|
Post by azvb on Apr 8, 2019 20:49:12 GMT -5
I found out 10 years or so ago, that my husband got in to Stanford. But no scholarship. So, he went to ASU. And met me. So, it all worked out. I thought you went to BYU? Or did you meet your hubby AFTER BYU and AFTER you moved back home? I may need you to draw a timeline of your life milestones. Dates, places, stuff... It’s all very confusing. 1973-1978 BYU 1978-1979 Lived in Logan, UT and taught high school. Hated Logan, and teaching high school. Summer 1979 Played in the IVA for the SLC Stingers Fall 1979/80 Moved back to Phoenix, lived with my parents, taught part time and coached at my old high school Summer 1980 Went back to SLC for the IVA. Got cut. 1980-1984 Moved to Tempe with a BYU teammate. Coached at a JC, worked in the athletic office. Met my husband (he was still at ASU) in 1983 at church. Got married in 1984. I can keep going, but I think you’ve got the picture. I could tell my childbirth stories.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 8, 2019 20:55:07 GMT -5
I thought you went to BYU? Or did you meet your hubby AFTER BYU and AFTER you moved back home? I may need you to draw a timeline of your life milestones. Dates, places, stuff... It’s all very confusing. 1973-1978 BYU 1978-1979 Lived in Logan, UT and taught high school. Hated Logan, and teaching high school. Summer 1979 Played in the IVA for the SLC Stingers Fall 1979/80 Moved back to Phoenix, lived with my parents, taught part time and coached at my old high school Summer 1980 Went back to SLC for the IVA. Got cut. 1980-1984 Moved to Tempe with a BYU teammate. Coached at a JC, worked in the athletic office. Met my husband (he was still at ASU) in 1983 at church. Got married in 1984. I can keep going, but I think you’ve got the picture. I could tell my childbirth stories. Why Tempe, AZ? I may need to create flash cards and memorize all this.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Apr 8, 2019 20:56:43 GMT -5
1973-1978 BYU 1978-1979 Lived in Logan, UT and taught high school. Hated Logan, and teaching high school. Summer 1979 Played in the IVA for the SLC Stingers Fall 1979/80 Moved back to Phoenix, lived with my parents, taught part time and coached at my old high school Summer 1980 Went back to SLC for the IVA. Got cut. 1980-1984 Moved to Tempe with a BYU teammate. Coached at a JC, worked in the athletic office. Met my husband (he was still at ASU) in 1983 at church. Got married in 1984. I can keep going, but I think you’ve got the picture. I could tell my childbirth stories. Why Tempe, AZ? I may need to create flash cards and memorize all this. My roommate was going to ASU to get her Masters. I coached in Mesa. Tempe is a much shorter drive to Mesa than Phoenix.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 8, 2019 21:24:34 GMT -5
Do you suppose some of these parents are thinking, “Why the hell did Felicity Huffman only pay $15,000? I was overcharged.” I'm sure some will harbor that thought, which reveals something telling about the current state of America. The bigger issue of this fraud is that it exposed, again, the reality of the American Dream is not always as we imagined. We like to think of America as a land of egalitarian opportunity. That everyone has a shot of success, if you simply work hard at your goal. But the reality is that America is just as divided by class and social divide as the Old World that the US had always like to distinguish itself from. Class differences confer benefits or disadvantages depending on where you sit on the social hierarchy. The higher up you are, the more power, priviledge and social status one enjoys. Those advantages in turn can translate into preferential access to social advantages such as priority access to good education. Good education in turn provide your children with technical skill and knowledge, as well as networking in elite circles. All of which increase their chance of remaining in the higher social class. Of course, there are some things that money and power can't buy, like the freedom to break the law. But if you enjoy the power that some of these parents enjoy, one can be easily mislead into thinking otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Apr 8, 2019 21:58:03 GMT -5
No way she does anywhere near the max. I’d be surprised at any jail time. Huge probation, huge fine, that’s it. I agree with the no jail time but this is a felony conviction right? Lori Laughlin may do jail time, she was much more inviolved. Yeah it’s a felony, so big probation, big fine, but that’s probably it for pleading guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 14:04:11 GMT -5
Well, I'm now a convert. I never cared about Donna Heinel but because bigfan has been so enthusiastically campaigning against her, I now care a lot and I hope she rots in jail.
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Apr 9, 2019 14:31:13 GMT -5
Do you suppose some of these parents are thinking, “Why the hell did Felicity Huffman only pay $15,000? I was overcharged.” I believe the difference in this one is that they were only going to have someone take the SAT for her. Whereas Loughlin/Gianulli basically had to bribe people that could get their spawn through admissions.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 9, 2019 14:44:37 GMT -5
The scandal violated our sense of fairness to admissions. But beyond this scandal, there is also the broader question of just how much merit-based selection of applicants there really is. Harvard freshmen class for example, is one-third legacy admissions: www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.htmlAnd as the above article indicates, legacy admission has an ugly history, designed originally to keep out immigrants and Jews. So there is a bigger problem here than just this admission scandal. We need to ask ourselves whether the rules are stacked too much in favor of certain class of applicants to begin with (those with money and connections).
|
|
|
Post by jcvball22 on Apr 9, 2019 14:55:00 GMT -5
The scandal violated our sense of fairness to admissions. But beyond this scandal, there is also the broader question of just how much merit-based selection of applicants there really is. Harvard freshmen class for example, is one-third legacy admissions: www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.htmlAnd as the above article indicates, legacy admission has an ugly history, designed originally to keep out immigrants and Jews. So there is a bigger problem here than just this admission scandal. We need to ask ourselves whether the rules are stacked too much in favor of certain class of applicants to begin with (those with money and connections). Well, this presupposes that private schools are under any obligation to admit on a blind-resume basis. Each individual admissions office sets the direction, goals, and standards for any incoming class. State schools would have more regulation on admissions standards to meet state and federal guidelines. Assuming a private school meets federal non-discrimination guidelines, they choose their admits in whatever way they want. Like it or not, the system is not fair.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Apr 9, 2019 15:01:11 GMT -5
Do you suppose some of these parents are thinking, “Why the hell did Felicity Huffman only pay $15,000? I was overcharged.”
From a couple of news articles on her, the statement was that she only arranged for someone to correct some answers on her daughter's SAT. Not sure how someone could do that after the test, but that's what was stated. So it sounded like her daughter got in on the "corrected" SAT score and that Huffman didn't get involved in the bribing of someone to get her daughter in on athletic or other considerations.
So it sounded like she only paid for the economy plan.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 15:05:28 GMT -5
They only care about the legacies whose alum parents:
1. donate money (and lots of it), or 2. are famous (and therefore can boost the visibility of the school), or 3. are powerful (i.e., the alum has power to benefit the university in some way, e.g., legislation, construction).
The average legacy has the same chance as every other applicant.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 9, 2019 15:06:08 GMT -5
The scandal violated our sense of fairness to admissions. But beyond this scandal, there is also the broader question of just how much merit-based selection of applicants there really is. Harvard freshmen class for example, is one-third legacy admissions: www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-more-than-one-third-legacy.htmlAnd as the above article indicates, legacy admission has an ugly history, designed originally to keep out immigrants and Jews. So there is a bigger problem here than just this admission scandal. We need to ask ourselves whether the rules are stacked too much in favor of certain class of applicants to begin with (those with money and connections). Well, this presupposes that private schools are under any obligation to admit on a blind-resume basis. Each individual admissions office sets the direction, goals, and standards for any incoming class. State schools would have more regulation on admissions standards to meet state and federal guidelines. Assuming a private school meets federal non-discrimination guidelines, they choose their admits in whatever way they want. Like it or not, the system is not fair. Then let's not pretend this admission scandal is somehow shocking. The culprits deserved to be condemned and punished. But the system itself is rotten.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Apr 9, 2019 15:06:53 GMT -5
They only care about the legacies whose alum parents: 1. donate money (and lots of it), or 2. are famous (and therefore can boost the visibility of the school), or 3. are powerful (i.e., the alum has power to benefit the university in some way, e.g., legislation, construction). The average legacy has the same chance as every other applicant. Then why such a high proportion of them at Harvard?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 15:11:47 GMT -5
It's not just legacies that benefit from the admissions process. Children of "important" people get in because the university deems it imperative to please these "important" people.
Here's an example:
The university wants to attract a certain renowned scientist to their school as a full professor. This scientist is not an alum of this school. This scientist has a daughter who wants to go to that school. Wink wink. Daughter gets admitted swiftly. This scientist now is a professor at the school.
Here's another example:
King Abdullah of the oil-rich empire of Gazerbah Arabia (fictional, btw) has two sons (Prince Amal and Prince Kumal) and a daughter (Princess Seraffa). King Abdullah's worth is in the $300Billion range. What are the chances that those three kids get fast-tracked in the Admissions Office?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 9, 2019 15:12:39 GMT -5
They only care about the legacies whose alum parents: 1. donate money (and lots of it), or 2. are famous (and therefore can boost the visibility of the school), or 3. are powerful (i.e., the alum has power to benefit the university in some way, e.g., legislation, construction). The average legacy has the same chance as every other applicant. Then why such a high proportion of them at Harvard? Because they fulfill at least one of the three criteria I listed. I suspect all of them donate lots and lots of $$$.
|
|