|
Post by mikegarrison on May 15, 2019 19:13:33 GMT -5
My wife went about it more strategically. In high school, she did some “investigative” research into the majors that were not popular or underrepresented at each school she applied to and in her application, identified those majors as her preferred Area of study even though she had no interest in, say, Medieval Studies, Islamic Studies, or Native American Studies. I said I was interested in majoring in philosophy and turned in an essay on "my personal philosophy". I did not major in philosophy (although that was my "humanities concentration" subject). The thing is, I actually was very interested in philosophy. But it turned out I was more interested in aeronautical engineering. Anyway, the situation that pertains today for most college applicants is that, no, it isn't as easy as you suppose. Even for those in the top decile of graduating high school students, getting into Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc. is unlikely. The number of qualified applicants is far larger than the number of places available, so to some extent it is like a random lottery. If you are a top high school student and you apply to all these schools you will probably get into a few of them. But if you have your heart set on just one of them, it's a much more dicey proposition. I'm not surprised that some percentage of those with the means and opportunity to cheat the system try to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 15, 2019 19:20:58 GMT -5
My wife went about it more strategically. In high school, she did some “investigative” research into the majors that were not popular or underrepresented at each school she applied to and in her application, identified those majors as her preferred Area of study even though she had no interest in, say, Medieval Studies, Islamic Studies, or Native American Studies. I said I was interested in majoring in philosophy and turned in an essay on "my personal philosophy". I did not major in philosophy (although that was my "humanities concentration" subject). The thing is, I actually was very interested in philosophy. But it turned out I was more interested in aeronautical engineering. Anyway, the situation that pertains today for most college applicants is that, no, it isn't as easy as you suppose. Even for those in the top decile of graduating high school students, getting into Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc. is unlikely. The number of qualified applicants is far larger than the number of places available, so to some extent it is like a random lottery. If you are a top high school student and you apply to all these schools you will probably get into a few of them. But if you have your heart set on just one of them, it's a much more dicey proposition. I'm not surprised that some percentage of those with the means and opportunity to cheat the system try to do so. My kids started college in 2006, 2008, and 2010. I don’t know how it is now but I don’t recall it being that tough then. Or they got lucky. They didn’t get into Caltech or Stanford but they got into Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and UC Berkeley. Only my wife tried to “game” the system. My kids applied straight up.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on May 15, 2019 19:21:09 GMT -5
This will be the end of my rant. What bothers me the most about this case is how it demonstrates that a huge cross-section of wealthy Americans believe education is worthless and you are just buying your kids a credential. These are not all actors, there are successful lawyers, money managers, CEOs, the guy that ran Limited or banana republic, the dude that invented hot pockets etc. For $3,000 you can send your child to an intensive SAT prep course that will raise their score a couple of hundred points AND teach them something. They could have easily hired them those best private coaches and helped them excel in an actual sport. All of these people did not care to have their children enrich themselves, they just felt the degree from USC/GT/Yale/Stanford was all their kid needed to make it in life. That is a troubling sign. It would be easy to assume they do not love their children but I do not believe that. But the alternative is also troubling, all these people believe that the things colleges value in applicants (high SAT, sports, leadership) are not really valuable to their kids' growth as a person. Else they would have done the actual actions that they obviously knew were needed since they faked them. It means that 750 very rich people (maybe more) who are not related all came to the same conclusion. They think our college application system is a complete joke. That having your kids involved in sports and studying hard to do well academically is a only for "losers" that cannot game the system. And they felt it was their right or privilege to take those spots from some other Americans' kids who actually followed the rules. And none of them lost a second of sleep over it. What else have these 750 families done to screw over the rest of America for their own personal gain? They all need to be humiliated and serve some time in prison regardless of the additional cost to us. I will say that I don’t know how many people actually look at college as a chance for their kids to enrich themselves. They see it as a means to a better end.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 15, 2019 19:26:34 GMT -5
I think problems arise when people view specific colleges as an END. Thus, they tend to act desperately, emotionally, often irrationally because, to them, it’s the end of the world if they don’t get into Harvard or Stanford. I tend to view colleges as a MEANS to an end. A specific college isn’t necessary for me to get to that end. Having said that, I applied to top colleges but I think I would’ve been just as happy at a state college.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on May 15, 2019 19:33:22 GMT -5
Here is some market research from E-Score Brand on USC’s brand before and after the College Admissions Scandal. The dislike score rose from 26 to 40 and appeal dropped from 24 to 16. Excerpt: Of the schools measured, USC has the highest number of top-of-mind mentions for “Scandal, Cheating, Etc.” (18.9% of consumers) in Consumer Comments for the question: “What is the first thought that comes to mind when you see the name of this brand?” Harvard has the lowest at 1.3% followed by Yale (1.5%) then Stanford (2.5%). insideusc.blog/2019/05/15/usc-brand-takes-a-hit/
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 15, 2019 19:41:30 GMT -5
Here is some market research from E-Score Brand on USC’s brand before and after the College Admissions Scandal. The dislike score rose from 26 to 40 and appeal dropped from 24 to 16. Excerpt: Of the schools measured, USC has the highest number of top-of-mind mentions for “Scandal, Cheating, Etc.” (18.9% of consumers) in Consumer Comments for the question: “What is the first thought that comes to mind when you see the name of this brand?” Harvard has the lowest at 1.3% followed by Yale (1.5%) then Stanford (2.5%). insideusc.blog/2019/05/15/usc-brand-takes-a-hit/If I were in high school, my first thought would be: So, my chances of getting into USC might be higher because less people might apply. However, my second thought would be, Christ, if other people think like me, then USC might get MORE applicants, thus reducing my chances of getting in! And we're back to where we started.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on May 15, 2019 20:24:55 GMT -5
I said I was interested in majoring in philosophy and turned in an essay on "my personal philosophy". I did not major in philosophy (although that was my "humanities concentration" subject). The thing is, I actually was very interested in philosophy. But it turned out I was more interested in aeronautical engineering. Anyway, the situation that pertains today for most college applicants is that, no, it isn't as easy as you suppose. Even for those in the top decile of graduating high school students, getting into Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc. is unlikely. The number of qualified applicants is far larger than the number of places available, so to some extent it is like a random lottery. If you are a top high school student and you apply to all these schools you will probably get into a few of them. But if you have your heart set on just one of them, it's a much more dicey proposition. I'm not surprised that some percentage of those with the means and opportunity to cheat the system try to do so. My kids started college in 2006, 2008, and 2010. I don’t know how it is now but I don’t recall it being that tough then. Or they got lucky. They didn’t get into Caltech or Stanford but they got into Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and UC Berkeley. Only my wife tried to “game” the system. My kids applied straight up. Three kids, right? Yet 4 schools?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 15, 2019 20:30:16 GMT -5
My kids started college in 2006, 2008, and 2010. I don’t know how it is now but I don’t recall it being that tough then. Or they got lucky. They didn’t get into Caltech or Stanford but they got into Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and UC Berkeley. Only my wife tried to “game” the system. My kids applied straight up. Three kids, right? Yet 4 schools? Well, each kid got into multiple schools. I mean, was BYU the only school that accepted you? I think you’ve been away from this college game for so long that you forgot basic college admissions counting. (Also, I didn’t list all the schools that accepted them because I’ve forgotten some of them. For example, UCLA.)
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 16, 2019 0:42:48 GMT -5
Here it is by popular demand -- the hardest college to get into by state map...
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 16, 2019 0:53:01 GMT -5
Here it is by popular demand -- the hardest college to get into by state map... Why does Hawaii look like blood splatter? LOL! Carleton College in Minnesota doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is Kenyon over Oberlin in Ohio. I had never even heard of Kenyon until this past year. Also, in case anyone is wondering, that orange partial logo of California is of Joe's Refrigeration and HVAC Technology Institute (Pasadena, CA), my alma mater. Suck it, Stanford!
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 16, 2019 8:27:36 GMT -5
Here is some market research from E-Score Brand on USC’s brand before and after the College Admissions Scandal. The dislike score rose from 26 to 40 and appeal dropped from 24 to 16. Excerpt: Of the schools measured, USC has the highest number of top-of-mind mentions for “Scandal, Cheating, Etc.” (18.9% of consumers) in Consumer Comments for the question: “What is the first thought that comes to mind when you see the name of this brand?” Harvard has the lowest at 1.3% followed by Yale (1.5%) then Stanford (2.5%). insideusc.blog/2019/05/15/usc-brand-takes-a-hit/That's interesting. I'm very curious to see how this plays out long-term for USC. I know there are a lot of USC fans on this board, so I'll apologize for what I'm about to say. Before this all happened, I never would have thought of USC as an academic peer of Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, etc. I knew it was a private school, but never considered it as "elite" academic school. I am fully aware that this was my own ignorance. I now know that USC is much higher rated academically than I had realized. I can't tell you the number of people that I have spoken to who felt the same way, including many who thought it was a public school. Again, complete ignorance. But, that leads me to wonder whether when all is said and done and the "stain" of this event begins to subside, USC will have actually improved its academic reputation by being involved in this mess. What do most people know about USC (or any other "elite" school)? Can you name one prominent professor or notable department? Most people conflate name or brand recognition with academic quality. And Athletics is one of the most effective means of creating name recognition (think Alabama football). So it's natural to assume that USC may be on par with Yale, Georgetown, etc. because it's being mentioned in national news media alongside those schools. But in reality, we know nothing new about the actual quality of education.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 16, 2019 8:38:17 GMT -5
Here it is by popular demand -- the hardest college to get into by state map... This is bogus. It doesn't tell what we we were all wondering ... is it harder to get into Alaska-Fairbanks or Alaska-Anchorage?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on May 16, 2019 9:04:03 GMT -5
Why are Wyoming and Nevada blank? Wyoming kids don't go to college? Anyone can get into UNLV?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 16, 2019 9:18:18 GMT -5
What do most people know about USC (or any other "elite" school)? Can you name one prominent professor or notable department? Most people conflate name or brand recognition with academic quality. And Athletics is one of the most effective means of creating name recognition (think Alabama football). So it's natural to assume that USC may be on par with Yale, Georgetown, etc. because it's being mentioned in national news media alongside those schools. But in reality, we know nothing new about the actual quality of education. I tend to agree with a lot of what you said. However, I also think that many people assume that the big sports schools are actually not terribly strong academically. Fair or not, when I hear Alabama, Florida, Texas, Ohio State, etc., I don't really think academics. When I think Ivy League, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, I do think academics. And then, of course, there are the relatively few who are well known for both; Stanford and Notre Dame being two prominent examples. I acknowledge, of course, that these are all surface impressions and I really don't know very much at all about the actual quality of the academics or many of the programs/professors at these schools. My point was simply that I had always considered USC in the first of these groups ( i.e., schools known for sports and not academics), and was surprised to see it included alongside schools in the second of these groups ( i.e., schools known more for academics). Do you now think USC is in the same tier as Yale, Stanford or Georgetown?
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on May 16, 2019 9:42:36 GMT -5
That's interesting. I'm very curious to see how this plays out long-term for USC. I know there are a lot of USC fans on this board, so I'll apologize for what I'm about to say. Before this all happened, I never would have thought of USC as an academic peer of Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, etc. I knew it was a private school, but never considered it as "elite" academic school. I am fully aware that this was my own ignorance. I now know that USC is much higher rated academically than I had realized. I can't tell you the number of people that I have spoken to who felt the same way, including many who thought it was a public school. Again, complete ignorance. But, that leads me to wonder whether when all is said and done and the "stain" of this event begins to subside, USC will have actually improved its academic reputation by being involved in this mess. What do most people know about USC (or any other "elite" school)? Can you name one prominent professor or notable department? Most people conflate name or brand recognition with academic quality. And Athletics is one of the most effective means of creating name recognition (think Alabama football). So it's natural to assume that USC may be on par with Yale, Georgetown, etc. because it's being mentioned in national news media alongside those schools. But in reality, we know nothing new about the actual quality of education. Most think about academic excellence in terms of what they do, mainly because that is what they know. In my mileau of electrical engineering, I, of course, put Illinois and Georgia Tech up high because that is where I matriculated; I also place places like Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford up there because they have always had strong EE programs; but I also put Virginia Tech, Carnegie Mellon, and Wisconsin up high because I know that they have stellar professors there that are my colleagues. USC isn't within the first two sigmas of the top.
|
|