|
Post by azvb on Mar 25, 2019 16:31:17 GMT -5
.....and Andrew Young's (dr. dre) daughter got into USC all on her own merits!.......until a report surfaced that he and Jimmy Lovine donated $70 million to create an Arts,Technology and Business of Innovation school in their Name.....suddenly a proud instagram post has disappeared. lmao Yeah, but that's not a crime. He's giving money (a lot of money) to the school, not bribing some AD to fake up credentials for his kid. Not illegal, but really stupid to be bragging about his daughter getting in on her own merit. And maybe she would have gotten in if daddy hadn’t made that donation.
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Mar 25, 2019 17:02:05 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's not a crime. He's giving money (a lot of money) to the school, not bribing some AD to fake up credentials for his kid. Not illegal, but really stupid to be bragging about his daughter getting in on her own merit. And maybe she would have gotten in if daddy hadn’t made that donation. .....and that was the point from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 25, 2019 17:04:20 GMT -5
.....and Andrew Young's (dr. dre) daughter got into USC all on her own merits!.......until a report surfaced that he and Jimmy Lovine donated $70 million to create an Arts,Technology and Business of Innovation school in their Name.....suddenly a proud instagram post has disappeared. lmao Yeah, but that's not a crime. He's giving money (a lot of money) to the school, not bribing some AD to fake up credentials for his kid. It's like how a surprising (ha!) percentage of people in the Kennedy family have degrees from Harvard's "Kennedy School Of Government". You think there is a connection? Of course! But it's out in the open and not a crime. I had a friend freshman year who was from a very prominent family supporting a top PAC-10 school (like, names on buildings - yes, plural - prominent). He couldn't handle the Northeast winters and transferred home after 1 year - to that school's rival. It caused a huge issue with his family, but he specifically wanted to avoid the appearance of favoritism and thought it would be embarrassing for him. I imagine that can't be uncommon?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 25, 2019 17:16:49 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's not a crime. He's giving money (a lot of money) to the school, not bribing some AD to fake up credentials for his kid. It's like how a surprising (ha!) percentage of people in the Kennedy family have degrees from Harvard's "Kennedy School Of Government". You think there is a connection? Of course! But it's out in the open and not a crime. I had a friend freshman year who was from a very prominent family supporting a top PAC-10 school (like, names on buildings - yes, plural - prominent). He couldn't handle the Northeast winters and transferred home after 1 year - to that school's rival. It caused a huge issue with his family, but he specifically wanted to avoid the appearance of favoritism and thought it would be embarrassing for him. I imagine that can't be uncommon? Sure. Some of the Kennedys went to Yale. My own sister went to WSU freshman year (my parents both graduated from UW), but she wised up and transferred to UW.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Mar 25, 2019 17:31:53 GMT -5
FIGHT ON! LOL! Also, you couldn’t find a larger image?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Mar 25, 2019 17:58:41 GMT -5
There’s a LOT more evidence than what’s being made public — and there’s a lot uncovered still.... Heinel’s a coward and a liar. She’ll look for a plea deal I’m sure , but I hope they don’t go easy on her. Heinel knew what she was doing was wrong, and made several piss poor attempts to cover it up. It felt great to watch her walk into court today! ☺️☺️ More people at USC are involved. Heinel has done a real number on the department. She was the most powerful person in the usc athletic dept.....................Lynn Swann is a figurehead. I hope she does jail time. Well, Steve Lopes actually wields more power within the athletic department, but Donna gaining complete control of admissions clearly gave her a lot of real estate, so to speak, in Heritage Hall. One person I’ve heard nothing from is Pat Haden, who promoted Donna and gave her the admissions gig. I’ve always respected Pat as a person, but he made some errors in judgment during his tenure, IMO. I’d very much like to hear his thoughts on this mess.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Mar 25, 2019 18:07:45 GMT -5
FIGHT ON! LOL! Also, you couldn’t find a larger image? +2 -- one for the large image and one for the rejoinder and keep up the good work!
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Mar 25, 2019 18:15:24 GMT -5
More people at USC are involved. Heinel has done a real number on the department. She was the most powerful person in the usc athletic dept.....................Lynn Swann is a figurehead. I hope she does jail time. Well, Steve Lopes actually wields more power within the athletic department, but Donna gaining complete control of admissions clearly gave her a lot of real estate, so to speak, in Heritage Hall. One person I’ve heard nothing from is Pat Haden, who promoted Donna and gave her the admissions gig. I’ve always respected Pat as a person, but he made some errors in judgment during his tenure, IMO. I’d very much like to hear his thoughts on this mess. In the corporate world we call it "delegating". As you know it is usually a good idea to circle back to see how your delegation of authority is working, but sometimes time won't give you time to do the deep dive necessary to render an informed verdict, so you let it slide.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 25, 2019 20:51:13 GMT -5
For some reason that reminded me of another fraudulent case, different and unrelated to the admission scandal, but it seem to reflect certain similiarities in moral and ethics (or lack thereof). I'm talking about the Theranos scandal with Elizabeth Holmes. She was an "influencer" in her own way. She raised hundreds or millions of dollars in capital purely on her power of her persuasion. Yet she had nothing to show for it. People who should have known better, seasoned investors and other venture capital firms, fell for her deceit. When it was revealed she was a fraud, they all ended up as suckers with eggs on their face. It's easy to pin all the blame on Holmes, and she certainly is a con woman, but few stop to think how she got away with it for so long. An environment enabled her to carried out her scheme. In this admission scandal, it is not the same of course. Everyone involved knew it was illegal from the get-go. Yet again, they somehow got the idea they could get away with the scheme. A certain environment was created that enabled them to think like that. The question we should ask as a society is...how was it so easy for these people to pull the wool over your eyes? She's not even a real blonde. I read an article that said that only 2% of the population are blonde, mostly in the Scandinavian countries. However, 48% of female CEOs/COOs are blonde, which is quite remarkable. Note: of those 48%, they're not all real blondes, in case you missed my message. There's also some dispute about her voice, that it's a fabricated voice to appear more authoritative. Ditto for the Steve Jobs turtlenecks she always wore. From head to toe, inside and out, Holmes is such a fraud. Which is why I always thought the "dumb blonde" jokes were always a little off-kilter. People don't like to admit it in the US, but having blonde hair is still considered a "desirable trait" that can "win" you glances.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 25, 2019 21:05:03 GMT -5
For some reason that reminded me of another fraudulent case, different and unrelated to the admission scandal, but it seem to reflect certain similiarities in moral and ethics (or lack thereof). I'm talking about the Theranos scandal with Elizabeth Holmes. She was an "influencer" in her own way. She raised hundreds or millions of dollars in capital purely on her power of her persuasion. Yet she had nothing to show for it. People who should have known better, seasoned investors and other venture capital firms, fell for her deceit. When it was revealed she was a fraud, they all ended up as suckers with eggs on their face. It's easy to pin all the blame on Holmes, and she certainly is a con woman, but few stop to think how she got away with it for so long. An environment enabled her to carried out her scheme. In this admission scandal, it is not the same of course. Everyone involved knew it was illegal from the get-go. Yet again, they somehow got the idea they could get away with the scheme. A certain environment was created that enabled them to think like that. The question we should ask as a society is...how was it so easy for these people to pull the wool over your eyes? This opens up a whole Trump can of worms. Oh yes, but I think it's an issue that needs to be confronted. In hindsight, there were plenty of red flags that could be raised with Holmes, but the media didn't ask the questions at first (and they are just as guilty here in propping her up as some sort of star in the first place). She was a college drop-out. Now in Silicon Valley, being a drop-out entrepreneur is almost a badge of pride. Bill Gates was a drop-out. As was Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. But they were in the computer industry where you don't necessarily need a degree in computer science to learn programming or coding. Sure, you probably need to hire some college graduates such as electrical engineers to work for you eventually, but you yourself can learn enough about software to start a company without needing a degree in it. However, what Holmes was doing was different. She wanted to revolutionize medical treatment by using a tiny blood sample to diagnosed all kinds of diseases. That is simply impossible with the current state of medical knowledge. What's more, she would at least need a bachelor degree in biochemistry to really understand the biology and chemical interaction of the body. Medical science is not the same as computer programming. You can't be an expert so easily, and all Holmes took was a few courses at Stanford. Grossly inadequate. Yet people simply took her word. She knew how to sell, that's for sure. But she was unwilling to put in the work to finish her degree. And in this admission scandal, I bet there was certainly red flags, but did upper management care to notice? Or were they negligent in ignoring the warning signs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 23:30:12 GMT -5
A most sincere wish list for the future destinies of those involved:
1) Heinel is NOT permitted to plea bargain; she is sentenced to 10 years without any "good behavior" reduction; is fined $5M; is assessed $10M in restitution (clearing a class action suit);
2) Singer gets put away for the rest of his natural life; is stripped of Any And All assets (including any hidden deposits in 'off-shore' bank accounts); apologizes to All cheated applicants;
3) Vavic is banned by EVERY amateur athletic/water polo governing body; he/sc are stripped of every WP NC he won while he was a part of this pathetic scheme; he leaves the country for good;
4) Swann is swiftly and summarily canned from his Athletic Director position; he is banned by the NCAA from ANY future involvement in college sports; he ends up in the WWE as a freak-show act;
5) And these parents? They get harassed by paparazzi for the rest of their days; they're forced to register in a database which will swiftly notify any investor of their history of fraud;
That's It: All that I want for these "human" scum-buckets!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 26, 2019 0:31:48 GMT -5
Now in Silicon Valley, being a drop-out entrepreneur is almost a badge of pride. Bill Gates was a drop-out. As was Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. But they were in the computer industry where you don't necessarily need a degree in computer science to learn programming or coding. 1) Bill Gates was never part of Silicon Valley. He started his company in New Mexico, then moved it to the Seattle area. 2) Microsoft's real core program, MS-DOS, was actually developed elsewhere. Bill bought it and rebranded it. You don't need to have a degree in programming to do that! 3) Likewise, Steve Jobs's real talent was in sales and marketing, not computing. Steve Jobs started Apple to sell the computer that Steve Wozniak designed. 4) Zuckerberg, like Gates, graduated from elite private prep schools and went to Harvard for a while before leaving school to start businesses. This is not usually what people mean when they talk about "college dropouts". (Steve Jobs, on the other hand, dropped out of college to wander around, do drugs, and study Zen Buddhism. This is EXACTLY what most people mean when they talk about "college dropouts".)
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 26, 2019 0:44:32 GMT -5
Now in Silicon Valley, being a drop-out entrepreneur is almost a badge of pride. Bill Gates was a drop-out. As was Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. But they were in the computer industry where you don't necessarily need a degree in computer science to learn programming or coding. 1) Bill Gates was never part of Silicon Valley. He started his company in New Mexico, then moved it to the Seattle area. 2) Microsoft's real core program, MS-DOS, was actually developed elsewhere. Bill bought it and rebranded it. You don't need to have a degree in programming to do that! 3) Likewise, Steve Jobs's real talent was in sales and marketing, not computing. Steve Jobs started Apple to sell the computer that Steve Wozniak designed. 4) Zuckerberg, like Gates, graduated from elite private prep schools and went to Harvard for a while before leaving school to start businesses. This is not usually what people mean when they talk about "college dropouts". (Steve Jobs, on the other hand, dropped out of college to wander around, do drugs, and study Zen Buddhism. This is EXACTLY what most people mean when they talk about "college dropouts".) You are MISSING the point entirely. Silicon Valley I meant as the industry, not simply a geographic location. So Gates CAN be considered part of the Silicon Valley industry. Besides, you are raising irrelevant points and you are not contradicting what I am saying in any case. I said you do not necessarily need computer expertise to start a software/IT company. But the problem is that Holmes thought she could use the Silicon Valley start-up model for her medical device company. That was what I meant as a drop-out. But she applied the model to the WRONG field. Like I said, medical science is NOT computer programming. You need years of research and an actual degree in a related field to grasp the complexities of the human body. Simply assuming you are an expert at 19 without any kind of indepth training in medical science or biochemistry is not going to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 26, 2019 0:47:37 GMT -5
1) Bill Gates was never part of Silicon Valley. He started his company in New Mexico, then moved it to the Seattle area. 2) Microsoft's real core program, MS-DOS, was actually developed elsewhere. Bill bought it and rebranded it. You don't need to have a degree in programming to do that! 3) Likewise, Steve Jobs's real talent was in sales and marketing, not computing. Steve Jobs started Apple to sell the computer that Steve Wozniak designed. 4) Zuckerberg, like Gates, graduated from elite private prep schools and went to Harvard for a while before leaving school to start businesses. This is not usually what people mean when they talk about "college dropouts". (Steve Jobs, on the other hand, dropped out of college to wander around, do drugs, and study Zen Buddhism. This is EXACTLY what most people mean when they talk about "college dropouts".) You are MISSING the point entirely. Silicon Valley I meant as the industry, not simply a geographic location. You are raising irrelevant points and you are not contradicting what I am saying in any case. I said you do not necessarily need computer expertise to start a software/IT company. But the problem is that Holmes thought she could use the Silicon Valley start-up model for her medical device company. That was what I meant as a drop-out. But she applied the model to the WRONG field. Like I said, medical science is NOT computer programming. You need years of research and an actual degree in a related field to grasp the complexities of the human body. Simply assuming you are an expert at 19 without any kind of indepth training in medical science or biochemistry is not going to cut it. But she wasn't working the lab right? She was just selling. She was good at it, too. A lot of people bought. Her problem was that what she was selling turned out to be a pipe dream. If she had been selling something that actually worked, she would have been fine.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 26, 2019 0:58:55 GMT -5
You are MISSING the point entirely. Silicon Valley I meant as the industry, not simply a geographic location. You are raising irrelevant points and you are not contradicting what I am saying in any case. I said you do not necessarily need computer expertise to start a software/IT company. But the problem is that Holmes thought she could use the Silicon Valley start-up model for her medical device company. That was what I meant as a drop-out. But she applied the model to the WRONG field. Like I said, medical science is NOT computer programming. You need years of research and an actual degree in a related field to grasp the complexities of the human body. Simply assuming you are an expert at 19 without any kind of indepth training in medical science or biochemistry is not going to cut it. But she wasn't working the lab right? She was just selling. She was good at it, too. A lot of people bought. Her problem was that what she was selling turned out to be a pipe dream. If she had been selling something that actually worked, she would have been fine.She came up with the blood test idea. And even if she did worked at a lab it ain't enough. You may not necessarily need to be a physician to conduct medical or pharmaceutical research, but you sure need more than "worked-at-a-lab" on your resume to build a credible reputation in the field. There is a long, expensive and laborious process to gaining FDA approval for new drugs or other medical treatments (there are exceptions, like approving experimental vaccines to treat some deadly disease outbreaks, but that is not the norm). There is a reason for the long approval process. Drugs can have nasty side-effects. Take an hypothetical situation, some miracle drug that can cure cancer in one shot. But the side-effect is that it gives you heart disease. Then are you really better off? You are simply trading one potentially fatal disease for another. Sounds absurd, but you can never be sure if the drug is not properly tested and the expertise is not there at the top to know what is going on. The problem is also is not just selling a pipe dream, she is selling something that could kill or harm people. And give patients false hopes with a device that does not work. We are not just talking about people losing money in their investment, we are talking about human lives. And she knew it. Now maybe she had noble intentions at first, to sincerely find better treatment for people. But as she encountered one setback after another, she could not admit failure to herself and at some point, crossed the line to outright fraud.
|
|