems to me just tell your kid to study, cheaper and easier.

Then again maybe with enough money you can buy the degree too.

There are two ways to buy a degree. The legitimate one is to be rich and/or famous enough to get an honoratry degree, usually in exchange for speaking at graduation.

The illegitimate one is to hire someone to do the entire degree for you. There are people with more than enough money to do that. It is not easy to do. It would require people keeping their mouth shut for years, and stunts like getting a phony passport issued to the imposter. Possible? Yes. Easy, even with money? No.

Degrees are being awarded right and left to students who are failing while their professors continue to pass them in order to keep the scheme going.

I see this every day.

notmo

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are two ways to buy a degree.

Also, third way, large contribution directly to the school or alumni association.

College finances???

Saying this is about college finances makes as much sense as saying that shooting someone is about making a persuasive argument.

This is about fraudulent admission to college.

First, a philosophical thought: It's a common human failing ("vice" or "sin"?) to want to be exempt from rules, regulations, standards, and laws that apply to everybody else. If you have an "in" somewhere, you use it, whether to have the velvet rope opened for you, beat a traffic ticket, get the inside line on a business contract or a stock pick, etc.

This has been discussed extensively on this board re: "Mormon royalty," how they get preferred callings, contracts, job and business connections. Also, LDS school admissions: BYU.

Power comes in various forms and combinations: prestige and celebrity, money, inside political influence, raw authority. Are we surprised that people who have these assets use them to benefit their progeny? An elite college education is as valuable because of its value for opportunity and access as much as education.

Is this right? No. Is this human nature? Yes. Think of it as economic/cultural "natural selection," as we watch the powerful prevail in the gene pool. And maybe we wish we could, too?

I get that with power, whether the power was gained through money or through other means, often comes abuse of said power. This particular abuse, however, crossed so far over the lines of any gray areas and was so egregious that I, for one, am extremely glad it was discovered.

I'm not saying that there aren't even more egregious abuses even in the narrow area of college admissions that remain uncovered. Perhaps someday they will all came to light.

It seems mildly amusing, if anything in this ugly chapter can be considered remotely amusing, that had those who particpated in this scam not been so bold as to claim their bribery fees as charitable contribution on their tax forms, they might not have been caught.


caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, a philosophical thought: It's a common
> human failing ("vice" or "sin"?) to want to be
> exempt from rules, regulations, standards, and
> laws that apply to everybody else. If you have an
> "in" somewhere, you use it, whether to have the
> velvet rope opened for you, beat a traffic ticket,
> get the inside line on a business contract or a
> stock pick, etc.
>
> This has been discussed extensively on this board
> re: "Mormon royalty," how they get preferred
> callings, contracts, job and business connections.
> Also, LDS school admissions: BYU.
>
> Power comes in various forms and combinations:
> prestige and celebrity, money, inside political
> influence, raw authority. Are we surprised that
> people who have these assets use them to benefit
> their progeny? An elite college education is as
> valuable because of its value for opportunity and
> access as much as education.
>
> Is this right? No. Is this human nature? Yes.
> Think of it as economic/cultural "natural
> selection," as we watch the powerful prevail in
> the gene pool. And maybe we wish we could, too?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2019 07:11AM by scmd1.

With that kind of money at play, I think the ring was a victim of its own success, too big to hide. There are plenty of struggling smart kids who would do the job for much less. How nice of CNN to clue them in that such a side gig is possible.

One of the actress's daughters posted a video talking about being at USC. She said that she wanted to go there for the social opportnities, and that people who knew her knew that she wasn't much of a student.

And I thought that was really sad. There are lots of kids who do take school seriously and who would have loved her slot. Plus I'm sure her mom could have opened a lot of doors for her in Hollywood and elsewhere. The daughter could also probably live off of a trust fund for the rest of her life. There are kids who need the education to get a good start in life.

And I'm sure that the parents will tell the judge that they didn't know bribes and considerations were being paid. All of that money that they forked over was for consulting fees.

memikeyounot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Makes you wonder why people with
> money always seem to have a need to cheat.


Maybe that's the way they got money.

Wealthy people have been buying their kids' way into top schools, like, forever. They make big (tax deductible) donations to the schools and, whatta ya know, their mediocre kid gets into Harvard.

I agree, Olderelder, and I detest all of it, but this latest version is so far over the line that it's positively sickening.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wealthy people have been buying their kids' way
> into top schools, like, forever. They make big
> (tax deductible) donations to the schools and,
> whatta ya know, their mediocre kid gets into
> Harvard.

With a large part of the students attending many of our public institution of "higher learning" expecting to get degrees while doing little to no work.

I see this firsthand.

Our culture is a mess.

It seems strange to me that this is news.

This just in! Extra, extra! Read all about it!

Rich people try to use their money to get what they want!!!

Can you BELIEVE rich people are bribing schools to let their kids in? It's IN.SANE!

I don't see what the big deal is. I'm asian-american, and no matter how hard I work I will be penalized during college admissions because my culture values hard work and intelligence, while other cultures value playing the victim.

Whether rich people pay to cut the line, or poor people are ushered to the front of the line to try to make a political point, the end result is the same: hard works like me get marginalized.

Nothing new. You could always buy a seat at most ivy league universities, The seat price isn't cheap but the rich have been doing it for a long time.

Waiting for some dental surgery, I read an extensive article by someone who makes their living writing bios and essays for those applying to universities. The article also said that this person writes reports, term papers and thesis and occasionally sits in to take tests for students who don't like to study.

I knew nothing of this when I was working my way through college. Makes me wonder about some of those who run this country and its corporations. Some of them are unqualified fakes.

At one time, a trollish poster was trying to recruit writers here on RfM to do this kind of scam writing for university students and for those applying for college entry. I think admin had to delete them off and on for months until they finally went elsewhere to find writers willing to do such disreputable assignments.

The article I read also told about extensive files of tests that students can buy into to avoid reading the test material and going to lectures. What a scam.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 01:33PM by Cheryl.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I knew nothing of this when I was working my way
> through college. Makes me wonder about some of
> those who run this country and its corporations.
> Some of them are unqualified fakes.

One of very high office comes to mind...

Just one? There appear to be a cluster of them living in a single residence!

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The article I read also told about extensive files
> of tests that students can buy into to avoid
> reading the test material and going to lectures.
>

Or you could just join a fraternity or sorority!

Some day I will write of my life as a pledge at U of U's late and lamented Sigma PI chapter.

You think this cheating idea is acceptable?

Is the fraternity/sorority cheating acceptable?

Whose standards are you wanting to apply? Apparently, the people doing the cheating were okay with it and wouldn't think of punishing themselves. Would any of them, had they been caught, expected to get off scot-free? Probably not. Risk-Reward kind of thing.

But then there's that old saw about 'would you want a doctor who cheated his way through med school?'

Many personal, community and national institutions were founded by men whose breath-taking cheating thrill those who admire how much money they made.

I personally don't like cheaters to win. But I don't mind paying a little bit of a bribe to get better treatment than others, which is a national sport here in Mexico. Maybe even in America, too?

I think it's fairly well known that fraternities and sororities maintain files of old tests given by particular professors in their courses. This is not just at any one school, but is a widespread custom. Professors are aware if this as well, and the responsible professors will change up their tests accordingly.

We had a massive test file for intro psychology at my sorority. Not for anything else, but for that class yes. It was because the profs let you walk out with the test. Then again they had 1500 people taking a mass test in an auditorium so probably not enough TA's to stop people. Never took the class, but we had a massive test file.

Almost every class I ever took made you turn in the questions and the answers when you left.

That sounds like another way to stop the problem. Back in my day, professors let you take the graded test with you. Of course nowadays, I imagine that a lot of tests are computerized.

The late Ted Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard for having someone else take a final exam for him in his Spanish course. None of this is new, but it's probably much more organized now.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waiting for some dental surgery, I read an
> extensive article by someone who makes their
> living writing bios and essays for those applying
> to universities. The article also said that this
> person writes reports, term papers and thesis and
> occasionally sits in to take tests for students
> who don't like to study.
>
> I knew nothing of this when I was working my way
> through college. Makes me wonder about some of
> those who run this country and its corporations.
> Some of them are unqualified fakes.
>
> At one time, a trollish poster was trying to
> recruit writers here on RfM to do this kind of
> scam writing for university students and for those
> applying for college entry. I think admin had to
> delete them off and on for months until they
> finally went elsewhere to find writers willing to
> do such disreputable assignments.
>
> The article I read also told about extensive files
> of tests that students can buy into to avoid
> reading the test material and going to lectures.
> What a scam.

people in their 30's 40's and 50's are ill-fit for their positions, wait until you see what's coming down the pike with the new crop of college graduates.....for me, as a college professor, it is quite a scary thought.

I fear you might be right. Where I work, it is becoming increasingly obvious that fewer and fewer people are able to keep up with the ever changing technology. Technology is replacing lots of jobs and tasks, but the people we need are the ones who can understand and manage the technology that is doing the jobs they once did.

It's hard enough to find people who can write a simple report nowadays. They can't seem to write a coherent sequence of events (e.g. procedures) or even write paragraphs with verbs conjugated. These are all college graduates- mostly science degrees.

Things are very complicated with the ever-changing computerized systems as it is, let alone the science behind the business. Writing and comprehension skills on top of that are hard to find. Employers are demanding more and more while fewer people seem to really own the job they have. The employer is willing to overwork everyone, provide little loyalty, and expect people to pack up and move. People coming out of school often are not expecting they have to work extraordinarily hard and have skills the employer needs to get ahead.

Sorry, I digress.

At least that's the way it feels to me, but I'm an old person who thinks the world is going to hell in a handbasket. :-)

The actress Lori Loughlin surrendered to FBI agents today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/us/college-admissions-probe.html

Wait, you mean that college admissions are not always based on merit?

Shocking.

Jacob, Ha!

What struck me was the stupidity of these wealthy to not know that instead of breaking the law, they could have just made a large donation directly to the college. They used a middle-man, their mistake.

I bet they thought that this was a cheaper way to get their kids in, compared to the time-honored method of paying for a new science building.

Admission to the great schools requires multiple strengths.

-Academic success
-Superb extracurriculars
-Unique experiences like different ethnicity or personal challenges
-Parents who are alums
-Major donations

Strength on one or two of those dimensions won't suffice. So if you start with a kid who has strong, but not superior, academic experience, you still won't qualify. Even having a solid school record and alum parents isn't enough.

What happened in this scandal is that the intermediary checked multiple boxes for the cheaters. He could deliver much higher test scores, financial donations to the university, and a great sports resume. It is the combination that raised those kids from the ranks of the mediocre to the august circle accepted to the best universities.

The approach was better suited to the admission process than just making a major donation to a school.

I attended the School of Hard Knocks on a full academic scholarship, and got my B.A. (Bachelor of Alcoholism.) I later attended the Institute of Higher Humility, and obtained the Master of Humility degree, summa cum lousy.

On a serious note, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, a Harvard Law grad, wrote an interesting column, and relates how then-Dean of Law School Elena Kagan informed his incoming Harvard Law class that they were now "in," with the certainty of lucrative and prestigious careers laid out before them. Even liberals will find this a fascinating read:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/44571/famous-actresses-paid-bundles-money-bribe-their-ben-shapiro

Ben Shapiro is a provocateur, not an analyst. His podcasts are aimed at high school boys.

Some of his ideas are important--universities as sources of connections and credentials--but he takes them way too far. There is in fact an intellectual difference between someone who went to Yale and someone who went to community college: the former has been trained better in college since the advantage of the great schools is that their faculty are more rigorous and more demanding. The fellow students are critical, too.

This is not to say that any particular education is necessary for a person to become a genius, or a rigorous thinker, or a great mind. Just that the odds of a person who graduates from a Yale or Harvard having superior training are significant. Employers do indeed use degrees as a means of sorting people, but that is due both to the connections and to the value of the education.

It's worth noting that Shapiro, who here denigrates the value of elite education, boasts of his superior education at UCLA and Harvard Law School (with honors, should you ask). I have no doubt that his parents' prominence helped him get into those schools, also that he emerged with a network that may well have helped him build his media presence. He is thus an example of the combination of excellent training and excellent family and university connections that he derides.

The reason the parents cheated to get their kids into elite schools is so they too can enjoy the advantages that accrue to Shapiro. As corrupt as higher education has become, they were doing something that was in their children's interests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 11:57PM by Lot's Wife.

True, there is a qualitative difference between an Ivy and a middling state or private college, but where, exactly, is that cut? Shapiro's point is that it is not so much the collegiate experience itself, but in successfully proving one's mettle in the grueling admission process. Once that hurdle has been successfully leaped, the college goes to great length to make sure all inductees (oops, I mean "students") complete the course. Example: grade inflation.

Shapiro's point is that the parents are buying access (or better put, membership) than they are education. Note his point that the rigorous challenges of "The Paper Chase" now apply little, if at all.

The FBI has charge 50 out of about 800 cases so far. Popcorn time--schadenfreude in full Cinemascope!


Some people would consider Chris Maher (Cornell, BA 1978) a provocateur; others, a commentator favored by...people of a certain...mindset.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2019 12:23AM by caffiend.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, there is a qualitative difference between an
> Ivy and a middling state or private college, but
> where, exactly, is that cut?

No idea.


--------
> Shapiro's point is
> that it is not so much the collegiate experience
> itself, but in successfully proving one's mettle
> in the grueling admission process. Once that
> hurdle has been successfully leaped, the college
> goes to great length to make sure all inductees
> (oops, I mean "students") complete the course.
> Example: grade inflation.

There is truth in that, but it is overstated. I've been to some good schools and I have seen people flunk out--I've also seen some kicked out for honor code violations. But my statement too must be qualified: obviously being a Kennedy brought (brings) certain perquisites.

As for grade inflation, that depends on the institution. I am familiar with some reputable places that have not succumbed and do routinely flunk people out. And in some other places, there is a high curve: say, a B as the norm with grades ranging below and above. Recruiters know how to read a B- or a C+. No one is fooled.


------------
> Shapiro's point is that the parents are buying
> access (or better put, membership) than they are
> education. Note his point that the rigorous
> challenges of "The Paper Chase" now apply little,
> if at all.

Parents are indeed buying status. The odds are stacked in favor of someone at an elite school, as they were for Shapiro and a lot of other bloviating conservatives as well as liberals. There are still downside risks, which he unduly minimizes, but the probability of success rises considerably once one has obtained her union card.


-------------
> The FBI has charge 50 out of about 800 cases so
> far. Popcorn time--schadenfreude in full
> Cinemascope!

I hope blood is drawn. For those of us who didn't have the advantages and had to do it the hard way, this stuff is profoundly unsettling. It represents the demise of the middle class and hence the demise of democratic institutions.


---------------
> Some people would consider Chris Maher (Cornell,
> BA 1978) a provocateur; others, a commentator
> favored by...people of a certain...mindset.

I suspect you mean Bill Maher. For what it is worth, I find him a jocular provocateur or, alternatively, a provocative joke. He simply spouts the platitudes of West Hollywood and acts as if they are brilliant insights. I think that your juxtaposition of him with Ben Shapiro is about right.

The Mahers, de Generes, Olivers and Trevor Noahs... even Michael Moore to some extent... all push the establishment line while pretending otherwise.

The truth is that the US is still run by a clique. Even Obama comes out of the establishment - his mother's side were from an old upper class family, related to other prominent American figures. He's not "straight outta Compton", he's the product of an old white family who then managed to get a high level education. The elite universities filter these people, decide who climbs the tree. The same applies to the Bushs, Clintons etc. In the case of the Clintons, they were groomed through elite universities and came up that way. The Bushs have oiled the wheels of Yale for many a year.

Some of the scholarships come with personal costs too. Get a Rhodes Scholarship and you're practically owned and selected for the rest of your life by the elite. In order to get one, you must be vetted and interviewed (not just a case of being intelligent) by what are basically king makers. And the universities are beholden to whoever finances them. They try not to let trouble makers in, they filter them out and select malleable conformists.

Back in the 80's a friend of mine got a Bachelor's degree from the same state school that I did. He was on an honors track and was taking graduate level courses at the time that he got his B.S. He was accepted at Stanford and got his M.B.A. from there at a time when it was considered the top M.B.A. program in the country, even better than Harvard. He was also from a wealthy and well-connected family in the West.

He later told me that because he did not have an Ivy League degree, certain doors and career tracks on Wall St. were closed to him. He had a great career, just not the one for which he was originally aiming. He noted that even people who had a Bachelor's from an Ivy League school, but no Master's, still had an advantage over him.

So I concluded that the "old boy" network on Wall St. was still a huge factor, at least as much so as one's academic achievements. Even Mitt Romney got an Ivy League degree.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2019 10:45AM by summer.

Maybe we're not so far apart, Lottie. I'll respond to just two points, and they're matters of degree.

Is the value of elite education in "getting in" or in the education itself? You're right: they're buying status, and will trade on that more than the education itself. Shapiro is emphatic: having "gotten in," they've "got it made," barring the major mishap of flunking out, which is fairly rare because the colleges want that debt-fueled tuition.

My understanding (BTW, confirmed by an RfM academe) is that grade inflation is so widespread it's virtually universal. Graduation time is near: look down any roster of new B.A.'s and B.S.'s-- most of them are cum laude or better.

I did get an authentic BA but did blue-collar work all my life, ending, as you know, in law enforcement. An anecdote to finish up on:

We were shutting down a loud party one night, 3:00 AM or so. The usual: "Dump the beer. Call a cab. Get home. Keep it quiet...blah, blah." One noisy uncooperative jerk was in the middle of the street, loudly declaring we had no right to be there, we're pigs, he has rights, blah, blah, and:

"I go to Harvard Law and I know the law!" he loudly declared.
One of my partners (nicknamed "Wild Bill") replied, "I'm a Boston cop and I enforce the law--put your hands behind your back!"

He's probably of those very few of Shapiro's compatriots who didn't get his J.D.

My experience is that the great universities are indeed great. For an intelligent person with intellectual curiosity, it's like being a kid in a candy shop. And a lot of the professors are so happy to meet a kindred spirit that they'll basically adopt you.

Meanwhile there a large portion of every class is there because of their parentage, their wealth, or their desire for connections. Those people are often a waste of space that could be given to better students.

The tragedy of the cheating scandal is two-fold. First, it represents the further intrusion of money and bad values into education. Second, and even worse, is the fact that this is the illegal form of cheating. For better students who worked harder, a simple above-board donation should have sufficed. The rich schools don't need to stoop to such venality and yet they do.

Egalitarianism and equal opportunity were the basis of something special in the Us. That basis is foundering.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Egalitarianism and equal opportunity were the
> basis of something special in the Us. That basis
> is foundering.

More than you realize, I'm afraid.
Good night.

I may argue with you about how, and how much, it is foundering. I think it likely that I am more worried than you are although our differing languages may make that hard to prove.

Good night.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Egalitarianism and equal opportunity were the
> basis of something special in the Us. That basis
> is foundering.


Not as much as we'd like to believe. There was no such egalitarianism for African Americans from independence until at least the 1960s, if not later and there were tens of millions of them.

Also some universities are more equal than others. There have been elite families in the States since the beginning - many of them bearing Dutch and English colonial names, predating independence. Stuyvesants. Gettys (who founded Gettysburg). Bushs. Over time a few families have been added. Token Catholics. A few Jews.

The USA has always been a place where the $ gets you more than mere smarts. If you've inherited your money and a hereditary place in the Ivy League or a few other élite places like Berkeleg, you're set for life.

I generally agree.

There has always been the inside track, the favoritism. But that is much more pronounced in most other countries. So the truth is that the US has had much more egalitarianism and equality of opportunity than most countries but with some glaring exceptions to that rule, exceptions that you note.

There have also been plenty of people with degrees from the great universities that have fallen through the cracks. The odds favor such a person, but there is no guarantee for life. In a sense, the "guarantees" are stronger not for the Ivy League colleges but for the most prestigious prep schools, places where people can commit all sorts of indiscretions and then have his friends protect him as he rises in prominent professions.

It's just that for a while, there was less of this elite preference in the US than in most other countries. Now that beautiful achievement is eroding. . . fast.

Consider the world of ultra-high finance. There's a clique of mostly white men who move within the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, the Harvard and Columbia "B" schools, and the top investment banks (Goldman-Sucks, Chase, Citi, a few others). They take a position here for a while, teach there for a few years (write a book or two), jump on an administration (give lots of speeches), sign on with the Fed, go back to one of the others, rinse and repeat.

This is real power, the 1%ers who serve the .001%ers.

We see this on a smaller scale in the financial backwater of Utah and LDS royalty. No coincidence that Mormons have labored so diligently to get accepted (both senses of the word) at the Harvard B-school. Note that the Harvard ward is on Brattle Street ("Oh--hello, Senator Warren, nice to see you!") and the MIT wards are on Binney Street, "Start-Up Ave," East Cambridge.

The Sneetches on the other side of the tracks want star bellies, too.

I haven't met any of them who were smarter or more qualified in their fields than graduates of lesser known institutions.

Knowing that many of them bought their way into these universities explains why they're often not as honest and and qualified as they pretend to be.

I'm an educator and I certainly would not want dishonest cheating "educators" in charge of children in classrooms. Would they overlook cheating? Would they slide along and duck challenges? Would they lie and cheat on standardized testing for their students? I'd say they're more likely to do have dishonorable attitudes than those who worked hard and fairly earned their positions.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't met any of them who were smarter or more
> qualified in their fields than graduates of lesser
> known institutions.
>
> Knowing that many of them bought their way into
> these universities explains why they're often not
> as honest and and qualified as they pretend to
> be.
>
> I'm an educator and I certainly would not want
> dishonest cheating "educators" in charge of
> children in classrooms. Would they overlook
> cheating? Would they slide along and duck
> challenges? Would they lie and cheat on
> standardized testing for their students? I'd say
> they're more likely to do have dishonorable
> attitudes than those who worked hard and fairly
> earned their positions.

This is ironic, because my brother, who is a college professor and administrator, was banned here a few years back after taking you to task when you posted about whether or not you should make a call to your alma mater to get your son in. As I recall, your consternation at the time was whether or not you should do it. Your belief clearly was that you could if you wanted to. His position was that you very likely did not have that sort of clout, and that most schools do not work that way. The tone of your posts at that time seem to conflict with the lofty ideals you espouse in this thread.

As I have written in other threads on other topics, the rule in the United States is "everyone else's entitlements are illegitimate but I worked for mine."

That's one of the reasons the country's finances are shambolic but the principle applies to many different aspects of life.

Never considered making such a call. Have no idea what this is about.

My apologies. I dug up the old threads to refresh my memory, and you are not the poster I was thinking of. I should have done that before posting. I'm sorry for the confusion.

> I'm an educator and I certainly would
> not want dishonest cheating "educators"
> in charge of children in classrooms.

What if your inner city class of 5th graders tested poorly as 4th graders and now everyone is on your butt to see to it that they do better under your guidance, and the pressure is enormous!

And then along comes someone from the Superintend's office who says she will shepherd your class through the testing process, which involves days of studying 'for the test'! And you can see that basically, she's cheating 'the system'. Even during the testing, there's cheating by the proctors, including more time then was supposed to be given, along with proctors changing answers...

And your class's test results are wonderful and everyone is praising you, and the new system the Superintendent claims to have put in place! And Champagne bottles are everywhere and the press is fawning over you.

So, yeah, Educators...luckily you're immune to outside pressures.+

And what if you had a class (or school or district) of high schoolers who were not graduating. Aside from under-achievement, many of the boys fall behind because of involvement in the criminal justice system, resulting in suspensions, absenteeism, loss of motivation, and other manifestations of being disconnected.

Then educational experts come along and say, "Starting now, we won't refer these boys to the criminal justice system. We'll give them second & third chances, transfer them, offer them counseling, put them in special easy-diploma tracks, make sure they graduate without a record. After all, they're victims of a disadvantaged environment."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7TT4jnnWys

Crime statistics dramatically drop. Graduation rates rise. Bonuses and accolades are handed out, staff are invited to give speeches, the district is a national model!

Until...

Is this something that you know of through personal experience?

In more than 20 years of urban teaching, I've only seen an administrator skirt the rules once, in very limited circumstances. I suspected two teachers of cheating, but couldn't prove it. But there's still hundreds of teachers that I've worked with and maybe two dozen or more administrators who have followed the rules.

It happens, but from what I've seen, it's not as common as you might think.

No, ma'am, just from watching the news. And how uncommon does it have to be to be acceptable? The FBI reported they are looking into 800 instances. What percentage is that of the number of college applicants in a year? Are those who are outraged overreacting, given how small the percentage is?

It's not acceptable, but you specifically brought up troubled youth, and since I teach in an urban school district, I am giving you a report from the field. I have never seen nor suspected more than a very minimal amount of cheating on standardized tests in my school district. The cases that the FBI is handling involve privileged youth, not poor urban youth.

Grade inflation/tampering is another issue altogether.

Are you also saying there are no more? And that a "small number" is something we should accept. I don't agree.

I think this "small number" is unacceptable and that there should be a major audit in every institution where these practices seem likely. I think this is another incident which undermines our credibility as a society. I'm appalled that anyone thinks checking into this situation is an overreaction.

And yet, I'll do everything in my power to encourage my kids to go to the best university possible, to find a way to make the finances work, and to give them as much of a leg up as possible.

The fact that the system is rigged makes it easy for me. The blue print is there, why not follow it?