Giannulli and Loughlin allegedly agreed to pay bribes totaling $500,000 in exchange for having their two daughters designated as recruits to the USC crew team, even though they did not participate in crew, the complaint said.
May I propose a provocative anti-thesis?
Places to study at ivory league universities in the United States are no public good, they are a completely private good. As such the mechanisms of capital markets should rule unregulated, i.e. balanced by demand and offer. And this was exactly what took place. It is a natural consequence of general market laws and as such should not be punished at all.
To complain about it is in my non American eyes not honest. One could question the system as a whole, but once committed, why shouldn't places be freely traded? I have difficulties to draw the line between market oriented access on one hand and regulations on the other. Isn't any justification doomed to be contradictory?
Places to study at ivory league universities in the United States are no public good, they are a completely private good. As such the mechanisms of capital markets should rule unregulated, i.e. balanced by demand and offer. And this was exactly what took place. It is a natural consequence of general market laws and as such should not be punished at all.
But that's not "exactly what took place": what took place was bribery and fraud. If a true pay-to-play system were enacted, it would look more like an auction.May I propose a provocative anti-thesis?
Places to study at ivory league universities in the United States are no public good, they are a completely private good. As such the mechanisms of capital markets should rule unregulated, i.e. balanced by demand and offer. And this was exactly what took place. It is a natural consequence of general market laws and as such should not be punished at all.
To complain about it is in my non American eyes not honest. One could question the system as a whole, but once committed, why shouldn't places be freely traded? I have difficulties to draw the line between market oriented access on one hand and regulations on the other. Isn't any justification doomed to be contradictory?
May I propose a provocative anti-thesis?
Places to study at ivory league universities in the United States are no public good, they are a completely private good. As such the mechanisms of capital markets should rule unregulated, i.e. balanced by demand and offer. And this was exactly what took place. It is a natural consequence of general market laws and as such should not be punished at all.
To complain about it is in my non American eyes not honest. One could question the system as a whole, but once committed, why shouldn't places be freely traded? I have difficulties to draw the line between market oriented access on one hand and regulations on the other. Isn't any justification doomed to be contradictory?
Academic fraud is not a big deal to you? It wasn't just simple bribery. They falsified test scores and received sports scholarships they never played. You don't think an employer has a bias when comparing a resume with Harvard on it vs Idaho State? The connections afforded to Ivy league schools pales in comparison to the typical state university. Learning is just one part of the college game.So, what's the big deal?
I see nothing exceptional about this. College admissions have been manipulated by many, including the government with its Affirmative Action mickey mouse, so what is the difference? Getting into Harvard, MIT, or Berkeley is not a right to anyone, nor is it necessarily a particularly great advantage. For most students, they can learn just as much at State U, as they can at Harvard. So, what's the big deal?
You don't think an employer has a bias when comparing a resume with Harvard on it vs Idaho State? The connections afforded to Ivy league schools pales in comparison to the typical state university. Learning is just one part of the college game.
I think that society as a whole, and certainly employers are included here, have attached far too much significance to particular schools. significance that simply is not justified. Students do not learn from a schools reputation, nor from its football team. They learn from their own time with the books, with pencil and paper, struggling to work the problems. That can be done just as well a the local junior college as it can at MIT. It is time that we as a society wake up to this foolishness, and quite putting Big Name U on a pedestal while denigrating less prominent schools.
It is 50 years since I finished a PhD at a well known school, University of Texas at Austin. In that time, I've rubbed shoulders with graduates of schools from every level. The graduates of big name schools have never once stood out as exceptional. It is the students who worked hard, who studied, who asked themselves the hard questions and then demanded that they be able to answer those questiosn that shine in later life. I cannot think of a single instance when that has been a graduate of a big name school in my experience.
So is the rationale for most crimes. Please don't misconstrue that as condoning the crime.What is more insightful is the unspoken agreement by those same outraged commenters that the rationale for cheating is understandable.
No, just "helpful" is enough.That flows from a belief that a degree from highly selective colleges is necessary and sufficient to have a successful career.
It is eye-poppongly self evident that that's not true. Or, to eliminate the double negative: it is demonstrably factual that "success by association" is a real thing. It's not a guarantee, but it matters a whole lot, particularly on the elite end; If you want to maximize your odds of winning a Nobel prize or appointment to the US Supreme Court, the school of choice is the same.That implies agreement with the idea that my students (and *you* who also did not attend one of those schools) are receiving a 'less than' education. That's not just unfair to me- an instructor, that's unfair to you and to my students.
In fact, belief in the magical power of 'success by association' is false.
There are two often but not always related aspects to that: quality of the education is one, reputation on your resume is the other. And while they often go together, they don't always:...I find it completely laughable to think the information science program I went through at my average state "mid major" university was on par with say MIT or Cal Tech. Laughable.
Only somewhat true. At the super selective universities, the majority of the applicants that would succeed at the school are still rejected, simply because there are so many more qualified applicants than there are spots. Consider for example, public schools like Georgia Tech or UVA, where it is much easier for in-state students to gain admission than it is for out-of-state students. Clearly, a 1450 SAT is not required in order to do the work at UVA since most of the in-state admits are below that, but if you are from out-of-state you are highly unlikely to gain admission if your SAT is any lower. I suspect many private schools are similar to the out-of-state UVA case; the typical test scores of admitted students is driven by the size and quality of the applicant pool, not by what is actually required to do the work.What's the big deal? If college were a rigorous academic experience, paying someone to forge some SAT scores wouldn't matter. Scores forged, student gets in when he/she wouldn't. Student flunks out.
Or, to eliminate the double negative: it is demonstrably factual that "success by association" is a real thing. It's not a guarantee, but it matters a whole lot, particularly on the elite end; If you want to maximize your odds of winning a Nobel prize or appointment to the US Supreme Court, the school of choice is the same.
For the celebrities though, improving odds of success was not the point (most were not trying to "succeed"). The goal was nothing more than bragging rights.
IFurthermore I find it completely laughable to think the information science program I went through at my average state "mid major" university was on par with say MIT or Cal Tech. Laughable.
Because that is not the reality. Instructors don't use the same textbooks, don't instruct the same way, don't have same level of expertise, students aren't held to the same standards, don't feel the same pressure., don't have the same resources, don't have the same circles and connections. I don't have a masters but I have heard and assume it's an even greater difference in grad school.I am not blind to reality, but if your instructors used the same textbooks, if you went through the same course content, if you were held to the same standards, then why would you denigrate your program?
Because that is not the reality. Instructors don't use the same textbooks, don't instruct the same way, don't have same level of expertise, students aren't held to the same standards, don't feel the same pressure., don't have the same resources, don't have the same circles and connections.
There are substantial qualitative differences between state university and more expensive colleges just in the San Francisco Bay Area. Computer facilities were worlds apart, instructor qualifications so different that some 'state' instructors would not even be admitted to a graduate program at Stanford. Many, if not most, 'state' students commute with little time for conferencing or even cooperating on labs. Guest lectures and IT conferences were meager to non existent compared to UC Berkeley or Stanford even if working students had time to attend.Why? I'm asking in a serious way. In what specific ways as your education second-rate? I am not blind to reality, but if your instructors used the same textbooks, if you went through the same course content, if you were held to the same standards, then why would you denigrate your program? What does that say about you?
And of course it's a gradient, I mean, there are some VERY good 1st tier state schools like University of Wisconsin in Madison. I went to UW-Milwaukee, a very average city university. Even more so, claiming say a community college opportunities are comparable to MIT etc is bizarre. I'm not saying someone can't be successful going to a community college, of course they can and some more than at MIT, but on average the stats will speak for themselves.Greg's post says that he is honest and forthright in his assessment; willing to appreciate the humor of the situation. It is laughable to equate computer science programs at 'state' campuses to MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, or probably any better funded university, ignoring the connections, cachet, and contacts available at the latter.
Then of course there is the point about students who may have been rejected because a cheater took their spot. I don't know how real this is for the case where there were 6 cheaters in the incoming class at USC; I doubt they manage the number of offers they extend to that precision, but I could easily be wrong.
For Nobel Prizes, it's faculty (researchers), not undergrad students and for USSC, it's law schools. These are just the most obvious I could think of quickly. Here's the data:I am unaware of any correlation between any Novel Prize recipient and their undergraduate institution; likewise for Supreme Court Justices, CEOs of large corporations, etc. What is your data?
Huh? I've done no such thing! There are many levels of success and I'm quite happy with mine. You're going to extremes with your interpretations. The only purpose I had for picking these extremes is because of the [relative] data I knew off the top of my head and hoped others would as well. Extreme cases tend to be well known.Don't you understand that by defining 'success' as a binary option: either a Nobel Prize or failure, either the Supreme Court or failure, you are only guaranteeing your own misery? Do you consider your life a failure?
Greg's post says that he is honest and forthright in his assessment; willing to appreciate the humor of the situation. It is laughable to equate computer science programs at 'state' campuses to MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, or probably any better funded university, ignoring the connections, cachet, and contacts available at the latter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliationI am unaware of any correlation between any Novel Prize recipient and their undergraduate institution
Even more so, claiming say a community college opportunities are comparable to MIT etc is bizarre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation
Includes some info on undergrad and grad affiliations.
Wouldn't your argument still be the same if I went to a community college? textbooks, standards etc?Ugh- when did I say that? I'm not interested in a straw-man argument.