US university admissions scandal

In summary, the federal prosecutors say that wealthy parents, actresses, coaches, and others have been bribing university officials in order to get their children into elite universities, even if they don't have any talent in the fields they're applying to. This has led to widespread cheating on tests like the SAT and ACT, and even bribery of university officials.
  • #1
jtbell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
15,906
5,546
Here's what pressure to get students into elite universities can lead to: cheating on SAT and ACT exams and even bribing university officials:

Wealthy parents, actresses, coaches, among those charged in massive college cheating admission scandal, federal prosecutors say (CNN.com)

Example:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, PeroK and Drakkith
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
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?
 
  • Like
Likes lavinia and Dr.D
  • #4
And named and shamed.
 
  • #5
fresh_42 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?

We choose to treat education a little differently than we do other businesses. But even businesses have plenty of rules to follow that would probably be contradictory if you take a very simple view of what the U.S. economy is like.

Edit: Plus, like others said below, it's not exactly part of the free market if the universities aren't getting anything out of it.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
fresh_42 said:
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.

I have seen these thoughts expressed elsewhere, however, the argument was then made that the actual universities were cut out of the deal by the guy who organized this system. He got the money not the university!
The more market based approached would have been for those wanting their kin to get in would have been to give a university a building or large contribution of some kind. Their children will then get deferential treatment.
That is the accepted American way of doing this kind of thing. That happens and is legal.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and Spinnor
  • #7
I saw one talking head today point out that rich people have always bribed universities to take their kids by endowing huge amounts of money to the campuses. They get a building named after them and their kids get pretty much automatic admission. All legal, of course. EDIT: I see BillTre beat me to it.

The coaches who were bribed directly, and the testing folks who were bribed directly, are a somewhat different story. The universities involved in the current scandal seem to be victims. The feds got involved, not because the universities were cheated but because of money laundering, and possibly tax fraud.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #8
fresh_42 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?
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.
 
  • Like
Likes NTL2009, jasonRF and BillTre
  • #9
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. If college were a rigorous academic experience. If.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, berkeman and russ_watters
  • #10
The erstwhile beneficiaries of the bribes are quoted in media as having no intention of attending classes or achieving academic goals; but only mentioned attending a few sporting events and 'party nights'. Even the most witless moronic aristo pays some lip service to participating in the university and joining a sorority to develop social skills. Why bother when all is provided with no effort.

I now understand comments in other threads where managers avoid hiring 'graduates' from otherwise prestigious universities in favor of people who actually demonstrate hard work and commitment to education.
 
  • #11
fresh_42 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?

Not the same thing. Free market is still regulated, i.e. a company can't publish fake quarterly earnings, for example, to affect their valuation.

That is what is happening here. Students are being accepted under false pretense. That is like hiring someone who said that he/she has a physics degree, but he/she actually does not.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, jasonRF and russ_watters
  • #12
One's reaction to this scandal is just as telling as the scandal itself. Nobody has a problem with pointing out that cheating, an intentional subversion of established rules and regulations, is something that should be punished.

What is more insightful is the unspoken agreement by those same outraged commenters that the rationale for cheating is understandable. That flows from a belief that a degree from highly selective colleges is necessary and sufficient to have a successful career. 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.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and fresh_42
  • #13
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?
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #14
Dr.D said:
So, what's the big deal?
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom, dlgoff, Astronuc and 3 others
  • #15
Dr.D said:
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?

Again, there is a difference. One KNOWS that a student may be admitted with a lower academic record, and that the admission is due to other external factors (poverty, athletic prowess, parental heritage, etc...). Nothing was manipulated to make the student more "desirable". A school can decide that it wants to admit any student with a blue streak hair when the moon is full if it wants to. That is not in dispute here.

Instead, if the student PRETENDED that he/she had a blue streak hair, and it wasn't even during a full moon, and that record was verified by another party, THAT is what is relevant here.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom, BillTre and russ_watters
  • #16
Greg Bernhardt said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213
  • #17
Dr.D said:
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.

But this is a separate topic, isn't it? I have zero issues with what you are describing. But what is being talked about here is that several "agent", including parents, testing services, coaches, etc.. all conspired to make a student more eligible for admission to certain schools, even when they are not really have such qualifications.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, BillTre and russ_watters
  • #18
I agree with @ZapperZ that these are two different discussions. Furthermore 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.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre, Klystron and russ_watters
  • #19
Andy Resnick said:
What is more insightful is the unspoken agreement by those same outraged commenters that the rationale for cheating is understandable.
So is the rationale for most crimes. Please don't misconstrue that as condoning the crime.
That flows from a belief that a degree from highly selective colleges is necessary and sufficient to have a successful career.
No, just "helpful" is enough.
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.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #20
Greg Bernhardt said:
...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.
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:

Penn State, as many state schools do, has an extensive satellite system, and some campuses confers degrees. Employers may not know where you got the degree. But people who have the option prefer the main campus. Why? Better students + better teachers + better facilities = a better education.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #21
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
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.

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.

Jason
 
Last edited:
  • #22
russ_watters said:
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.

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?

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?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Greg Bernhardt said:
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.

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?
 
  • Like
Likes romsofia
  • #24
Andy Resnick said:
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. I don't have a masters but I have heard and assume it's an even greater difference in grad school.

It's also a probability game. Who has a better probability to at least accidentally "make it"? Someone who goes to MIT or someone who goes to Idaho State (maybe a fine school, sorry for picking on them). The world watches and revolves around areas like MIT. No one is watching Idaho State.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes phinds and russ_watters
  • #25
Greg Bernhardt said:
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.

That may have been true for you, but it is not for me- I am using the same standard textbooks for my Intro Physics (Halliday, Resnick and Walker) and Quantum (Shankar) classes this semester. I expect my students to master the material as well as any other undergrad student. It is true that I don't instruct my intro physics class the same way- we don't have grad students leading recitation sections, I do all of the lecturing- and for some, the full-time tenured faculty also runs the associated labs. My students have at least the same resources: not just overall 'student health services' and financial assistance, there is tutoring, study areas, student groups activities, office hours, etc. They do indeed feel a lot of pressure: often, they are the first in the family to attend college, so they have a *lot* of pressure to succeed (in addition to their jobs needed to support their families).

Let's not confuse undergraduate and graduate school.
 
  • Like
Likes romsofia
  • #26
Andy Resnick said:
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?
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.

Even getting to classes at San Jose or SF State required running a gauntlet through 'bad neighborhoods' compared to Stanford in Palo Alto or the spacious UCB campus. This is NOT denigration but factual description based on experience. Personally, I was safer as a foreigner walking dockside in Bangkok than trying to get to classes at SFSU. Warning posted prominently in cafeteria "NEVER leave your backpack or books unattended. They WILL be stolen!".

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.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and russ_watters
  • #27
Klystron said:
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and russ_watters
  • #28
jasonRF said:
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.

This is actually a very interesting point- I do not know how my institution (or any institution) sets the size of their incoming Freshman class, nor do I know how 'elastic' that number is.
 
  • #29
Andy Resnick said:
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?
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:
https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices

The top school for both is the same: Harvard. For the USSC, the difference is most stark: All of the justices currently on the bench are from Harvard or Yale (or both). It's a heavily discussed issue/"problem" every time a new USSC justice is nominated.
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?
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #30
Klystron said:
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.

Yes he is and that's good, I'm trying to be as honest and forthright. As I said, I am not blind to reality. Obviously, 'who you know matters as much as what you know'- humans are social creatures, our social environment has real effects. My point is that you (you as a student) have agency; you have some control over what choices you have available to you. Life is not a binary win/lose game.
 
  • #32
Greg Bernhardt said:
Even more so, claiming say a community college opportunities are comparable to MIT etc is bizarre.

Ugh- when did I say that? I'm not interested in a straw-man argument.
 
  • #35
Andy Resnick said:
Ugh- when did I say that? I'm not interested in a straw-man argument.
Wouldn't your argument still be the same if I went to a community college? textbooks, standards etc?
 
<h2>1. What is the US university admissions scandal?</h2><p>The US university admissions scandal, also known as "Operation Varsity Blues", was a scandal involving wealthy parents, celebrities, and college coaches who were accused of bribery and fraud in order to secure admission for their children into top universities in the United States.</p><h2>2. How did the scandal come to light?</h2><p>The scandal was uncovered by the FBI in March 2019, after a year-long investigation dubbed "Operation Varsity Blues". The investigation was initiated after a tip from a financial executive who was being investigated for unrelated crimes.</p><h2>3. What were the methods used in the scandal?</h2><p>The main method used in the scandal was bribery, where parents paid large sums of money to college coaches and admissions consultants to secure admission for their children. Other methods included cheating on standardized tests and faking athletic credentials.</p><h2>4. What were the consequences of the scandal?</h2><p>As of 2021, over 50 people have been charged and convicted in connection with the scandal. This includes wealthy parents, college coaches, and admissions consultants. Some have been sentenced to prison time, while others have paid fines and served community service.</p><h2>5. How has the scandal affected the US university admissions process?</h2><p>The scandal has shed light on the flaws and inequalities in the US university admissions process. It has also led to changes in policies and procedures for admissions, such as increased scrutiny and stricter regulations on athletic recruitment. It has also sparked conversations about the privilege and influence of wealthy families in the admissions process.</p>

1. What is the US university admissions scandal?

The US university admissions scandal, also known as "Operation Varsity Blues", was a scandal involving wealthy parents, celebrities, and college coaches who were accused of bribery and fraud in order to secure admission for their children into top universities in the United States.

2. How did the scandal come to light?

The scandal was uncovered by the FBI in March 2019, after a year-long investigation dubbed "Operation Varsity Blues". The investigation was initiated after a tip from a financial executive who was being investigated for unrelated crimes.

3. What were the methods used in the scandal?

The main method used in the scandal was bribery, where parents paid large sums of money to college coaches and admissions consultants to secure admission for their children. Other methods included cheating on standardized tests and faking athletic credentials.

4. What were the consequences of the scandal?

As of 2021, over 50 people have been charged and convicted in connection with the scandal. This includes wealthy parents, college coaches, and admissions consultants. Some have been sentenced to prison time, while others have paid fines and served community service.

5. How has the scandal affected the US university admissions process?

The scandal has shed light on the flaws and inequalities in the US university admissions process. It has also led to changes in policies and procedures for admissions, such as increased scrutiny and stricter regulations on athletic recruitment. It has also sparked conversations about the privilege and influence of wealthy families in the admissions process.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top