|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2019 10:33:37 GMT -5
That's cheating. Just like the people we are talking about in this thread. They went and got a box to stand on, by being clever and faking up a athletic resume. It wasn't cheating. Your rules only stipulated no jumping. It's my test. My rules. No boxes. You are trying to weasel out of admitting that "fair" tests can produce biased results. Stop weaseling out of the problem and defend your argument: "equal opportunity" is all that is important, and modifying the test because it produces biased results would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2019 10:35:56 GMT -5
Here's the difference, I don't care about the lack of diversity at any university any more than I care about the lack of diversity on any basketball team. Let the cream rise to the top and quit meddling. Bingo. You admit the core issue, finally. You think that "diversity" and "the cream rising" are exclusive. Got news for you boy-o; they are not.
|
|
|
Post by charger0304 on May 31, 2019 11:01:26 GMT -5
It's my test. My rules. No boxes. You are trying to weasel out of admitting that "fair" tests can produce biased results. Stop weaseling out of the problem and defend your argument: "equal opportunity" is all that is important, and modifying the test because it produces biased results would be wrong. Okay, then I use a ladder. See how you change the rules to obtain your desired result? Yes, I completely understand that fair tests can produce biased results. I'm okay with that, because changing the test to change the results is focusing on the outcome not the opportunity. But what if the opportunity was always skewed? Then shouldn't we hope to produce an opportunity that leads to a more equitable outcome?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 31, 2019 12:12:27 GMT -5
Robert Kiyosaki is a typical self-help guru. He's got book after book claiming to teach people how to be rich, but if they worked so well then why does he need to write any new books? .... I generally think self-help gurus like Kiyosaki don’t really know what they’re talking about. However, your logic is wrong. Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they don’t want to continue doing what made them rich, see, e.g., pro sports players, CEOs, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves (just to tie it to the other thread). They may be greedy or they may lead an expensive lifestyle which they may want to continue maintaining or they can’t think of anything else to do or they may simply enjoying doing the very thing that made them rich. Myriad of reasons. Or from a pure prudent economic actor POV, the money is coming in so let’s keep it coming in. As for the content of his video, he assumes, incorrectly, that people are either academic book-smart types or dreamers/risk-taker types. The brainiacs and the screw-ups. Clear black and white mutually exclusive types of people. Well, that’s wrong. People are complex and can be both A+ type bookworms and visionary adventurers. Or C students and play-it-safe losers who won’t dare leave his hometown in Waynesboro, VA.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2019 13:06:17 GMT -5
Robert Kiyosaki is a typical self-help guru. He's got book after book claiming to teach people how to be rich, but if they worked so well then why does he need to write any new books? .... I generally think self-help gurus like Kiyosaki don’t really know what they’re talking about. However, your logic is wrong. Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they don’t want to continue doing what made them rich, see, e.g., pro sports players, CEOs, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves (just to tie it to the other thread). They may be greedy or they may lead an expensive lifestyle which they may want to continue maintaining or they can’t think of anything else to do or they may simply enjoying doing the very thing that made them rich. Myriad of reasons. Or from a pure prudent economic actor POV, the money is coming in so let’s keep it coming in. As for the content of his video, he assumes, incorrectly, that people are either academic book-smart types or dreamers/risk-taker types. The brainiacs and the screw-ups. Clear black and white mutually exclusive types of people. Well, that’s wrong. People are complex and can be both A+ type bookworms and visionary adventurers. Or C students and play-it-safe losers who won’t dare leave his hometown in Waynesboro, VA. Keanu's job is making movies. To keep doing his job, he needs to keep making movies. Kiyosaki's claimed job is helping people get rich. If his books actually worked, all he would have to do it write one of them and keep selling that one. Instead he keeps writing new books (all telling the same story: "rich people invest and start companies, poor people spend money and work for companies"). That shows his real job is selling people books, not making them rich.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2019 13:18:41 GMT -5
It's my test. My rules. No boxes. You are trying to weasel out of admitting that "fair" tests can produce biased results. Stop weaseling out of the problem and defend your argument: "equal opportunity" is all that is important, and modifying the test because it produces biased results would be wrong. Okay, then I use a ladder. See how you change the rules to obtain your desired result? Still cheating. Are you really saying you don't understand the difference between the test-taker cheating and the test-maker evaluating the results and discovering that the test had a bias in it? If so, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on May 31, 2019 13:33:11 GMT -5
mikegarrisonBeating your head against a brick wall is no fun.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 31, 2019 14:17:33 GMT -5
I generally think self-help gurus like Kiyosaki don’t really know what they’re talking about. However, your logic is wrong. Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they don’t want to continue doing what made them rich, see, e.g., pro sports players, CEOs, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves (just to tie it to the other thread). They may be greedy or they may lead an expensive lifestyle which they may want to continue maintaining or they can’t think of anything else to do or they may simply enjoying doing the very thing that made them rich. Myriad of reasons. Or from a pure prudent economic actor POV, the money is coming in so let’s keep it coming in. As for the content of his video, he assumes, incorrectly, that people are either academic book-smart types or dreamers/risk-taker types. The brainiacs and the screw-ups. Clear black and white mutually exclusive types of people. Well, that’s wrong. People are complex and can be both A+ type bookworms and visionary adventurers. Or C students and play-it-safe losers who won’t dare leave his hometown in Waynesboro, VA. Keanu's job is making movies. To keep doing his job, he needs to keep making movies. Kiyosaki's claimed job is helping people get rich. If his books actually worked, all he would have to do it write one of them and keep selling that one. Instead he keeps writing new books (all telling the same story: "rich people invest and start companies, poor people spend money and work for companies"). That shows his real job is selling people books, not making them rich. Your argument doesn't make sense. You assume his desire to write books that help people get rich and his desire to sell his books and his desire to actually help people get rich are all mutually exclusive. He may enjoy all these things. He may definitely be in it for lining his pockets but I bet he also enjoys giving advice and writing books filled with his advice (ego driven) and may also legitimately love helping people get rich. Also, you may want to continue writing new books for a new group of readers or perhaps tweak your theories or perhaps you have a better anecdote or perhaps. Lots of reasons for writing new books.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on May 31, 2019 17:04:03 GMT -5
Equal opportunity, in this context, means that everybody will be given the same opportunity for admission without any regards to any factors beyond merit. As soon as weight is given to any criteria beyond merit you are attempting to change the outcome. Manipulating a test to remove bias towards any one group is only biasing that test towards another group, again focusing on outcome. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/14/meritocracy-myth-rich-college-admissionsFunny you should say that. This is from The Guardian, a British newspaper. And no one knows privilege better than the Brits. Oh this... love this so much. "In reality, there can never be such a thing as a meritocracy, because there’s never going to be fully equal opportunity. The main function of the concept is to assure elites that they deserve their position in life. It eases the “anxiety of affluence”, that nagging feeling that they might be the beneficiaries of the arbitrary “birth lottery” rather than the products of their own individual ingenuity and hard work."
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 31, 2019 17:33:32 GMT -5
mikegarrisonBeating your head against a brick wall is no fun. This is what football players effectively do in a weird way and you know what can happen to their brains.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Jun 1, 2019 9:31:32 GMT -5
Oh this... love this so much. "In reality, there can never be such a thing as a meritocracy, because there’s never going to be fully equal opportunity. The main function of the concept is to assure elites that they deserve their position in life. It eases the “anxiety of affluence”, that nagging feeling that they might be the beneficiaries of the arbitrary “birth lottery” rather than the products of their own individual ingenuity and hard work." On the other hand, that article also says near the end "just admit everyone who meets a clearly-established threshold for what it takes to do the coursework" is at best naive. The schools in this scandal have about 10x more qualified students apply than they have room for. College is also more than coursework--part of the experience is meeting and working with fellow students, which is why many colleges selection process is to accept an entire class rather than individual students.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jun 1, 2019 22:37:17 GMT -5
Will Lori Loughlin’s daughters testify against her in college admissions scandal?But as her attorneys craft her defense to allegations that she and her husband used bribes to get their children into college, legal experts said they must weigh whether the fight will lead to their children being called to testify against them. Loughlin, her husband and several other defendants in the college admissions scandal face another court date Monday. It will probably take months for their defense strategy to take shape.
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lori-loughlin-no-hurry-college-admissions-charges-20190531-story.html
No, they plead the Fifth.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jun 5, 2019 19:02:05 GMT -5
I wonder if Singer or any of the indicted coaches brought up Haden's name. I used to watch Pat Haden quarterback the then-Los Angeles Rams in the 1970s. I didn't think he was good but he was a longtime starter so I thought there was something about the NFL QB position I didn't understand.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jun 11, 2019 16:08:15 GMT -5
Saw a great bumper sticker today in Los Altos, Ca ...
USC Mom Too poor to bribe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 14:22:21 GMT -5
Of the 50 people charged in this case, 22 of them have cut deals to plead guilty. These deals all vary but some seem very generous, likely because some of the cases are pretty weak. The first deal maker was up for sentencing today in Federal Court in MA.
Stanford's former Sailing coach John Vandemoer ($600,000 bribe that was used by the sailing program AND the kid never accepted the admission offer) was sentenced today. The judge had a bunch of questions about the actual charges. The judge wanted the prosecution to clarify if it was an actual bribe because this case has some hair on it. It would appear he wanted the money for the sailing program and since he gave money to the Stanford sailing program, the judge is confused on how the Fed's are saying Stanford suffered a "loss". She asked if Stanford did not just give away the ill gotten money but also the equipment that was purchased ("did stanford sell the boats"?)
This case is more nuanced than most. Stanford did not "lose" anything and no student was admitted (she went elsewhere) and the money was given to the sailing program. This is the weakest of the cases in my opinion with the exception of WF coach's charging (I do not think a crime occurred in either case).
I am not sure this judge will see any crime was committed in the WF case at all (assuming he reported the donation to his club on his IRS filing). The school received a gain (donation), the girl is on the team and was on the wait list anyway so it will be hard to show the harm to the school.
The plea deal Vandemoer made with the Feds was 13 months in a Club Fed.
Defense asked just for probation. Vandemoer's childhood Rabbi (now an Admiral in the US Navy) from Cape Cod (yes near where the judge has lived for 70 years) testified and pled for leniency.
The prosecutor (Rosen) has been pushing back against only probation because they say prison time 'will send a strong message to the others'. That is likely not the best argument with this judge since she is not here to judge the other 49 cases (yet) and is judge this ONE defendant. I think Rosen (the prosecutor) sounded a little weak when he was pushed on whether Stanford really was damaged. Rosen argued for prison by reading letters to the editor? (or web site postings) from the NY Times from current college applicants basically saying they had lost faith in the fairness of the system etc. "A message must be sent".
The judge, Rya Zobel, is 87 years old and went to Radcliffe then Harvard Law. She has been on the Federal bench since 1979, Carter appointed her. She is a good judge. I believe she is a holocaust survivor but you find little about that anywhere in her bio. She and her brother came here from Germany in 1946 to live with an aunt and uncle and her brother worked tirelessly to improve the lives and opportunities available to mentally handicapped people in new england his entire life. She will be the judge for the other cases as well.
SENTENCE: 1 day in prison, already served, $10,000 fine, 6 months home confinement. Judge says this is the least culpable person of the 50 charged.
|
|