Another scandal in college sports (cheating and bribes)

[JasonEvans]

Still getting details but this could be (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-uncover-massive-college-entrance-exam-cheating-plot-n982136) a big deal.


The plot involved students who attended or were seeking to attend Georgetown University, Stanford University, UCLA, the University of San Diego, USC, University of Texas, Wake Forest, and Yale, according to federal prosecutors.

-Jason "apparently, several college coaches have been indicted... no word if it is revenue sports (football/basketball) or smaller sports" Evans

[DavidBenAkiva]

Still getting details but this could be (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-uncover-massive-college-entrance-exam-cheating-plot-n982136) a big deal.



-Jason "apparently, several college coaches have been indicted... no word if it is revenue sports (football/basketball) or smaller sports" Evans

Huh...

I suppose we know that cheating in academics is rampant at all schools, Duke included. It's kind of wild that these are leading to court cases.

[FerryFor50]

Still getting details but this could be (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-uncover-massive-college-entrance-exam-cheating-plot-n982136) a big deal.



-Jason "apparently, several college coaches have been indicted... no word if it is revenue sports (football/basketball) or smaller sports" Evans

Also, actresses Lori Laughlin (Full House) and Felicity Huffman (Desperate Housewives) were charged...

[PackMan97]

LOL!


The alleged scheme focused on getting students admitted to elite universities as recruited athletes, regardless of their athletic abilities, and helping potential students cheat on their college exams, according to the indictment unsealed in Boston.

This is a new one. Kids who can't get in on their merits, sneak in through the athletic program with the lower requirements! LOL!

People want what they want.

[weezie]

The "tv actresses" are in trouble for paying someone to take the exams for their children?

[dukelifer]

The "tv actresses" are in trouble for paying someone to take the exams for their children?

Strange. A nice gift will usually help your kids chances. I guess the royalties for their old shows aren’t big enough.

[diablesseblu]

According to Pete Williams, NBC's Justice correspondent, Wake Forest is one of the schools named in the indictment. He did not specify how/why. The press conference about this scandal will start shortly.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Still getting details but this could be (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/feds-uncover-massive-college-entrance-exam-cheating-plot-n982136) a big deal.



-Jason "apparently, several college coaches have been indicted... no word if it is revenue sports (football/basketball) or smaller sports" Evans

I've long thought there was more fraud and corruption on the academic side in the industry that is BIG EDUCATION.....than in the sports side. The sports side is more visible. Interesting The Big Bang Theory Show touched on this in a few episodes....

[devildeac]

According to Pete Williams, NBC's Justice correspondent, Wake Forest is one of the schools named in the indictment. He did not specify how/why. The press conference about this scandal will start shortly.

Considering changing my screen name to devild**c. :(

[flyingdutchdevil]

Thank goodness Duke not mentioned.

That's all I'm going to say.

[golfinesquire]

I am having trouble understanding how they thought they could get the students designated as recruited athletes to help with their college admission. Did they think that the committee that makes decisions on acceptance would not be contacting the coaches to find out if these were recruited athletes?

[J4Kop99]

I am having trouble understanding how they thought they could get the students designated as recruited athletes to help with their college admission. Did they think that the committee that makes decisions on acceptance would not be contacting the coaches to find out if these were recruited athletes?

I'm pretty sure the coaches were getting bribed/paid off. I know that was the case for the Yale women's soccer coach.

[Tripping William]

I'm pretty sure the coaches were getting bribed/paid off. I know that was the case for the Yale women's soccer coach.

Looks like the Wake Forest volleyball coach (https://www.wxii12.com/article/fbi-prosecutors-uncover-widespread-cheating-scheme-that-got-athletes-into-elite-schools-including-wake-forest/26798023?fbclid=IwAR1OwsxLB98-0CCo6i0_ul-U1adGsW4FI46lrTcKuYyMk3OtJ2zEMQFi6qE) has been placed on administrative leave while Wake investigates the allegations.

[JasonEvans]

Among those indicted:

Georgetown's men's and women's tennis coach
So Cal's associate athletic director
So Cal's women's soccer coach
So Cal's water polo coach
UCLA's soccer coach
Wake's women's volleyball coach

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

What's the big deal? All they have to do is say these "perks" are available to all students.
Love, Ima

[CameronBornAndBred]

Looks like the Wake Forest volleyball coach (https://www.wxii12.com/article/fbi-prosecutors-uncover-widespread-cheating-scheme-that-got-athletes-into-elite-schools-including-wake-forest/26798023?fbclid=IwAR1OwsxLB98-0CCo6i0_ul-U1adGsW4FI46lrTcKuYyMk3OtJ2zEMQFi6qE) has been placed on administrative leave while Wake investigates the allegations.

Maybe if he had worked on recruiting real athletes instead of fake ones, they wouldn't have been 10-20 this year.

[diablesseblu]

The coach accepted $100K to get a "player" accepted from the WFU WL. He kept some of the money for himself/his volleyball camp and donated $10K to the Deacon Club.

[uh_no]

What's the big deal? All they have to do is say these "perks" are available to all students.
Love, Ima

for real universities, having your accreditation put on probation is by far the greater of two evils.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The coach accepted $100K to get a "player" accepted from the WFU WL. He kept some of the money for himself/his volleyball camp and donated $10K to the Deacon Club.

If you're gonna pay $100K to get your kid into college, why not aim higher than WVU? That's the real question... ;)

[golfinesquire]

I'm pretty sure the coaches were getting bribed/paid off. I know that was the case for the Yale women's soccer coach.

OK. that makes sense.

[devildeac]

If you're gonna pay $100K to get your kid into college, why not aim higher than WVU? That's the real question... ;)

Oooh, someone from the "wild and wonderful" and "almost heaven" state might issue you a "flaming turd" for this comment.

:rolleyes:

[diablesseblu]

There will be some busy news media research teams today.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme

[PackMan97]

If you're gonna pay $100K to get your kid into college, why not aim higher than WVU? That's the real question... ;)

Because aiming higher might have required a higher "donation"...and we all only love our kids so much.

[diablesseblu]

Because aiming higher might have required a higher "donation"...and we all only love our kids so much.

Will be fascinated to find out which school "cost" that much.

[J4Kop99]

Will be fascinated to find out which school "cost" that much.

That is wild. Why not just legally donate that $6.5m to the school like a normal "bribe"

Or am I missing something...

[budwom]

there is a well known public figure whose dad pledged $2.5 million to Harvard in 1998 to get him admitted....his grades and SATs did not merit admission, but money does talk.

What with inflation and increased competition*, I could see that figure rising into the $5-6 million range easily.

* back then, roughly one in nine was admitted, now it's one in twenty, more or less.

[DarkstarWahoo]

That is wild. Why not just legally donate that $6.5m to the school like a normal "bribe"

Or am I missing something...

The U.S. attorney said the quiet part loud today.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1105493852578697217

"We're not talking about donating a building...we're talking about fraud."

[Stray Gator]

Will be fascinated to find out which school "cost" that much.

I heard a report on ESPNU College Sports Radio this morning that Lori Loughlin allegedly paid $500,000 to have two daughters designated as athletes to assure their admission; I believe they said it was on the rowing or sailing team at USC. I recognize that she probably has an annual income in the millions from royalties and her current roles in the Hallmark Mystery Series movies, and I certainly understand the intense desire of many parents to see their children get into the schools of their choice; but that's still a lot of cash to pay -- and a huge risk to take -- just to get your kid into college.

[DukieInKansas]

I heard a report on ESPNU College Sports Radio this morning that Lori Loughlin allegedly paid $500,000 to have two daughters designated as athletes to assure their admission; I believe they said it was on the rowing or sailing team at USC. I recognize that she probably has an annual income in the millions from royalties and her current roles in the Hallmark Mystery Series movies, and I certainly understand the intense desire of many parents to see their children get into the schools of their choice; but that's still a lot of cash to pay -- and a huge risk to take -- just to get your kid into college.

And the kids still have to work to stay there, don't they?

Oh, wait. Never mind. Place down the road proved that wasn't true.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I heard a report on ESPNU College Sports Radio this morning that Lori Loughlin allegedly paid $500,000 to have two daughters designated as athletes to assure their admission; I believe they said it was on the rowing or sailing team at USC. I recognize that she probably has an annual income in the millions from royalties and her current roles in the Hallmark Mystery Series movies, and I certainly understand the intense desire of many parents to see their children get into the schools of their choice; but that's still a lot of cash to pay -- and a huge risk to take -- just to get your kid into college.

The UNC scandal made me mad. The adidas scandal made me sad. This scandal makes me laugh. I understand parents want their kids to get into the best school possible/allow their kids to play competitive sports for another 4 years, but the size of these payments is just maddening.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Will the kids that cheated to get into the schools be kicked out? They should be.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Will the kids that cheated to get into the schools be kicked out? They should be.

Let's be realistic here; 18-19 year olds don't have $100K+. Their parents paid; they didn't. Kicking out the kids may be the right move to teach the parents a lesson, but it is unfair to the kids.

I'd rather see massive, massive fines where the funds are used as scholarships to deserving kids.

[CDu]

Let's be realistic here; 18-19 year olds don't have $100K+. Their parents paid; they didn't. Kicking out the kids may be the right move to teach the parents a lesson, but it is unfair to the kids.

Unfair to the kids who cheated? No, they didn't pay the money. They were still complicit in the cheating though.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Unfair to the kids who cheated? No, they didn't pay the money. They were still complicit in the cheating though.

Assuming their parents told them they paid the money, right?

I would think a lot of these parents wouldn't have told their kids, though. I can't really see Felicity Hoffman saying, "Lisa, I just paid your sailing coach $200K so you could get into Yale" (name, amount, university all made up). I really do think these kids will be collateral damage in all of this.

[fuse]

Is the fundamental question something other than why a straight donation was insufficient?

I guess since a 100k bribe is less than a million dollar donation, some could justify the approach.

This is another “why we can’t have nice things” storyline in the fall of Rome.

[weezie]

...and we all only love our kids so much.

Too funny. I love a realist!

[diablesseblu]

Unfair to the kids who cheated? No, they didn't pay the money. They were still complicit in the cheating though.


According to the US attorney at the press briefing, some of the kids who profited from the SAT/ACT portion of the scam did not know about the scheme. That should yield some "interesting" parent/child discussions when kid finds out mom and/or dad has been arrested and why.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Unfair to the kids who cheated? No, they didn't pay the money. They were still complicit in the cheating though.

Exactly. The kids knew their scores were not legit.

[PackMan97]

And the kids still have to work to stay there, don't they?

Oh, wait. Never mind. Place down the road proved that wasn't true.

Exactly. I can imagine that this is the type of regular student that benefited from paper classes. Kids of rich parents (and or big Ram's club donors) who are willing to pay to make sure their kids are enrolled and graduate with some type of degree.

[rocketeli]

Exactly. The kids knew their scores were not legit.

https://deadspin.com/college-coaches-took-cash-bribes-as-part-of-multi-milli-1833232053

apparently, these people specialized in faking athletic bios, including photoshopping kids heads on photos, etc. I recently have had kids apply to college, and the kids sign off on everything on the common application, so the kids knew the activities were fake. They probably rationalized it by "everybody exaggerates" or "the requirements/admission rate is so crazy that its a crapshoot anyway" but this is not a victimless crime. They took the place of a more deserving kid, or a kid that didn't lie.

[diablesseblu]

Exactly. The kids knew their scores were not legit.


I spent my entire professional career in UG and graduate admissions. It's astonishing how much of a "bump" a student can get in test scores with proper preparation. For UG, it's usually the PSAT score that gets the parents attention. They then spend big bucks and time to have their child tutored.

The originator of this scheme had extensive, years long experience in admissions. He would know how much a score could be "improved" without drawing attention to its being bogus. My guess is that the athletics part of this was to accommodate those cherubs whose scores simply couldn't jump enough to be admitted with the athlete "hook.'

[Nugget]

https://www.thedp.com/article/2018/10/jerome-allen-pleads-guilty-bribery-penn-mens-basketball-coach-esformes-scandal-celtics

This is a story from about 6 months ago in which Jerome Allen (former Penn basketball player and then head coach, and at the time an assistant coach for the Celtics) testified --in connection with the trial of a health care exec regarding a much larger fraud scheme -- that part of the cash had been used to bribe Allen to "list" the guy's son as a recruited basketball player so that it would improve the son's chance of being admitted to Penn. And, Allen then plead guilty to bribery.

The story is updated today with Allen admitting that the amount of the payment to him was $300,000. https://www.philly.com/college-sports/jerome-allen-penn-bribery-fraud-testimony-20190312.html

Leaving aside the obvious fraud of having someone falsely impersonate you for purposes of taking the SAT/ACT exams -- which easily falls under the federal mail/wire fraud statutes, since you sign the application form attesting to your identity with the expectation of having it transmitted through the mails to the examination company and the results then transmitted by mail or email to the schools, I gather that what transforms the situation of bribing a coach to pretend that the student is a recruited athlete from ordinary corruption of the "donate $ for a building to increase your kids' chance for admission" into fraud is either or both of: (i) the kid/coach conspire to defraud the university (really, it's admissions office) as to the merits of the applicant; or (ii) the coach (by taking the bribe) commits "honest services fraud" on the university by making recommendations for whom the admissions office should admit as athletics allocations/exceptions that are tainted by the bribery.

This isn't really a sports scandal, as much as it is a scandal of the elite craze over getting your kids into "the best" colleges.

[J4Kop99]

Is the fundamental question something other than why a straight donation was insufficient?

I guess since a 100k bribe is less than a million dollar donation, some could justify the approach.

This is another “why we can’t have nice things” storyline in the fall of Rome.

That's my question. Someone paid $6m. How was there not a taker for that in the form of a legal donation?

[mo.st.dukie]

A capitalistic society will always be run and driven by CAPITAL. People can bash college basketball and the NCAA but the real truth is that pretty much everything in our society is corrupted by money. And if there are loopholes and shortcuts people can take by using that capital to gain an advantage or gain more capital even at the expense of society and democracy,there will always be humans who take that option.

[PackMan97]

A capitalistic society will always be run and driven by CAPITAL. People can bash college basketball and the NCAA but the real truth is that pretty much everything in our society is corrupted by money.

Disagree. It's never about the money. It's about the power and prestige. Money chases those things, tries to buy those things, tries to be those things...but at the end of the day, in any society whether its a capitalistic, socialistic, cannibalistic or whatever...power is where it's at.

[Rich]

Lori Loughlin’s Daughter Olivia Jade Detailed How Parents Forced Her into College

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lori-loughlin-daughter-olivia-jade-160906917.html

[golfinesquire]

Disagree. It's never about the money. It's about the power and prestige. Money chases those things, tries to buy those things, tries to be those things...but at the end of the day, in any society whether its a capitalistic, socialistic, cannibalistic or whatever...power is where it's at.

I believe that it is both those things especially since they bleed into each other.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money the same.

[mo.st.dukie]

Disagree. It's never about the money. It's about the power and prestige. Money chases those things, tries to buy those things, tries to be those things...but at the end of the day, in any society whether its a capitalistic, socialistic, cannibalistic or whatever...power is where it's at.

I think the desire for power and prestige is what drives individuals. But our systems, organizations, institutions, and society at large is driven by money. The way we choose who gets to be in power and who gets to create the rules, the process is decided by money. Capital and profit rules all.

[PackMan97]

I think the desire for power and prestige is what drives individuals. But our systems, organizations, institutions, and society at large is driven by money.

I think we are all saying the same thing. I just defensive because I often feel money gets a bad rap.

[Stray Gator]

Just my opinion, but . . .

1. I believe that the kids who were admitted based on an unearned test score or an undeserved "talent bonus" should be expelled, regardless of whether they were aware of or complicit in the fraud. Those kids should no more be permitted to benefit from the fruit of the poisonous tree than family members of an embezzler or a Ponzi scheme promoter should be allowed to retain and enjoy the use of the ill-gotten gain from that wrongful conduct. In addition, by taking those slots in the class, they presumably displaced other applicants who would have been admitted but for the fraud, thereby depriving more qualified students of an opportunity that those rejected applicants properly deserved. While those who were so deprived may no longer be able to take advantage of that opportunity, expelling the cheaters may at least open up additional spots in the next entering class for young people who genuinely deserve admission.

2. Moreover, I believe that the schools, as a matter of consistency and self-respect, are obligated to expel those who were admitted based on fraud. Since those applicants presumably would not have been qualified for admission on their own merits, allowing them to remain enrolled would be a tacit ratification of the decision to admit students who did not meet the school's standards. In effect, by permitting the students to advance towards graduation, the school would be acknowledging that its admission and academic standards are not as high as previously thought, thus diluting both the legitimacy of its ranking and value of the degrees it awards. This is precisely what I think is the most disgraceful aspect of the UNC case: When UNC officials opted, as a means of escaping penalties and preserving their banners, to tell the NCAA that those courses which required no class attendance and no meaningful work nonetheless qualified as creditable courses and did not constitute academic fraud by UNC's own standards, they effectively admitted that their academic reputation should, in reality, be downgraded.

[Duke79UNLV77]

I spent my entire professional career in UG and graduate admissions. It's astonishing how much of a "bump" a student can get in test scores with proper preparation. For UG, it's usually the PSAT score that gets the parents attention. They then spend big bucks and time to have their child tutored.

The originator of this scheme had extensive, years long experience in admissions. He would know how much a score could be "improved" without drawing attention to its being bogus. My guess is that the athletics part of this was to accommodate those cherubs whose scores simply couldn't jump enough to be admitted with the athlete "hook.'

Ole Roy made this mistake at Kansas when he sent DeShawn Stevenson across the country to North Carolina, where his SAT score magically improved by 700 points!

https://thebiglead.com/2015/02/13/did-roy-williams-help-deshawn-stevenson-improve-his-sat-score-by-700-points-in-2000/

[Nick]

Money given to endowment to get your child admitted to college: generous donation
Money given to an individual to get your child admitted to college: felony

[Nick]

Money given to endowment to get your child admitted to college: generous donation
Money given to an individual to get your child admitted to college: felony

Although maybe I shouldn't be too snarky. The donations will tend to be larger than bribes, and therefore fewer in number.

[duke2x]

Looks like the Wake Forest volleyball coach (https://www.wxii12.com/article/fbi-prosecutors-uncover-widespread-cheating-scheme-that-got-athletes-into-elite-schools-including-wake-forest/26798023?fbclid=IwAR1OwsxLB98-0CCo6i0_ul-U1adGsW4FI46lrTcKuYyMk3OtJ2zEMQFi6qE) has been placed on administrative leave while Wake investigates the allegations.

I'm not saying there is causation, but the correlation between Wellman's retirement and this scandal is interesting.

[Nick]

A question just occurred to me. Suppose some billionaire has a kid who wants to go to Duke. This kid is clearly not going to be admitted to Duke on his own merit--they're way below the cutoff on whatever scale Duke uses to rank applicants. I'm sure there is some level of donation that would cause Duke to admit this student, as would be the case at just about any school.

My question is, how much money would it take, in the form of a donation, to get this kid admitted? (And how much would that number be at Harvard?)

[golfinesquire]

Although maybe I shouldn't be too snarky. The donations will tend to be larger than bribes, and therefore fewer in number.

And the donations are used throughout the university and so benefit more than just the one child.

[Indoor66]

I believe that it is both those things especially since they bleed into each other.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money the same.

Mostly those corrupt willing people. They have no intrinsic causal effect.

[Ian]

Just my opinion, but . . .

1. I believe that the kids who were admitted based on an unearned test score or an undeserved "talent bonus" should be expelled, regardless of whether they were aware of or complicit in the fraud. Those kids should no more be permitted to benefit from the fruit of the poisonous tree than family members of an embezzler or a Ponzi scheme promoter should be allowed to retain and enjoy the use of the ill-gotten gain from that wrongful conduct. In addition, by taking those slots in the class, they presumably displaced other applicants who would have been admitted but for the fraud, thereby depriving more qualified students of an opportunity that those rejected applicants properly deserved. While those who were so deprived may no longer be able to take advantage of that opportunity, expelling the cheaters may at least open up additional spots in the next entering class for young people who genuinely deserve admission.

2. Moreover, I believe that the schools, as a matter of consistency and self-respect, are obligated to expel those who were admitted based on fraud. Since those applicants presumably would not have been qualified for admission on their own merits, allowing them to remain enrolled would be a tacit ratification of the decision to admit students who did not meet the school's standards. In effect, by permitting the students to advance towards graduation, the school would be acknowledging that its admission and academic standards are not as high as previously thought, thus diluting both the legitimacy of its ranking and value of the degrees it awards. This is precisely what I think is the most disgraceful aspect of the UNC case: When UNC officials opted, as a means of escaping penalties and preserving their banners, to tell the NCAA that those courses which required no class attendance and no meaningful work nonetheless qualified as creditable courses and did not constitute academic fraud by UNC's own standards, they effectively admitted that their academic reputation should, in reality, be downgraded.

I bet none of the students will be expelled. And I'll even bet as a group they don't have significantly worse grades than the student population (i.e. legitimately admitted) at those schools in general. All schools are just dipolma mills now, UNC just admitted it earlier than most. The college diplomas are mostly just status symbols acquired by playing the game effectively and not a reflection of any actual personal academic accomplishment.

[johnb]

College admissions are a pretty good reflection of how our culture defines success.

Money and power play a role, occasionally, but more often, admissions decisions are based on talent, effort, intelligence, fit, likability, creativity, etc. Sure, some folks will lie and cheat to get into college, but--generally speaking--lying and cheating will prompt an immediate rejection.

As for Loughlin's daughter, she "recently tweeted that YouTube will always be her greatest passion, and she’d rather be vlogging than “sitting in 6 hours of classes straight.”" Impressive.

As for Jerome Allen, the former Penn star, NBA player, Penn coach, and current Celtic assistant, he's looking at prison for bribery. Esformes, the guy whose son is attending Penn, is potentially going to prison for the rest of his life for bilking Medicare out of $500 million worth of fraudulent claims. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article225176275.html.

Money and power are relentlessly used to gain advantage, but, imho, the backbone of the country hates cheating and will not be kind to folks such as Loughln, Allen, and Esformes.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I bet none of the students will be expelled. And I'll even bet as a group they don't have significantly worse grades than the student population (i.e. legitimately admitted) at those schools in general. All schools are just dipolma mills now, UNC just admitted it earlier than most. The college diplomas are mostly just status symbols acquired by playing the game effectively and not a reflection of any actual personal academic accomplishment.

9152

[duke2x]

A question just occurred to me. Suppose some billionaire has a kid who wants to go to Duke. This kid is clearly not going to be admitted to Duke on his own merit--they're way below the cutoff on whatever scale Duke uses to rank applicants. I'm sure there is some level of donation that would cause Duke to admit this student, as would be the case at just about any school.

My question is, how much money would it take, in the form of a donation, to get this kid admitted? (And how much would that number be at Harvard?)

A score of 400 would require donation of new football uniforms, 300 a new dormitory, and if you spell Duke with a 6, Duke could use a new international airport. I wish I could post YouTube links from the Simpsons. :(

[wilson]

Lori Loughlin’s Daughter Olivia Jade Detailed How Parents Forced Her into College

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lori-loughlin-daughter-olivia-jade-160906917.htmlAunt Becky is welcome to force me to do pretty much anything.

[WVDUKEFAN]

If you're gonna pay $100K to get your kid into college, why not aim higher than WVU? That's the real question... ;)

I'm sure you meant WFU - WVU wasn't named. Of course someone as intelligent and as highly educated as you couldn't possibly make such a mistake.

[sagegrouse]

I bet none of the students will be expelled. And I'll even bet as a group they don't have significantly worse grades than the student population (i.e. legitimately admitted) at those schools in general. All schools are just dipolma mills now, UNC just admitted it earlier than most. The college diplomas are mostly just status symbols acquired by playing the game effectively and not a reflection of any actual personal academic accomplishment.

Did I hear Georgetown U. fraudlently admitted 12 tennis players over the years. I'll bet their college tennis scores aren't very good.

[Troublemaker]

Aunt Becky is welcome to force me to do pretty much anything.

Have mercy!

[/obligatory]

[robed deity]

Have mercy!

[/obligatory]

She's in big trouble, mister!

[Tooold]

Money given to endowment to get your child admitted to college: generous donation
Money given to an individual to get your child admitted to college: felony

Well said. I know of several people whose children got accepted at prestigious schools, Duke included, even though it was well-known that their grades and scores were sub-par. And then they were placed on competitive teams for which they didn’t seem qualified, followed by a very nice 7 figure, naming donation for athletic facilities. There was never any doubt that the gift was promised before admission (in fact, in these specific cases it was common knowledge in the community). I am sure we all know wealthy or famous people whose children were admitted to good schools without stellar resumes. It happens. When the payment goes to an individual, it is a crime. Otherwise it is just an unfair fact of life.

Now paying to get false test scores and claiming athletic accomplishments that didn’t exist seem particularly dishonest and stupid. And the student applicants had to know...they are submitting the application and are responsible for the veracity of the information in the application.

[Ian]

Well said. I know of several people whose children got accepted at prestigious schools, Duke included, even though it was well-known that their grades and scores were sub-par. And then they were placed on competitive teams for which they didn’t seem qualified, followed by a very nice 7 figure, naming donation for athletic facilities. There was never any doubt that the gift was promised before admission (in fact, in these specific cases it was common knowledge in the community). I am sure we all know wealthy or famous people whose children were admitted to good schools without stellar resumes. It happens. When the payment goes to an individual, it is a crime. Otherwise it is just an unfair fact of life.

Now paying to get false test scores and claiming athletic accomplishments that didn’t exist seem particularly dishonest and stupid. And the student applicants had to know...they are submitting the application and are responsible for the veracity of the information in the application.

Well there is a fundamental difference. It's one thing for a school to sell their admissions, it's another for an employee to do it.
If I give $500 to Walmart, and Walmart ships me a a TV, that's just a business transaction. If I give $300 to a Walmart employee, he takes a TV out of their warehouse and gives it to me, pocketing the money, that's a crime.

[duke79]

If you're gonna pay $100K to get your kid into college, why not aim higher than WVU? That's the real question... ;)

LOL, my thought exactly! I can understand Yale, Stanford, Duke....and maybe a few others. But I'm not paying a $100,000 bribe for my kid to go to WFU!

[Tooold]

Well there is a fundamental difference. It's one thing for a school to sell their admissions, it's another for an employee to do it.
If I give $500 to Walmart, and Walmart ships me a a TV, that's just a business transaction. If I give $300 to a Walmart employee, he takes a TV out of their warehouse and gives it to me, pocketing the money, that's a crime.

Well, that was kind of my point, when I said “if payment goes to individual, it’s a crime. Otherwise, just unfair...”. I think we are in agreement.

[duke79]

This story and thread reminds me of when my daughter was a senior in high school a few years ago. One of her friends in high school who was not a particularly good student (mediocre SAT's and grades) but a decent soccer player, was admitted, early decision, to one of the most prestigious and selective private colleges in the country (that shall remain nameless here). Apparently, everyone in her high school, including her teachers and guidance counselor, were amazed that she was admitted to such a school. I asked my daughter how it happened and my daughter said something about her wealthy step-father, a prominent doctor, "paying" for her to get in (and I know my daughter did not have a direct proof of that - she was just guessing). I just laughed and said to my daughter......NO, you can't "pay" your way into a school like that, unless you give a huge donation to the school (and her step-father was not THAT rich). But now, I wonder if, MAYBE, there was something to my daughter's theory because I was also told that the girl was admitted, at least partly, to play varsity soccer for the school but, of course, she never even tried out for the team (she wasn't that good of a soccer player). So, MAYBE, the wealthy step-father made a "gift" to the soccer coach to tell the admissions office that she needed his step-daughter on the soccer team. Pure speculation here and I HOPE NOT true, but who knows?

[andyw715]

https://fullhouse.fandom.com/wiki/Be_True_to_Your_Preschool

“The most important thing in the world right now is their education,” Jesse says. “I’m their father — if I don’t lie for them, who will?”

“I know you want what’s best for them, but you know what, maybe the fast track isn’t it,” Becky says. “I mean, Nicky and Alex are normal and healthy kids, and whatever track they’re on, they seem to be doing okay.”

[johnb]

A question just occurred to me. Suppose some billionaire has a kid who wants to go to Duke. This kid is clearly not going to be admitted to Duke on his own merit--they're way below the cutoff on whatever scale Duke uses to rank applicants. I'm sure there is some level of donation that would cause Duke to admit this student, as would be the case at just about any school.

My question is, how much money would it take, in the form of a donation, to get this kid admitted? (And how much would that number be at Harvard?)

My understanding is that in the normal course of sifting through applications, the Duke Admissions Department pays no attention to prospective donors. They look at many variables to bring in a group that is intensely diverse. Increasingly, Duke seeks out classes that are filled with angular people who--in combination--are diverse, rather than trying to bring together a huge group of well rounded people; this change over the past 30 years is one reason why old alums say that they wouldn't have gotten accepted to Duke; the bright, well rounded kids are often simply rejected at the expense of the kids who have 1 or 2 well developed passions.

But I digress. Re money. When you look at Dukes undergrads, many come from wealthy homes, but if you look at applicants who got rejected, many of those are also from wealthy homes. Being from a wealthy home simply won't get you into Duke.

Being from a VERY wealthy home will get a good student a second look, however, by admin people who do not directly participate in routine admissions. Like people in development throughout the country, they are looking for VERY wealthy parents who have a track record of "generosity." They are not interested in the (many) people who make $750,000/year and donate $50,000/year to their kids' schools; such folks are commonly found at places like Duke, and their wealth did not get their kids into college. Development folks at elite institutions are looking for families who would be likely to contribute 7 or 8 figures while their kids are at Duke. Admission wouldn't be given in return for a bag of cash or a precise dollar amount, and admission would not be offered to applicants who would be unable to manage the workload. These admin types are looking for kids (and families) who would do fine in school and donate at a high level; a small number of them ultimately get placed on a special (and fairly short) list of priority admissions that might also include certain alums and prominent/famous parents, though the kids still need to get vetted by the Admissions folks (presumably through Guttentag directly).

I have mixed feelings about such an arrangement, but I do not think it completely undercuts the campus experience. One ramification of the increasing wealth at the nation's leading colleges and prep schools is broadening of availability and an intensified meritocracy (especially though financial aid). One core result is that these colleges and private high schools have become so intellectually rigorous that many kids don't even try to attend the schools where there are buildings named after their grandparents.

[Rich]

I shared some of the articles about this scandal with my 87 year old father and asked him if that's how I got into Duke (in 1984). His response was, "If I had that kind of money you would have gone to [insert local community college] and I would have a villa in the south of France." :D

[English]

I shared some of the articles about this scandal with my 87 year old father and asked him if that's how I got into Duke (in 1984). His response was, "If I had that kind of money you would have gone to [insert local community college] and I would have a villa in the south of France." :D

The university of north carolina?

/Burn

[swood1000]

A capitalistic society will always be run and driven by CAPITAL. People can bash college basketball and the NCAA but the real truth is that pretty much everything in our society is corrupted by money. And if there are loopholes and shortcuts people can take by using that capital to gain an advantage or gain more capital even at the expense of society and democracy,there will always be humans who take that option.
You make it sound as if you think that socialist systems are not corrupted by money. To the extent there is less corruption, it is only because much less wealth is generated and available in a socialist system.

[weezie]

...The kids knew their scores were not legit.


Lori Loughlin’s Daughter Olivia Jade Detailed How Parents Forced Her into College


...As for Loughlin's daughter, she "recently tweeted that YouTube will always be her greatest passion, and she’d rather be vlogging than “sitting in 6 hours of classes straight.”" Impressive...

Do you really think this child of such luminaries knew her score was not legit? Seems like a stretch to picture the poor v-star actually sitting and taking multiple 4 hour exams. I mean, that's a lot of time away from your social media career.
Her parents didn't go to college. Mean old US Atty Office has now crushed the dreams of a 1st Gen college gal!

[kexman]

The linked Wall Street Journal article is old (2003), but Duke let in a fairly substantial number of Development Admits and were quite open about it in the WSJ. Free advertising I guess. I'm not sure what the current policy is in 2019?


https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Rich_Applicants.htm

[luvdahops]

My understanding is that in the normal course of sifting through applications, the Duke Admissions Department pays no attention to prospective donors. They look at many variables to bring in a group that is intensely diverse. Increasingly, Duke seeks out classes that are filled with angular people who--in combination--are diverse, rather than trying to bring together a huge group of well rounded people; this change over the past 30 years is one reason why old alums say that they wouldn't have gotten accepted to Duke; the bright, well rounded kids are often simply rejected at the expense of the kids who have 1 or 2 well developed passions.

But I digress. Re money. When you look at Dukes undergrads, many come from wealthy homes, but if you look at applicants who got rejected, many of those are also from wealthy homes. Being from a wealthy home simply won't get you into Duke.

Being from a VERY wealthy home will get a good student a second look, however, by admin people who do not directly participate in routine admissions. Like people in development throughout the country, they are looking for VERY wealthy parents who have a track record of "generosity." They are not interested in the (many) people who make $750,000/year and donate $50,000/year to their kids' schools; such folks are commonly found at places like Duke, and their wealth did not get their kids into college. Development folks at elite institutions are looking for families who would be likely to contribute 7 or 8 figures while their kids are at Duke. Admission wouldn't be given in return for a bag of cash or a precise dollar amount, and admission would not be offered to applicants who would be unable to manage the workload. These admin types are looking for kids (and families) who would do fine in school and donate at a high level; a small number of them ultimately get placed on a special (and fairly short) list of priority admissions that might also include certain alums and prominent/famous parents, though the kids still need to get vetted by the Admissions folks (presumably through Guttentag directly).

I have mixed feelings about such an arrangement, but I do not think it completely undercuts the campus experience. One ramification of the increasing wealth at the nation's leading colleges and prep schools is broadening of availability and an intensified meritocracy (especially though financial aid). One core result is that these colleges and private high schools have become so intellectually rigorous that many kids don't even try to attend the schools where there are buildings named after their grandparents.

Insightful post with which I generally agree, though with one caveat. I do believe that Duke applicants who are children of or otherwise related to alums go into a different "basket", and that the giving history of those alums is definitely a consideration in the ultimate decision by the Admissions Department. Exactly how important a consideration is shrouded in mystery of course, but I'm pretty sure it's not inconsequential.

[duke79]

Insightful post with which I generally agree, though with one caveat. I do believe that Duke applicants who are children of or otherwise related to alums go into a different "basket", and that the giving history of those alums is definitely a consideration in the ultimate decision by the Admissions Department. Exactly how important a consideration is shrouded in mystery of course, but I'm pretty sure it's not inconsequential.

I believe you are right here. My understanding is that it MAY help an applicant very slightly for admission to Duke if they are a legacy but that it can help a LOT if that legacy's parents or grandparents have given a substantial amount of money to Duke. I don't know what the "substantial" threshold is and I would also guess it might depend on how strong (or weak) a candidate the legacy applicant is. I would guess that the weaker the candidate is, the larger the donations (past or future) would have to be.

[weezie]

...My understanding is that it MAY help an applicant very slightly for admission to Duke if they are a legacy but that it can help a LOT if that legacy's parents or grandparents have given a substantial amount of money to Duke...

I think the basket applies for those parents who have given consistently over the years, not just the big lump when a child is applying.

[rocketeli]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.

[freshmanjs]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.

Don't agree with most of this. There certainly is a set of privileged and legacy kids that have an easier time getting in. No question about that. It's only a minority of admitted students, though. There are a lot of students in your "no place for" categories at all of the top schools. Seeing where the classmates of my kids have been accepted anecdotally shows that the prom king, soccer captain types you describe are far from the only ones getting into great schools.

It's not as much of a meritocracy as we would all like -- I do agree on that point.

[jv001]

LOL, my thought exactly! I can understand Yale, Stanford, Duke...and maybe a few others. But I'm not paying a $100,000 bribe for my kid to go to WFU!

Whoa, the demon deacon police will be at your door tomorrow morning. Sic em devildeac. Wake Forest is a very good university and many doctors and nurses come through Wake Forest. Then there's Wake Forest Baptist Hospital and Brenner Children's Hospital. Matter of fact my doctor is a graduate of Wake Forest. Good school. GoDuke!

[BLPOG]

I think the desire for power and prestige is what drives individuals. But our systems, organizations, institutions, and society at large is driven by money. The way we choose who gets to be in power and who gets to create the rules, the process is decided by money. Capital and profit rules all.

I think that the desire to effect local reversals of entropy in an open system is what drives most individuals.

I wouldn't advise hanging around the other guys, though. They are no fun at all.

[Stray Gator]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.

I'm not qualified to address the practices at other schools, but based on my experience and observations as an active member of two local Duke AAAC committees for more than 20 years, who worked directly with the individual in the Duke Admissions Office responsible for maintaining contact with local schools, making presentations to parent groups in the various communities, and screening applicants from our region, I feel confident saying that your premise regarding the criteria applied in admissions decisions does not apply at Duke.

[uh_no]

I would guess that the weaker the candidate is, the larger the donations (past or future) would have to be.

so i wonder what the dollar value per SAT point is :D :D

[dukelifer]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.
University admissions does have some sense of what is a good fit for the University at multiple levels. When you have 40,000 kids apply for 1500 slots- it is a challenge to figure out who to take. Duke could take 1500 other kids and there would be no or little statistical difference between the groups in scores and extra curricular engagement. It is true that some kids get preference if there is a family connection but the student must not be too much of an outlier. But the system can be corrupted. I would not be surprised if this happens more than what has been revealed so far.

[devildeac]

I believe you are right here. My understanding is that it MAY help an applicant very slightly for admission to Duke if they are a legacy but that it can help a LOT if that legacy's parents or grandparents have given a substantial amount of money to Duke. I don't know what the "substantial" threshold is and I would also guess it might depend on how strong (or weak) a candidate the legacy applicant is. I would guess that the weaker the candidate is, the larger the donations (past or future) would have to be.

I'll try our short version here. My wife and I both graduated from Duke and moved back to NC in 1986. She has a sister and BIL who went to Duke, too. All 4 legacies were listed on our kids apps (d'oh!). All 3 kids applied to and got into Duke, Wake and cheater "u." We believe they were all qualified with the oldest child a bit less so (I'll not discuss SAT scores, GPA, class rank, activities, etc). Oldest child went with the wrong color blue but we still love her (I never signed any checks for tuition for her :).) The other two both went to Duke. We were told during the NC/SC Days at Duke during their campus visits when the admissions officers talked to us that NC and SC residents were given some additional priority and legacies were given a bit more preference and their apps were looked at by 3 or more admissions people and other candidates "only" two. These "benefits" were not quantified but I remember some vague reference to a point scale/scoring system. Our alumni contributions were modest but we're also intelligent enough to think larger contributions over longer periods of time would be more influential than ours. Hope that helps.

[devildeac]

Whoa, the demon deacon police will be at your door tomorrow morning. Sic em devildeac. Wake Forest is a very good university and many doctors and nurses come through Wake Forest. Then there's Wake Forest Baptist Hospital and Brenner Children's Hospital. Matter of fact my doctor is a graduate of Wake Forest. Good school. GoDuke!

LOL. See my ~600 PM post.

[devildeac]

so i wonder what the dollar value per SAT point is :D :D

You stats folks just don't quit, do you?

;):p

[sagegrouse]

Insightful post with which I generally agree, though with one caveat. I do believe that Duke applicants who are children of or otherwise related to alums go into a different "basket", and that the giving history of those alums is definitely a consideration in the ultimate decision by the Admissions Department. Exactly how important a consideration is shrouded in mystery of course, but I'm pretty sure it's not inconsequential.

I can't answer that (or any other question), but Duke Alumni has a "senior director of alumni" admissions who is an advocate for children or (!!) grandchildren of alumni. I believe she sits in on deliberations involving alumni children. She will also advise applicants, including "no-fault" interview sessions, which my grandson took advantage of (he is at U. of Denver -- not leaving the Rocky Mountains).

[BTW -- strange thing. We went for a briefing and a campus tour. The speaker asked for a show of hands of the Duke alums in the room of 70+ people. He and I were the only ones. I don't want to generalize, but do alums taking kids to apply think, "We don't need no stinkin' tour -- I'll show you the campus!!"]

Back 20 or so years ago, we would advise parents whose kids were applying to select "early decision" as a way of showing commitment; I am told that that doesn't matter very much any more -- but I am not sure I believe it.

As to "development admits," I am sure that every school is swayed to some degree. But the case at hand is just plain fraud, committed against the schools.

BTW, johnb's post somewhere above was thoughtful and well-reasoned; I can't imagine how we disagreed so much about Tommy Amaker's early tenure at Harvard.

[-jk]

I can't answer that (or any other question), but Duke Alumni has a "senior director of alumni" admissions who is an advocate for children or (!!) grandchildren of alumni. I believe she sits in on deliberations involving alumni children. She will also advise applicants, including "no-fault" interview sessions, which my grandson took advantage of (he is at U. of Denver -- not leaving the Rocky Mountains).

[BTW -- strange thing. We went for a briefing and a campus tour. The speaker asked for a show of hands of the Duke alums in the room of 70+ people. He and I were the only ones. I don't want to generalize, but do alums taking kids to apply think, "We don't need no stinkin' tour -- I'll show you the campus!!"]

Back 20 or so years ago, we would advise parents whose kids were applying to select "early decision" as a way of showing commitment; I am told that that doesn't matter very much any more -- but I am not sure I believe it.

As to "development admits," I am sure that every school is swayed to some degree. But the case at hand is just plain fraud, committed against the schools.

BTW, johnb's post somewhere above was thoughtful and well-reasoned; I can't imagine how we disagreed so much about Tommy Amaker's early tenure at Harvard.

Cool! I'll have to look into it; two of my grandparents attended Trinity College way back when... Two of my son's grandparents also went to Duke, for both undergrad and grad work. (And both of his parents, but that doesn't seem to count anymore. But I still give...)

The weirdest part - my kid used his high school college shopping tool, entered his preferences, and Duke came out on top! We really didn't coach for this. Really! (He's looking for a liberal arts school in the south. He's also taking Miami and New Orleans - Tulane - trips we think are more about the trips and dining...)

-jk

[Nick]

Quote from the Loughlin daughter's Youtube channel:


“I don’t know how much of school I’m gonna attend,” she shared with her nearly 2 million subscribers, after explaining her extensive work schedule. “But I’m gonna go in and talk to my deans and everyone, and hope that I can try and balance it all. But I do want the experience of like game days, partying…I don’t really care about school, as you guys all know.”

Bad optics, as they say.

[Nick]

Also, I just learned that Felicity Huffman is married to William H. Macy, who was not named in the charges. I guess he was out of the loop?

[sagegrouse]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.

Rocketeli -- I disagree respectfully with much of what you have written. And, somehow to say that the admissions office proceeds on its own without guidance??? I'll admit that Christoph Guttentag at Duke is a force to be reckoned with, but.... And, the development office is a separate chain of command from admissions -- certainly at Duke and probably every other school.

There clearly was a big problem back in the 1990's and earlier. But I am not sure the same views hold today as held 25 years ago. Were you at Duke for the Reynold Price Founders Day speech in 1992? My daughter was, and I heard from a number of profs before that time that the faculty was fed up with the lack of intellectual interest on the part of the students. I thought things have improved, and I am truly impressed by the students I get to meet.

From Reynolds' obituary:

In a fiery Founders' Day speech in 1992, Price took aim at what he deemed a lack of intellectualism at Duke, describing students as enthusiastic about partying but marred by a "prevailing cloud of indifference, of frequent hostility, to a thoughtful life," reported Duke Magazine. Some university officials cited that speech as an impetus for a greater emphasis on recruiting more intellectual students to Duke, according to the magazine article.

The era of selecting applicants who dabble in everything imaginable and join every club, etc. ended a while ago. My personal view, held with conviction if not supported by true knowledge but having heard briefings from admission offices at a number of schools, pretty much everyone now says they want a widely diverse student body in terms of academic and other interests, and they want students who show a "passion" for something. They are far less interested in students who major in "extracurriculars."

Anyway, your sentiments are certainly headed in the right direction, even if I take a different view of some of the specifics. And, of course, re-reading my post, it wanders all over the place.

Cheers,
Sage Grouse

[freshmanjs]

I think the basket applies for those parents who have given consistently over the years, not just the big lump when a child is applying.

Does anyone here know if Iron Dukes contributions "count" on this front? I've heard they do and I've heard they don't...

[uh_no]

Does anyone here know if Iron Dukes contributions "count" on this front? I've heard they do and I've heard they don't...

i think of you're donating enough to affect admissions, your name is on something on campus. the 10k or whatever to get on the season ticket likely won't make a dent when tuition is 60k....i would guess we're talking millions to get much

[Rich]

i think of you're donating enough to affect admissions, your name is on something on campus. the 10k or whatever to get on the season ticket likely won't make a dent when tuition is 60k...i would guess we're talking millions to get much

I'm not sure I agree. I have a friend who used to work in the Admissions Department at Stanford and he said there was a magic number you could pay each year when your child is born that would most definitely make a difference. He didn't tell me what the # is, but his kid (who is no doubt very bright anyway) goes to Stanford. I imagine it's in the $5-10k per year range over the course of that 15-16 years.

[swood1000]

One news report (https://www.foxnews.com/us/dershowitz-college-admissions-scandal-the-tip-of-the-iceberg)said that the bribes were paid to charitable organizations and were deducted on income tax returns.

[freshmanjs]

i think of you're donating enough to affect admissions, your name is on something on campus. the 10k or whatever to get on the season ticket likely won't make a dent when tuition is 60k...i would guess we're talking millions to get much

I don't think that's true. I have been told by people who know that consistent donations in the 10k range (or even less) over a number of years makes a real difference in admissions vs not donating. Obviously, name on buliding level makes a much bigger difference. When they talk about "development admits" having lifetime potential to donate $500k, someone who is at $10k/year over their adult life is not that far away.

[uh_no]

I don't think that's true. I have been told by people who know that consistent donations in the 10k range (or even less) over a number of years makes a real difference in admissions vs not donating. Obviously, name on buliding level makes a much bigger difference. When they talk about "development admits" having lifetime potential to donate $500k, someone who is at $10k/year over their adult life is not that far away.

we're talking about iron Duke contributions, though...i can certainly believe that range to the university would make a difference, but am skeptical ID would, given that has its own associated perks... but i have no real idea...

[freshmanjs]

we're talking about iron Duke contributions, though...i can certainly believe that range to the university would make a difference, but am skeptical ID would, given that has its own associated perks... but i have no real idea...

Yeah -- that's my question. I've heard ID contribution doesn't, but also heard it does. Would love to know for sure.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Back to the scandal for just a brief second... isn’t anyone outraged about the faking of disabilities to gain additional advantages? I mean, that’s straights out of the Cheaters’ playbook and truly as disgusting as it gets. Whichever “parents” facilitated (or even simply condoned) that approach ought to lose their certification as human beings.

Okay, back to Duke admissions thread, er, discussion... :cool:

[Stray Gator]

Yeah -- that's my question. I've heard ID contribution doesn't, but also heard it does. Would love to know for sure.

I know that for purposes of recognizing donors as members of the James B. Duke Society, the Duke Alumni Association considers all cumulative donations to Duke, including those made to the Iron Dukes:

https://giving.duke.edu/be-recognized/the-james-b.-duke-society/

I don't know whether the Admissions Office takes all donations into account when, and to the extent that, it evaluates a legacy applicant; but my guess is that they, in conjunction with the Alumni Affairs Office, would ascribe greater weight to a family's contributions if they extended beyond donations to the athletic department for the purpose of securing eligibility for and access to game tickets. For example, I understand that a record of giving to the Annual Fund over a period of 5, 10, or 20 consecutive years is highly valued as signifying one's commitment to Duke.

[johnb]

I think it’s important to separate out the relatively short list of applicants whose families are able to put their fat thumbs on the admissions scale from the many, many thousands of applicants who are qualified to attend Duke and vie to create an interesting narrative for admission.

That much, much larger group includes all sorts of sub-categories (alums who bought their kids Blue Devil bibs, geography, demographics, 1st gen college, intellectual interests, musicians, athletes, etc), and that’s where Admissions spends 99% of its time.

The University’s lifeblood is its entering class, and Duke’s core interest is in attracting the best possible students. Sure, there are going to be some freshmen who you might not have accepted, but in balancing off the math geeks with the fencers, actors, and pre-meds, Duke seems to be doing a great job.

Anyone who thinks admissions is simple patronage is, imho, either naive or paranoid. By and large, most Duke students are roughly as good at their favorite activities as are our basketball recruits—lots of 4 and 5 star students who work very hard, every day.

Part of my revulsion over the cheaters (including/especially the coaches but also the parents) is that the front page news will lead people to think the existing students only got accepted because of their parents, which simply isn’t true.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I am 20+ years out of Duke and have given every year so I am noted as a member of the Cornerstone Society. My cumulative gifts, even with various corporate matches (not sure if those count for anything) are probably about $10k but I’d like to think that when it is time for my kids to apply in about 10 years this will count for something. Since based on current skill levels, they aren’t getting recruited for basketball...

[uh_no]

I know that for purposes of recognizing donors as members of the James B. Duke Society, the Duke Alumni Association considers all cumulative donations to Duke, including those made to the Iron Dukes:

https://giving.duke.edu/be-recognized/the-james-b.-duke-society/

I don't know whether the Admissions Office takes all donations into account when, and to the extent that, it evaluates a legacy applicant; but my guess is that they, in conjunction with the Alumni Affairs Office, would ascribe greater weight to a family's contributions if they extended beyond donations to the athletic department for the purpose of securing eligibility for and access to game tickets. For example, I understand that a record of giving to the Annual Fund over a period of 5, 10, or 20 consecutive years is highly valued as signifying one's commitment to Duke.
this mirrors my thoughts.

[dyedwab]

The story lead the nightly news, led Entertainment Tonight, and is being covered by ESPN.

The DC news even went to a local angle - as the former Georgetown Tennis coach received 2.7m$ to help admit 12 kids to the school.

[CameronBornAndBred]

While WFU has only put the VB coach on leave, USC has fired their AD and water polo coach.

[sagegrouse]

While WFU has only put the VB coach on leave, USC has fired their AD and water polo coach.

From the various reports, isn't the USC case a "cash and carry" operation involving an Assistant AD?

[johnb]

From the various reports, isn't the USC case a "cash and carry" operation involving an Assistant AD?

I think the AD has some responsibility to keep track of whether their recruited athletes can actually play their chosen sport.

[weezie]

One news report (https://www.foxnews.com/us/dershowitz-college-admissions-scandal-the-tip-of-the-iceberg)said that the bribes were paid to charitable organizations and were deducted on income tax returns.


Cue the monster music "Bum bum BUUUUUUMMMM!" Nobody escapes the IRS.

My fav lowlight of this halfwit celebrity involvement is the picture taken of the girl on the rowing machine in order to make the association that she was a Div1 crew candidate.
Wow, that is some kind of special stupid right there.

[Nick]

Actual tweet from Felicity Huffman (https://twitter.com/FelicityHuffman/status/768888270772064256):


Felicity Huffman
‏
What are your best “hacks” for the back-to-school season?

12:10 PM - 25 Aug 2016

[sagegrouse]

I think the AD has some responsibility to keep track of whether their recruited athletes can actually play their chosen sport.

I intended that to be my point -- not stated clearly. From the stories, one can conclude USC was an organized fraud. Wake may have been a single rogue coach or sport

[RPS]

The Wake bashing is silly. It is among the top national universities (if ranked be behind Duke) -- between Michigan and NYU on the US News list (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities).

All of the discussion of admissions ignores a huge part of the process: luck. Lots of extremely well qualified kids do not get in. I am more than highly confident that I could create a class of Duke rejects every year that are at least as qualified and talented as the admitted class.

NCAA schools have huge compliance departments to make sure no poor athlete gets a nickel more than s/he is entitled to but nobody bothered to check if the recruited walk-on admits were even athletes or if coaches were pocketing hundreds of thousands of illicit dollars. Yet further evidence of the corruption of the system.

[freshmanjs]

Actual tweet from Felicity Huffman (https://twitter.com/FelicityHuffman/status/768888270772064256):

another one (https://twitter.com/FelicityHuffman/status/1015283008201375744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fjennifera bidor%2Ffelicity-huffman-tweets-instagrams)

with her husband... My partner in crime.

[Bluedog]

As somebody who benefited from financial aid from Duke, I am in support of Development admits although I think it's become less pervasive recently. Those individuals' enrollment benefits the community at large in a big way and they're individuals still able to handle the workload. Frankly, they are probably given much less leeway than athletic recruits (note that many many Duke athletes are amazing students and I'm always impressed with their ability to manage their commitments and still do well in school) although one could certainly argue that being amazing at a sport is on one own's merits while being the child of a famous or extremely wealthy person is not. (Although one could also argue that being amazing in athletics doesn't have anything to do with an academic institution....they don't do that in Europe so much. And in India, they solely care about admissions exams/test scores, but I digress....)

Having said all that, obviously this fraud is much much different and is very bizarre. The thing I don't get is how could have nobody connected the dots that a "recruited athlete" ultimately never became an athlete? Does nobody ever check those things? (I get that the coaches were in on it.) I guess it shows that everything is very silo'ed. And clearly the revenue sports coaches wouldn't do it because an athletic scholarship is more valuable than some chump change they would have gotten.

This also clearly demonstrates the current wave of parents who are obsessed with prestige and the "best" for their children as if going to a state school will set up their children for failure later in life. Studies consistently show that school you go to has very little impact on ultimately how successful you are -- that is, somebody who got into Harvard and Indiana would do about the same either way -- not that Harvard and Indiana students have the same outcomes because they are very different student bodies going in.

College admissions for elite schools is definitely interesting in that it's definitely an inexact art and not a science -- and can be seemingly random at times. And some parents go to great (illegal) lengths apparently to get a favorable outcome when probably if they did nothing, everything would have been fine and their child wouldn't get a subpar education. Makes no sense to me...

[freshmanjs]

This also clearly demonstrates the current wave of parents who are obsessed with prestige and the "best" for their children as if going to a state school will set up their children for failure later in life. Studies consistently show that school you go to has very little impact on ultimately how successful you are -- that is, somebody who got into Harvard and Indiana would do about the same either way -- not that Harvard and Indiana students have the same outcomes because they are very different student bodies going in.


What studies have you seen? I've spent real time trying to research this and not found anything interesting. As far as I was able to tell, this was very much unproven either way.

[House P]

Also, I just learned that Felicity Huffman is married to William H. Macy, who was not named in the charges. I guess he was out of the loop?

Perhaps the Feds were worried that if they involved William H. Macy someone was going to end up getting stuffed into a wood chipper? :rolleyes:




(Anyone who doesn’t get the reference is encouraged to watch the movie Fargo.)

[Bluedog]

What studies have you seen? I've spent real time trying to research this and not found anything interesting. As far as I was able to tell, this was very much unproven either way.

Here are a couple:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322
https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/handle/88435/dsp01gf06g265z
https://www.businessinsider.com/where-you-go-to-college-doesnt-matter-2017-5

It seems that some studies do show an effect for URM (black and hispanic students) that come from less-educated families, but not for white and Asian students. It also seems that some studies have shown an effect for women. (As they are more likely to have a career and/or not get married by going to a more prestigious school. So, it's not even that they have higher salaries than less prestigious school counterparts, but simply that they have more lifetime earnings because they delay marriage/children more so they have more working years.) So, maybe my statement was too widespread...

[Tooold]

I know that for purposes of recognizing donors as members of the James B. Duke Society, the Duke Alumni Association considers all cumulative donations to Duke, including those made to the Iron Dukes:

https://giving.duke.edu/be-recognized/the-james-b.-duke-society/

I don't know whether the Admissions Office takes all donations into account when, and to the extent that, it evaluates a legacy applicant; but my guess is that they, in conjunction with the Alumni Affairs Office, would ascribe greater weight to a family's contributions if they extended beyond donations to the athletic department for the purpose of securing eligibility for and access to game tickets. For example, I understand that a record of giving to the Annual Fund over a period of 5, 10, or 20 consecutive years is highly valued as signifying one's commitment to Duke.

My sense, based upon a lot of involvement with engineering school, is that a history of active involvement with Duke gives your child an extra careful evaluation. Giving to the annual fund or other funds every year at a decent level, as well as involvement in alumni activities (including reunions), will get the applicant a “check mark” on the application. (This would include ID, but I think they would like to see consistent AF gifts as well). That tells the admissions office that he/she is a child of an involved alum. Giving $10,000/year, or even $20,000, will not get a student accepted if they are not really well-qualified (I know of many stories of disappointed alums who felt their children were qualified and they did not get accepted in spite of fairly generous donations.). Giving a million (Braxton Craven Society) might help a borderline candidate get accepted. It does help to apply early decision, as Duke fills a good part of the class with ED candidates, and Duke, like all schools, is concerned about its matriculation statistics. If Duke is the first choice, the student should apply ED. If they don’t get accepted but are qualified, they likely will be deferred to regular decision.

Students today are SO highly qualified...so much more than when I attended Duke years ago. Being involved in a lot of clubs, being homecoming queen, football captain, etc., will not necessarily make one a better candidate because they ALL have tons of activities. Having unusual experiences or showing a real passion for something might help. Many, many applicants have 1500-1600 SATs, 4.0 GPAs, 5 or more AP credits...so many that if someone doesn’t have that, they better have other special things (I think the mean SAT at Pratt this year was 1530).

Now back to the thread topic....

[JStuart]

Among those indicted:

Georgetown's men's and women's tennis coach
So Cal's associate athletic director
So Cal's women's soccer coach
So Cal's water polo coach
UCLA's soccer coach
Wake's women's volleyball coach

Water Polo? To what depths will cheating plunge? I ask you?
JStuart (still regretting not wandering over the the Wash Duke bar after the Miami game to thank personally the three Amigos who run the podcasts!)

[weezie]

...being homecoming queen... will not necessarily make one a better candidate...

So I was right to leave that off my application. It never seemed fair to rely too heavily on my natural beauty. I feel pretty sure I got in mainly because I was vice-president of the Physics Club

[WillJ]

Here are a couple:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w7322
https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/handle/88435/dsp01gf06g265z
https://www.businessinsider.com/where-you-go-to-college-doesnt-matter-2017-5

It seems that some studies do show an effect for URM (black and hispanic students) that come from less-educated families, but not for white and Asian students. It also seems that some studies have shown an effect for women. (As they are more likely to have a career and/or not get married by going to a more prestigious school. So, it's not even that they have higher salaries than less prestigious school counterparts, but simply that they have more lifetime earnings because they delay marriage/children more so they have more working years.) So, maybe my statement was too widespread...

I've studied this issue as a professional economist working in this area. There are no very convincing studies of the financial benefit of going to say, UNC vs. Duke vs. Harvard. The only really persuasive studies have looked at state university systems (e.g. Florida and Pennsylvania) where the schools form an aggregate index (i.e., a weighted average of SATs, grades, etc) and where those above a threshold are admitted to a flagship school (e.g. Penn State) and those below a threshold are admitted to a lower-tier school within the state. By comparing students just above and below the threshold, you can compare subsequent financial outcomes for students who seemed very close based on this aggregate index. It appears that, based on these sorts of comparisons, their is a financial bump from going to the flagship school but that it's not overwhelming. Whether that's due to smarter and more ambitious peers or due to better teaching is anyone's guess. It's also unclear how widely these results may be generalized.

My own view is that where you go to college probably matters a bit but that this effect is wildly overestimated by most people. Also, people are status-grubbers - we just are. With the demotion of things like whether your great aunt married a Danish prince or whether your parents belonged to the right country club, that status-seeking impulse has gotten placed on where we, and particularly our children, go to college. Humans (including myself)....sigh.

[sagegrouse]

Water Polo? To what depths will cheating plunge? I ask you?
JStuart (still regretting not wandering over the the Wash Duke bar after the Miami game to thank personally the three Amigos who run the podcasts!)

Well, someone blew the whistle on this colossal fraud.

I wonder if it was Georgetown University. After all, their FORMER tennis coach got $2 million for 12 fake recruits to the tennis team. YOu think someone would have noticed that that.

The case was from the US Attorney for Massachusetts. No Mass. schools were named -- hmmmmhhh???

[Tooold]

So I was right to leave that off my application. It never seemed fair to rely too heavily on my natural beauty. I feel pretty sure I got in mainly because I was vice-president of the Physics Club

Hah! You and me both!

[BigWayne]

In another cheaters parallel....


Prosecutors said parents were also instructed to claim their children had learning disabilities so that they could take the ACT or SAT by themselves, with extended time. That made it easier to pull off the tampering, prosecutors said.

[johnb]

Steady parental alumni donations + qualified ED applicant = enthusiastic Duke student

That wouldn’t be about money or matriculation stats but about having a subset of students with pre-pubertal Duke identifications.

Btw, there’s no way to legitimately compare the actual effect of going to different schools. First, even if you look at the students who get into Elite X but matriculate at Non-elite Y, that’s going to be a non-representative sample, perhaps overweighted with kids with less money or a different worldview or a desire to stay closer to home or a focus on a particular field of study—and if you look at the most elite places (H,Y,P), the folks who chose to attend a 3rd tier school will be a very small sample (at the very least, HYP has much more available financial aid than the 3rd tier school, which is often defined as 3rd tier bc it lacks the sort of financial backing that allows financial recruitment.

More importantly, later income is a poor measure for success. One goal of education is to provide different opportunities and exposures, to make whole worlds come alive, to make it seem preferable to find a calling rather than simply maximize one’s 401K. This can and should be a goal of all higher education, not just at the so-called elite places, and the end result simply can’t be adequately measured by income.

[Troublemaker]

Perhaps the Feds were worried that if they involved William H. Macy someone was going to end up getting stuffed into a wood chipper? :rolleyes:


(Anyone who doesn’t get the reference is encouraged to watch the movie Fargo.)

Speaking of pop culture references, something about this saga involving unscrupulous parents reminded me of Carmela Soprano looking out for her daughter Meadow. This episode aired in early 2000 when it was probably much less competitive to get into college than it is now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-b3xl8daQ

[JGB]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.

I do not often post here, but I feel compelled to disagree. I had two sons attend Duke. One, was accepted through the "front door" and graduated from Pratt as an electrical engineer. The second, also attended Duke as a recruited athlete, and also graduated from Pratt as a mechanical engineer. I saw the application and acceptance process up-close and personal, and though they were different (non-athlete vs athlete) the integrity of the process was impeccable. While I am sure there are exceptions, I personally know of many Duke graduates who came from minority and low-income backgrounds who attended, graduated and are making the most of their hard work and opportunity to attend an elite school. Thanks for reading.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I guess I am just a cynic, but not only am I not surprised by this story, I am surprised by how surprised everyone is.

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

:yawn:

[camion]

I guess I am just a cynic, but not only am I not surprised by this story, I am surprised by how surprised everyone is.

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

:yawn:

I am just surprised by the clumsiness of it. How gauche.

What ever happened to the tried and true way of endowing a building or library?

[uh_no]

I guess I am just a cynic, but not only am I not surprised by this story, I am surprised by how surprised everyone is.

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

:yawn:

i don't think anyone is surprised that rich people give money to schools to help their kids chances....this is fundamentally different than bribing admissions officers.

[PackMan97]

I guess I am just a cynic, but not only am I not surprised by this story, I am surprised by how surprised everyone is.

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

:yawn:

I think it has always been accepted that folks give a ton of money to get their kid in. Do you need a new building? I'll donate $500k to help endow a tenured professorship if you accept my kid. In some respects, that's an up and up transaction even if the kid doesn't deserve it on it's merits. The school becomes a better place due to the donation (be it to an endowment, a buildings construction or whatever) and the kid gets an education.

What is happening in this schedule is just outright fraud. Other parties (besides the school) are being bribed and bought. Tests and scores are being doctored. That is what everyone is surprised about that this is outside of the established system.

[sagegrouse]

I guess I am just a cynic, but not only am I not surprised by this story, I am surprised by how surprised everyone is.

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

:yawn:


I am just surprised by the clumsiness of it. How gauche.

What ever happened to the tried and true way of endowing a building or library?

Throwing numbers around (which will be familiar to those who read my hoops posts), there are roughly 50,000 entrants every year to top-30 elite universities and colleges with tough admissions. (Justification -- I guessed at 30 schools; Duke takes 1,700 freshmen every year.)

Singer seems to be the "master mobster" in this industry. There were 50 people arrested -- coaches, parents, fraudulent test proctors, cheats like Singer. How many operations are there like Singer's, and how many kids enter college with fraudulent credentials? Is it 50, 500 or 5,000? In every case the schools should strengthen controls. But 50 is hardly significant, except as a national scandal, while 5,000 cheats per year is a huge number and a significant erosion of the integrity of college admissions.

I suppose it is inevitable that "recruited athletes," a big number, even at the Ivies, are a perennial threat through falsification of test scores and other documentation. I know this receives a lot of attention from SAT and ACT, but I don't know the details of enforcement.

And how many of us thought that schools were giving preferred admits to fake athletes? At the same time, "fake athletic credentials" would be an easy thing for a university to audit. Because football and hoops get a lot of public scrutiny from fans reading the player evaluations (except for "preferred walk-ons"), so the problem is simplified to the non-revenue sports.

Some thoughts strung together to create an incomprehensible post.

[DarkstarWahoo]

Having said all that, obviously this fraud is much much different and is very bizarre. The thing I don't get is how could have nobody connected the dots that a "recruited athlete" ultimately never became an athlete? Does nobody ever check those things? (I get that the coaches were in on it.) I guess it shows that everything is very silo'ed. And clearly the revenue sports coaches wouldn't do it because an athletic scholarship is more valuable than some chump change they would have gotten.


I actually think football would be the easiest place to hide someone. Granted, the high visibility could very well make it so it's not worth the risk, and the salaries are high enough that the coaches would be harder to bribe. But strictly on a logistical basis, it might be the easiest sport to get on the roster as a walk-on due to the sheer need for practice bodies. My understanding is that if you can meet reasonable athletic and health baselines and have a willingness to get blown up by freak athletes, there's generally a spot for you as a practice body on most college football teams. And who could blame someone new to football for (hypothetically) trying it for a week or two, deciding it's not for you and quitting? At that point, you're already in school.

I think this practice has been pretty standard for some time. What makes these cases different is that money is changing hands. But Carter Boatwright IV has been getting recommendations as a potential walk-on for a while now.

Weirdly, one thing this case reminds me of is when John Mellencamp's kid walked on to the Duke football team without having played before. But he actually did join the team, stayed with it and, by all accounts, put in all the work.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Let me clarify - I find it outrageous, upsetting and unfair. I just do not find it surprising.

As someone who is neither famous nor wealthy, I assume things like this happen.

[aimo]

I guess I am just a cynic, but not only am I not surprised by this story, I am surprised by how surprised everyone is.

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

:yawn:

The only thing that surprised me about this story was, as a Wake Forest grad, that Wake was involved. I graduated in 1992, when Wake was still considered a top regional school. They greatly increased their endowment soon after I graduated and are only now really competing with the big boys. While there were a few extremely wealthy kids there when I was (a Turkish princess, an heir to Campbell Soup, a daughter of a NYC financier), I find it a bit surprising that someone would go to these lengths to get their kid on the volleyball team, which, by the way, did not even exist when I was a student. Actually, I guess it's kind of cool that Wake is in such demand! Go Demon Deacons!

[johnb]

I actually think football would be the easiest place to hide someone. Granted, the high visibility could very well make it so it's not worth the risk, and the salaries are high enough that the coaches would be harder to bribe. But strictly on a logistical basis, it might be the easiest sport to get on the roster as a walk-on due to the sheer need for practice bodies. My understanding is that if you can meet reasonable athletic and health baselines and have a willingness to get blown up by freak athletes, there's generally a spot for you as a practice body on most college football teams. And who could blame someone new to football for (hypothetically) trying it for a week or two, deciding it's not for you and quitting? At that point, you're already in school.

I think this practice has been pretty standard for some time. What makes these cases different is that money is changing hands. But Carter Boatwright IV has been getting recommendations as a potential walk-on for a while now.

Weirdly, one thing this case reminds me of is when John Mellencamp's kid walked on to the Duke football team without having played before. But he actually did join the team, stayed with it and, by all accounts, put in all the work.

Carter Boatwright is a 6'5" 205 pound TE for the Colquitt County Packers who graduates in 2020 and is rated the 40th best recruit in South Georgia (he's from Moultrie). I don't think he plans to walk on, but I could be wrong.
http://www.southernpigskin.com/recruiting/2020-south-georgia-player-rankings-v5.0/

This is a fan's site, so I won't discuss Hud Mellencamp's contributions to optics surrounding Duke football.

[devilseven]

So its wrong for rich kids to go to college and pretend to be athletes, but its OK for uncheats athletes to go to college and pretend to be students???

[DarkstarWahoo]

Carter Boatwright is a 6'5" 205 pound TE for the Colquitt County Packers who graduates in 2020 and is rated the 40th best recruit in South Georgia (he's from Moultrie). I don't think he plans to walk on, but I could be wrong.
http://www.southernpigskin.com/recruiting/2020-south-georgia-player-rankings-v5.0/

This is a fan's site, so I won't discuss Hud Mellencamp's contributions to optics surrounding Duke football.

My made-up name was too realistic! I can hear him now..."Carter is my father. Call me Cart."

As for Hud Mellencamp (a name too good to make up), I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting there was anything unsavory about his recruitment. I thought of him in the "celebrity rando" sense. If he wasn't a football player when he arrived in Durham, he was one when he left. It's not the same thing as Aunt Becky's kid at all.

UVA had a similar thing with Ty Grisham, whose father's involvement in the previous round of baseball improvements was a poorly kept secret. Like Hud Mellencamp, he wasn't a star or even a regular, but he was a real baseball player. (Unlike Hud, he was a star in high school, and unlike UVA, the Grisham name is very prominent across the campus at St. Anne's-Belfield.)

[PackMan97]

It needs to be noted that the athletic recruitment portion of this scandal is all fraud. These kids never tried out. Never practiced. Never did anything related to the sport. The athletic angle was simply too have an easier time with admissions at some schools.

[Rich]

Rich and famous people are using money and influence to better their kids' chances to get into school?

Hey, not fair, I've done nothing of the sort, although I can't speak for famous people!

[MarkD83]

So here is something I found ironic about this.

A parent is willing to pay $6.8 million for a child to get into a school because the reputation of the school will help them in life.

But when we talk about an athlete being compensated for playing a sport at a school ...some folks dismiss the value of the reputation of the school as a form of compensation....

So hypothetically, Zion blowing out his shoe on national TV during a Duke - unc game could have a huge impact on the value of a future shoe contract he might get...but if Zion had attended a mid-major school and blown out his shoe in a meaningless game not on national TV, would that have any impact on an endorsement contract....

BTW, I am in favor of compensating athletes because college athletics is big business and the athletes are the ones that make it a big business. However, how you value reputation, exposure etc are critical to the discussion.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hey, not fair, I've done nothing of the sort, although I can't speak for famous people!

Sorry for the friendly fire! Have a spork!

[devildeac]

I actually think football would be the easiest place to hide someone. Granted, the high visibility could very well make it so it's not worth the risk, and the salaries are high enough that the coaches would be harder to bribe. But strictly on a logistical basis, it might be the easiest sport to get on the roster as a walk-on due to the sheer need for practice bodies. My understanding is that if you can meet reasonable athletic and health baselines and have a willingness to get blown up by freak athletes, there's generally a spot for you as a practice body on most college football teams. And who could blame someone new to football for (hypothetically) trying it for a week or two, deciding it's not for you and quitting? At that point, you're already in school.

I think this practice has been pretty standard for some time. What makes these cases different is that money is changing hands. But Carter Boatwright IV has been getting recommendations as a potential walk-on for a while now.

Weirdly, one thing this case reminds me of is when John Mellencamp's kid walked on to the Duke football team without having played before. But he actually did join the team, stayed with it and, by all accounts, put in all the work.

He was a fighter...

[wilson]

Carter Boatwright is a 6'5" 205 pound TE for the Colquitt County Packers...


My made-up name was too realistic! I can hear him now..."Carter is my father. Call me Cart."...
I'M CART BOATWRIGHT!
Wait, I'm NOT Boatwright.
No, I'm not CARTwright.
I think that's right.
9153

[DarkstarWahoo]

To close the loop on Johnny Cougar and hit NBC sitcoms:

“If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude.”

[Bluedog]

Make no mistake, colleges and universities are businesses, and nowhere are they more "business-y" than in the admissions office. it's a shame, but the way admissions are set up now there is no connection between what the professors what, and what would make up a true intellectually diverse community and what the admissions office wants. The admissions office, with no input from faculty, has decided that what the school needs is extroverted, hyperactive politicians, the prom king and the soccer captain, because they see those people as being more likely to reward the school latter with prestige and money. More subtly their selection rewards early puberty (because you need to more mentally and physically mature to do the things needed for prestigious admissions) and wealth ( as mom needs to give up her career and drive junior all over the place to do camps, clinics, leagues, charity work, or else arrange it for him). There is no place in the admission office for the lower income student who has to work at McDonalds or can only afford school activities orthe poet, the introvert, the dreamer, the original thinker rather than doer, or the late bloomer. And that's the real shame.

I agree with your general narrative, but schools like Duke actually make HUGE efforts to attract and accept lower income students. Students who are the "same on paper" but one coming from a high achieving area/high school and one from a low achieving one, colleges would absolutely take the one from a more disadantaged background every time. (Of course, opportunities are not the same but Duke is smart enough to adjust for that.) A student coming from a zip code of poverty who worked a part-time job supporting his/her family, and only participated in school activities but did well would be a very attractive applicant to many schools -- even if their test scores are "sub-par" compared to more normal applicants.

Similarly, while the introvert typically doesn't stick out on the paper, the linguist who is into Greek literature absolutely is HIGHLY coveted, because there aren't many of those. So, non-standard interests are taken into account as Duke tries to get angular students to get a well-rounded student body.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

David West is about to test the true market value of the athletes....WITHOUT the name on the front of the jersey. This will be worth watching....

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/david-west-the-historical-basketball-league-is-aiming-to-be-a-new-model-for-elite-college-athletes/18254947/

[WVDUKEFAN]

Why didn’t they just “donate” to get their kids admitted? It’s the legal way to buy your kids admission. It’s been going on for years and is perfectly legal and gives them the same unfair advantage over kids whose parents can’t afford to donate. It’s the American way.

[-jk]

Why didn’t they just “donate” to get their kids admitted? It’s the legal way to buy your kids admission. It’s been going on for years and is perfectly legal and gives them the same unfair advantage over kids whose parents can’t afford to donate. It’s the American way.

I suspect donating up front to a school is orders of magnitude more expensive - but way more open - than bribing a low level coach for a similar acceptance rate...

-jk

[WVDUKEFAN]

i don't think anyone is surprised that rich people give money to schools to help their kids chances...this is fundamentally different than bribing admissions officers.

A bribe is a bribe. Whether it’s bribing the individual or the institution, the decision is being influenced with money.

[sagegrouse]

A bribe is a bribe. Whether it’s bribing the individual or the institution, the decision is being influenced with money.

Actually, many people will disagree with your statement. The Singer ring involved crimes, including bribery and accepting bribes, by a whole bunch of people. The schools were defrauded. At the same time, giving some degree of preference in admissions to the children of large donors is the right of the school, perfectly legal, and is done virtually everywhere.

[MartyClark]

A bribe is a bribe. Whether it’s bribing the individual or the institution, the decision is being influenced with money.

I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure the conclusion is correct. A large donation to the university, with "no strings attached" may result in admission. I don't think it is illegal, maybe immoral, for a university to admit and otherwise "less qualified" student under those circumstances.

By my use of quotation marks, you can see that I have never been the beneficiary of this type of giving.

But, from a legal standpoint, can't a University admit anyone it wants to without legal scrutiny. If there is not discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or gender, can't a University admit or deny any person it wants to?

[WVDUKEFAN]

I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure the conclusion is correct. A large donation to the university, with "no strings attached" may result in admission. I don't think it is illegal, maybe immoral, for a university to admit and otherwise "less qualified" student under those circumstances.

By my use of quotation marks, you can see that I have never been the beneficiary of this type of giving.

But, from a legal standpoint, can't a University admit anyone it wants to without legal scrutiny. If there is not discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or gender, can't a University admit or deny any person it wants to?

Agreed.

Honestly, I believe the most qualified should be taken first. Period. Acceptance should be based on merit and qualifications. I disagree wholeheartedly that a certain percentage of people should be admitted based on income, race, or any other factors.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

A bribe is a bribe. Whether it’s bribing the individual or the institution, the decision is being influenced with money.

A bribe is generally done in secret, and generally illegal. That's not the same thing. It's a first cousin perhaps, but not the same thing.

[JayZee]

I suspect donating up front to a school is orders of magnitude more expensive - but way more open - than bribing a low level coach for a similar acceptance rate...

-jk

And higher probability of getting in. So, ignoring the legal and moral issues, quite the risk adjusted return...

Oh, and they cheated on the SAT. That helped too. I saw one quote where the dad complained that he paid all this money for inflated SAT scores and they weren’t even that high. The organizer said basically - bro your daughter has horrible grades, if she scores 1550 there will be red flags.

[Tooold]

Agreed.

Honestly, I believe the most qualified should be taken first. Period. Acceptance should be based on merit and qualifications. I disagree wholeheartedly that a certain percentage of people should be admitted based on income, race, or any other factors.

I believe that at Duke and other prestigious schools there are some students who get a bump in the admissions process because their parents have been extremely generous. I think in most cases their children are also well-qualified. I don’t doubt that there are a few who are accepted with weaker grades or scores (someone has to be in the lower quartile), because the parents gave a huge gift or are famous. I hope it doesn’t happen often.

There are so many highly qualified students who apply to Duke, and there often is very little separating someone who was accepted from someone who was not. If a generous donation helps sway a decision in (hopefully only) a few cases, we should also remember that those donations are funding the scholarships that allow qualified students without means to attend Duke. Duke’s ability to provide scholarships has increased dramatically over the last 15 years, and this allows need-blind admissions. I believe 60% of Duke students receive some amount of financial aid (someone correct that statistic if I am wrong). And, at least in the engineering school, if someone is admitted who is not qualified, they probably won’t last long.

[Tooold]

And just to clarify my above post, I hope Duke isn’t letting people buy their way in, and I don’t believe they are. I think the majority of those admitted who are legacies and/or have parents who make a generous gift are still very well qualified. And I know Duke accepts a huge number of students who rely on financial aid, as well as many who are first generation college students.

[CameronBornAndBred]

A while back I asked if the kids in this will be kicked out. Those at USC are about to find out.


All University of Southern California applicants who are connected to the alleged admissions cheating scheme will be denied admission, university spokesman Gary Polakovic said Wednesday.

A case-by-case review will be conducted for students who are already enrolled at USC and may be connected to the scheme. USC will "make informed, appropriate decisions once those reviews have been completed. Some of these individuals may have been minors at the time of their application process," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/college-admission-cheating-scheme-wednesday/index.html

I don't really see why being a minor would matter. If the student in any way knew that he/she was being assisted, then age doesn't matter. (I don't see how the students in some of these cases were clueless, especially if someone was saying you were getting in due to your athletic ability.)

[PackMan97]

I don't really see why being a minor would matter. If the student in any way knew that he/she was being assisted, then age doesn't matter. (I don't see how the students in some of these cases were clueless, especially if someone was saying you were getting in due to your athletic ability.)

I think this is a desire not to punish a child for the sins of their parent. If a 16 or 17 year old were able to make informed rational decisions we would let them vote, purchase firearms, drink alcohol, rent a car, run for US Senate/President, enroll in the military, get a credit card, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of these kids had no idea.

[sagegrouse]

A while back I asked if the kids in this will be kicked out. Those at USC are about to find out.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/college-admission-cheating-scheme-wednesday/index.html

I don't really see why being a minor would matter. If the student in any way knew that he/she was being assisted, then age doesn't matter. (I don't see how the students in some of these cases were clueless, especially if someone was saying you were getting in due to your athletic ability.)


I think this is a desire not to punish a child for the sins of their parent. If a 16 or 17 year old were able to make informed rational decisions we would let them vote, purchase firearms, drink alcohol, rent a car, run for US Senate/President, enroll in the military, get a credit card, etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of these kids had no idea.

USC is one of the largest private universities anywhere, with 19,000 undergrads. IMHO, where the H got lost at a party with the Georgetown tennis team, the outcome and actions will be about USC taking a stand or making a statement than about extra spaces in the student body.

[Rudy]

And just to clarify my above post, I hope Duke isn’t letting people buy their way in, and I don’t believe they are. I think the majority of those admitted who are legacies and/or have parents who make a generous gift are still very well qualified. And I know Duke accepts a huge number of students who rely on financial aid, as well as many who are first generation college students.

Your post here and your earlier one describe Yale to a T, yet one of the bribery cases described was Yale’s former women’s soccer coach (who, once caught, helped the prosecutors) who took $400,000 for a student who didn’t play soccer. Yale doesn’t give athletic scholarships but I understand each athletic team (some more than others) gets a few special requests from the coaches to the admissions office and criteria are relaxed a little for recruited athletes. I have the impression that the Universities trust their head coaches to be honest in designating recruited athletes, that is not identify one who hasn’t even played their sport. That unquestioning trust is over, at least in those universities who have been stung on this.

[uh_no]

Your post here and your earlier one describe Yale to a T, yet one of the bribery cases described was Yale’s former women’s soccer coach (who, once caught, helped the prosecutors) who took $400,000 for a student who didn’t play soccer. Yale doesn’t give athletic scholarships but I understand each athletic team (some more than others) gets a few special requests from the coaches to the admissions office and criteria are relaxed a little for recruited athletes. I have the impression that the Universities trust their head coaches to be honest in designating recruited athletes, that is not identify one who hasn’t even played their sport. That unquestioning trust is over, at least in those universities who have been stung on this.

i would be very surprised if duke didn't immediately move to ensure all their i's were dotted. I'd like to believe that Duke had some checks to ensure this didn't happen previously, and would put at least a slice of pie on them being in place now or shortly.

[zippy_the_cat]

i would be very surprised if duke didn't immediately move to ensure all their i's were dotted.

I suspect a lot of universities will be going back to look at their special-admit process, checking for people who got team- or athletic-department vouches without ever actually showing up on a roster. Any such that they find are gonna be automatically suspect, given that CW-1 apparently was at this for 24 years and left a huge paper trail.

Thing about this is, it's easy to audit but it's impossible, because of FERPA, for people outside the university to audit. The USC allegations even involve football and basketball, which you'd think would be impossible given the attention recruiting in those sports gets. But it was never necessary in this scam for the kid to be an actual recruit. All it took was a coach who for a price was willing to burn one of his or her special-admit slots, which unlike actual roster or scholarship slots are invisible to the outside world.

[sagegrouse]

Your post here and your earlier one describe Yale to a T, yet one of the bribery cases described was Yale’s former women’s soccer coach (who, once caught, helped the prosecutors) who took $400,000 for a student who didn’t play soccer. Yale doesn’t give athletic scholarships but I understand each athletic team (some more than others) gets a few special requests from the coaches to the admissions office and criteria are relaxed a little for recruited athletes. I have the impression that the Universities trust their head coaches to be honest in designating recruited athletes, that is not identify one who hasn’t even played their sport. That unquestioning trust is over, at least in those universities who have been stung on this.

The Ivy League does not allow athletic scholarships, which means that scholarships for athletes are paid out of the general scholarship funds. ;) There are "protected spots" for athletes, but there are also overall admissions standards defined in terms of an academic index. Basically, exceptions are allowed, but must be offset by more highly qualified athletes.

The athlete son of a friend went to an on-campus admission session for athletes at an Ivy League school. An assistant dean of admissions came in and told the group, in effect, the only way you are going to get admitted is because you are athletes -- muy estupido, Dean. The kid -- a good student -- was totally turned off and went elsewhere.

Even at Division III University of Chicago, where there really is no difference in admission standards for football players, there still is a kind of preference. The football coaches can get an immediate decision on a prospective recruit instead of waiting until March or April.

[Tooold]

A while back I asked if the kids in this will be kicked out. Those at USC are about to find out.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/college-admission-cheating-scheme-wednesday/index.html

I don't really see why being a minor would matter. If the student in any way knew that he/she was being assisted, then age doesn't matter. (I don't see how the students in some of these cases were clueless, especially if someone was saying you were getting in due to your athletic ability.)

I agree. Whether he/she is a minor or not, he/she had to sign the application, which was supposed to be completed by him, NOT his parents. He knows if he is lying about being an athlete. And even w.r.t. fake SAT scores, I doubt that any 17 year old who was happily surprised to get good scores (after requesting the extra time benefit which he had not been receiving earlier in his school career), did not realize something fishy was going on. Unless there are clearly circumstances to prove the student COULD not have known, I think the student needs to learn there are consequences for cheating.

[Tooold]

The Ivy League does not allow athletic scholarships, which means that scholarships for athletes are paid out of the general scholarship funds. ;) There are "protected spots" for athletes, but there are also overall admissions standards defined in terms of an academic index. Basically, exceptions are allowed, but must be offset by more highly qualified athletes.



There used to be a “formula” at Ivies, and maybe there still is. Each athlete who was admitted had a score (which was based on academics and SATs, to my understanding). The entire team had to average out to some minimum standard, so if a player was admitted with low academic credentials, there had to be others to bring up the average. I know of multiple Ivy athletes who had terrible SATs...not even in the ballpark for an Ivy or
Duke. But then I also know of some marginal athletes who were part of the team and were known to be there simply to pull up the academic score (and ride the bench).

My son was recruited by a prominent Ivy, and the coach was absolutely giddy because he would be a starter who also had high SATs. When the coach told my son that none of the players knew where the library was, he crossed that school off his list.

Everybody games the system. I don’t like it, but it happens. This situation is so much worse as it is clearly cheating and illegal.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

And just to clarify my above post, I hope Duke isn’t letting people buy their way in, and I don’t believe they are. I think the majority of those admitted who are legacies and/or have parents who make a generous gift are still very well qualified. And I know Duke accepts a huge number of students who rely on financial aid, as well as many who are first generation college students.
Insights from a former Duke admissions officer. Nothing implicating Duke. Just insight into the approach of a subset of 1%’ers and the slimy dealings of a group of high paid “consultants” out there who facilitate the purchase of access to elite schools.

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/amp26801977/admissions-counselor-interview-college-exam-scam/

P.S. I’m not a reader of Elle magazine... it’s Google’s fault. They dropped the article into my feed. I swear!

[brevity]

Insights from a former Duke admissions officer. Nothing implicating Duke. Just insight into the approach of a subset of 1%’ers and the slimy dealings of a group of high paid “consultants” out there who facilitate the purchase of access to elite schools.

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/amp26801977/admissions-counselor-interview-college-exam-scam/

P.S. I’m not a reader of Elle magazine... it’s Google’s fault. They dropped the article into my feed. I swear!

There’s another article on that Elle magazine website you might find interesting. Hold on, let me find it...

Joe Alwyn Is Reportedly Planning to Propose to Taylor Swift 'at the Perfect Time'
Where Is Captain Marvel's Hair Tie?
Lady Gaga Made a Pregnancy Announcement Guaranteed to Please Fans
New York Fashion Week Heralds the Death of the High Ponytail

Ah, here it is:
We Joked That USC Stood for University of Spoiled Children (https://www.elle.com/culture/a26800833/college-entrance-cheating-usc/)


When I was on campus from 2009 to 2013, the notion of students benefitting from a corrupt admissions process felt as ubiquitous as students taking Adderall or cheating on exams. “Everyone knew, nobody cared,” one friend put it. And it was hard to perceive any regret or embarrassment among the students who benefitted. At a fraternity invite, a “water polo recruit” drunkenly bragged to me that he drew a tree on a college entrance exam, then explained what the tree meant to him. He laughed at what a joke the system was, without acknowledging he was complicit in perpetuating the system, taking away higher education from deserving people.

[johnb]

Agreed.

Honestly, I believe the most qualified should be taken first. Period. Acceptance should be based on merit and qualifications. I disagree wholeheartedly that a certain percentage of people should be admitted based on income, race, or any other factors.

“Merit and qualifications” are difficult to quantify and are clearly impacted by “income, race...and other factors.” In addition, Duke and other elite colleges want a diverse set of students not because it’s PC but because a) diversity leads to friction-filled learning opportunities; b) the world is diverse; and c)other stuff that I’d include if I had more time.

The saddest part of this mess is that it leads people to think a) admissions is completely rigged in favor of the economic elites, and b) there are elite schools that are better for every child.

Btw, if visibly rich/powerful people (like movie stars and heads of law firms whose average partner income is $3 million/year and whose own income was likely double that) are willing to clumsily cheat, then they must have thought the admissions system wasn’t adequately rigged in their favor—their own careers and livelihoods are
now in tatters, not just because they had more money than wisdom/morality but also because they apparently concluded that elite Admissions paid too much attention to all those things that make a school elite (like good students).

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The Ivy League does not allow athletic scholarships, which means that scholarships for athletes are paid out of the general scholarship funds. ;) There are "protected spots" for athletes, but there are also overall admissions standards defined in terms of an academic index. Basically, exceptions are allowed, but must be offset by more highly qualified athletes.

The athlete son of a friend went to an on-campus admission session for athletes at an Ivy League school. An assistant dean of admissions came in and told the group, in effect, the only way you are going to get admitted is because you are athletes -- muy estupido, Dean. The kid -- a good student -- was totally turned off and went elsewhere.

Even at Division III University of Chicago, where there really is no difference in admission standards for football players, there still is a kind of preference. The football coaches can get an immediate decision on a prospective recruit instead of waiting until March or April.

I am guessing that some of the kids involved in this scandal were not miles away from being qualified for the schools they went to, but just needed the extra push. To dramatically oversimplify things, if a non-athlete needs a 1500 to get into Yale but an athlete needs a 1250, some of these kids might have had a 1300, with which they would have no hope of getting into Yale as a regular student but aren't an outlier as an athlete.

D3 schools definitely have preferred spots for athletes. The deviation from the qualifications of non-athletes is a lot less, but it definitely exists. Since these kids are not getting athletic scholarships, I am surprised that more kids don't use their athletic ability to get in the door then quit the team once they are on campus. D3 sports are still a huge time commitment and 99.99% of the athletes at this level are not going to make a penny off of their sport. This is not that different from people I knew at Duke whose grades and scores were skewed heavily towards math so they applied to and were accepted by engineering but quickly transferred out once they were on campus as they had no interest but just wanted the best chance of getting into Duke.

[weezie]

i would be very surprised if duke didn't immediately move to ensure all their i's were dotted...


Something floated across the screen ticker late last night about a female applicant to Duke having had proctor help? Unless I've missed it here upstream.

[Bluedog]

I am guessing that some of the kids involved in this scandal were not miles away from being qualified for the schools they went to, but just needed the extra push. To dramatically oversimplify things, if a non-athlete needs a 1500 to get into Yale but an athlete needs a 1250, some of these kids might have had a 1300, with which they would have no hope of getting into Yale as a regular student but aren't an outlier as an athlete.

D3 schools definitely have preferred spots for athletes. The deviation from the qualifications of non-athletes is a lot less, but it definitely exists. Since these kids are not getting athletic scholarships, I am surprised that more kids don't use their athletic ability to get in the door then quit the team once they are on campus. D3 sports are still a huge time commitment and 99.99% of the athletes at this level are not going to make a penny off of their sport. This is not that different from people I knew at Duke whose grades and scores were skewed heavily towards math so they applied to and were accepted by engineering but quickly transferred out once they were on campus as they had no interest but just wanted the best chance of getting into Duke.

These days, Pratt has a lower admissions rate AND higher verbal test scores (of course math too) than Trinity counterparts. ;) (-Pratt '07, when Pratt's admissions rate was higher than Trinity's). Of course, this is skewed by athletes/other preferred admits who don't enroll in Pratt in as large numbers. So, it's perhaps true that an 'unhooked' applicant in Trinity vs. Pratt is about the same although it does seem like Pratt is more numbers-focused.

But, I agree with your larger point. Definitely. As a decent (but not Duke varisty-quality) tennis player myself, I knew some of my peers who chose to go to schools like Bowdoin as recruited athletes -- they were still pretty strong academically but weren't shoo-ins had it not been for the tennis and it was a reach school for sure. Definitely can be the differentiator or as they call it in admissions, the "hook."

[BLPOG]

These days, Pratt has a lower admissions rate AND higher verbal test scores (of course math too) than Trinity counterparts. ;) (-Pratt '07, when Pratt's admissions rate was higher than Trinity's).

That is interesting. When I was admitted ED in '08, Pratt still had a higher (I don't remember by how much) admissions rate and I knew a few folks who applied to Pratt on that basis with the intention of switching to Trinity. They typically only took a single engineering class.

[BoiseDevil]

Disagree. It's never about the money. It's about the power and prestige. Money chases those things, tries to buy those things, tries to be those things...but at the end of the day, in any society whether its a capitalistic, socialistic, cannibalistic or whatever...power is where it's at.

I believe it’s different things for different people. It’s a cocktail of greed (money), Power (titles/authority/rank) and status (image, material goods, notoriety).

And we all know any of the three will corrupt most anyone with ambition because if some is good, more is better and most means I’m better than you...

[Tooold]

That is interesting. When I was admitted ED in '08, Pratt still had a higher (I don't remember by how much) admissions rate and I knew a few folks who applied to Pratt on that basis with the intention of switching to Trinity. They typically only took a single engineering class.
Even in ‘08 when Pratt had a higher admissions rate than trinity (by a small amount), the average SATs at Pratt were higher than those at Trinity. Those admitted to Pratt had significantly higher math scores than the Trinity admits, and fairly similar verbal scores. The thought was that there was at least some “self-selection” going on. Students who did not have really good test scores usually did not choose to apply to Pratt, which resulted in Pratt’s applicant pool having a larger percentage of highly qualified students. I’m not saying that there were not some who did what you are saying, but they still had to have higher scores (and probably a savvy guidance counselor—or a parent who was a Duke Engineer). Yes, there were those who transferred out of engineering, but most of those just didn’t like the workload.

[BLPOG]

Even in ‘08 when Pratt had a higher admissions rate than trinity (by a small amount), the average SATs at Pratt were higher than those at Trinity. Those admitted to Pratt had significantly higher math scores than the Trinity admits, and fairly similar verbal scores. The thought was that there was at least some “self-selection” going on. Students who did not have really good test scores usually did not choose to apply to Pratt, which resulted in Pratt’s applicant pool having a larger percentage of highly qualified students. I’m not saying that there were not some who did what you are saying, but they still had to have higher scores (and probably a savvy guidance counselor—or a parent who was a Duke Engineer). Yes, there were those who transferred out of engineering, but most of those just didn’t like the workload.

I suppose it's worth clarifying (and I think this is in keeping with your comments) that the few I knew who switched were very bright and probably had scores more typical of Pratt than Trinity. They just weren't particularly interested in engineering and thought it could present a small admissions advantage.

[Tooold]

I suppose it's worth clarifying (and I think this is in keeping with your comments) that the few I knew who switched were very bright and probably had scores more typical of Pratt than Trinity. They just weren't particularly interested in engineering and thought it could present a small admissions advantage.
Well, I think you are right, especially if they were coming from an “over-served” area, such as Fairfield County. That way they were not in the same pool as the hundreds of other well-qualified applicants from their area.

[House G]

That didn’t take long:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/usc-yale-university-among-colleges-sued-by-stanford-students-amid-college-admissions-scandal-report

[J4Kop99]

That didn’t take long:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/usc-yale-university-among-colleges-sued-by-stanford-students-amid-college-admissions-scandal-report

Just another form of parents (adults) using their children as chess pieces

[Tooold]

That didn’t take long:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/usc-yale-university-among-colleges-sued-by-stanford-students-amid-college-admissions-scandal-report
Wait, what? They got into Stanford but are complaining that they didn’t get into USC or Yale? And their Stanford degrees are devalued because people might think they pulled strings to get in? This makes no sense to me (I admit I am not a lawyer...). I hope this gets dismissed quickly, as it seems obviously frivolous.

[sagegrouse]

There used to be a “formula” at Ivies, and maybe there still is. Each athlete who was admitted had a score (which was based on academics and SATs, to my understanding). The entire team had to average out to some minimum standard, so if a player was admitted with low academic credentials, there had to be others to bring up the average. I know of multiple Ivy athletes who had terrible SATs...not even in the ballpark for an Ivy or
Duke. But then I also know of some marginal athletes who were part of the team and were known to be there simply to pull up the academic score (and ride the bench).

My son was recruited by a prominent Ivy, and the coach was absolutely giddy because he would be a starter who also had high SATs. When the coach told my son that none of the players knew where the library was, he crossed that school off his list.

Everybody games the system. I don’t like it, but it happens. This situation is so much worse as it is clearly cheating and illegal.

I believe it is called the Academic Index and works the way you described. There are a number of interesting articles out there that can be googled at "ivy league athlete academic index."

[DukieInKansas]

Wait, what? They got into Stanford but are complaining that they didn’t get into USC or Yale? And their Stanford degrees are devalued because people might think they pulled strings to get in? This makes no sense to me (I admit I am not a lawyer...). I hope this gets dismissed quickly, as it seems obviously frivolous.

If the unc issue didn't hurt reputation, then I can't see this scandal as hurting someone. It's not like all the students got in that way except for the 2 that filed the lawsuit. I hope the judge tosses it quickly. Better yet, award them $80 to reimburse them for the application fee but they have to pay the defendent's legal fees. :D

[Tooold]

Duke is now implicated. Fox News reported that “the founder of a Food and Beverage company paid $125,000 to have someone take the SATs so her daughter would get into Duke”. I am paraphrasing, so I may have some details wrong.

[weezie]

Something floated across the screen ticker late last night about a female applicant to Duke having had proctor help? Unless I've missed it here upstream.


Duke is now implicated. Fox News reported that “the founder of a Food and Beverage company paid $125,000 to have someone take the SATs so her daughter would get into Duke”. I am paraphrasing, so I may have some details wrong.

Nope, you are correct, sir!

[pfrduke]

Duke is now implicated. Fox News reported that “the founder of a Food and Beverage company paid $125,000 to have someone take the SATs so her daughter would get into Duke”. I am paraphrasing, so I may have some details wrong.

That doesn't exactly implicate Duke, unless the $125,000 went to anyone at Duke. If anything, that puts Duke as a downstream victim.

[Tooold]

That doesn't exactly implicate Duke, unless the $125,000 went to anyone at Duke. If anything, that puts Duke as a downstream victim.
Agreed. Implicated is the wrong word. In this case, the testing board would seem to be at fault (Does that mean Duke can sue them? Just kidding...sort of)

[60sDukie]

Someone I am close to said he was paid $50 to take the SAT for a friend. This was over 50 years ago - no picture IDs. Perhaps he should have charged more.

[duke79]

Duke is now implicated. Fox News reported that “the founder of a Food and Beverage company paid $125,000 to have someone take the SATs so her daughter would get into Duke”. I am paraphrasing, so I may have some details wrong.

LOL, well, that's a relief! I was feeling bent out of shape that people involved in this scheme did not think Duke was a good enough school to pay bribes for or to cheat on the standardized tests to get into. Now, I can get back to work.

[duke79]

I am guessing that some of the kids involved in this scandal were not miles away from being qualified for the schools they went to, but just needed the extra push. To dramatically oversimplify things, if a non-athlete needs a 1500 to get into Yale but an athlete needs a 1250, some of these kids might have had a 1300, with which they would have no hope of getting into Yale as a regular student but aren't an outlier as an athlete.

D3 schools definitely have preferred spots for athletes. The deviation from the qualifications of non-athletes is a lot less, but it definitely exists. Since these kids are not getting athletic scholarships, I am surprised that more kids don't use their athletic ability to get in the door then quit the team once they are on campus. D3 sports are still a huge time commitment and 99.99% of the athletes at this level are not going to make a penny off of their sport. This is not that different from people I knew at Duke whose grades and scores were skewed heavily towards math so they applied to and were accepted by engineering but quickly transferred out once they were on campus as they had no interest but just wanted the best chance of getting into Duke.

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, one of my daughter's classmates in high school, who was a mediocre student (grades and SAT scores), got into one of the top D-3 private colleges in the country on ED. No one could understand how she got it (and she was not a legacy or had any other direct connection to the school). My daughter thought her wealthy, MD step-father "bought" her way in but she was, apparently, recruited by the soccer coach (she was a decent high school soccer player). Of course, when she got to college and realized the time commitment to play varsity soccer, she never even tried out for the team but she'll graduate with a degree from this school. And I'm sure this happens quite a bit at the schools where the kids are not on athletic scholarships. The school cannot de-accept them if they don't play the sport for which they were recruited.

[WillJ]

Pardon me if this has been noted upthread, but Alan Dershowitz made the reasonable point that college grade inflation has made illicit entry a more feasible strategy. It doesn't matter how ill-prepared you are, you still can't flunk out!

[cspan37421]

Pardon me if this has been noted upthread, but Alan Dershowitz made the reasonable point that college grade inflation has made illicit entry a more feasible strategy. It doesn't matter how ill-prepared you are, you still can't flunk out!

A more feasible strategy for what?

College grade inflation makes it more feasible to keep the GPA necessary to stay eligible to return each succeeding semester in college, and thus ultimately get a degree. [This assumes that GPA requirements to return haven't risen commensurately with grade inflation.]

Illicit entry is a strategy for getting accepted to a school that would otherwise likely reject you. College grade inflation has nothing to do with getting into a given school.

[brevity]

Pardon me if this has been noted upthread, but Alan Dershowitz made the reasonable point that college grade inflation has made illicit entry a more feasible strategy. It doesn't matter how ill-prepared you are, you still can't flunk out!


A more feasible strategy for what?

College grade inflation makes it more feasible to keep the GPA necessary to stay eligible to return each succeeding semester in college, and thus ultimately get a degree. [This assumes that GPA requirements to return haven't risen commensurately with grade inflation.]

Illicit entry is a strategy for getting accepted to a school that would otherwise likely reject you. College grade inflation has nothing to do with getting into a given school.

Most banks have various security measures that would discourage most people from robbery or after-hours theft. But if an aspiring criminal knew that a bank kept its vault door unlocked on weekends and holidays, he or she would more likely target that bank for a break-in.

Similarly, a subpar student likely would not bother trying to gain fraudulent admission into a prestigious college if he or she would be exposed by flunking out. But if that subpar student knew that a college has grade inflation, he or she would more likely attempt illicit entry. It's a more feasible strategy to gain unearned academic prestige because once that student is in, he or she is more likely to stay in.

[WillJ]

Most banks have various security measures that would discourage most people from robbery or after-hours theft. But if an aspiring criminal knew that a bank kept its vault door unlocked on weekends and holidays, he or she would more likely target that bank for a break-in.

Similarly, a subpar student likely would not bother trying to gain fraudulent admission into a prestigious college if he or she would be exposed by flunking out. But if that subpar student knew that a college has grade inflation, he or she would more likely attempt illicit entry. It's a more feasible strategy to gain unearned academic prestige because once that student is in, he or she is more likely to stay in.

What Brevity said.

[ncexnyc]

A slow Sunday had me going through this thread, but it seems like this isn't much of a story if the names Huffman and Loughlin aren't attached to it.

Were crimes committed? Absolutely and they should be punished, but is this national news worthy? Sorry, but there are bigger fish to fry.

[sagegrouse]

A more feasible strategy for what?

College grade inflation makes it more feasible to keep the GPA necessary to stay eligible to return each succeeding semester in college, and thus ultimately get a degree. [This assumes that GPA requirements to return haven't risen commensurately with grade inflation.]

Illicit entry is a strategy for getting accepted to a school that would otherwise likely reject you. College grade inflation has nothing to do with getting into a given school.

I'll probably be sorry I entered this conversation. If less-prepared students flunk out, then "illicit entry" doesn't really work. Back in my era at Duke, the "all-men's average" was 2.3 -- it was easy to flunk out with just a few bad breaks. In the current era at most schools, unprepared students can get C's pretty easily.

[arnie]

I'll probably be sorry I entered this conversation. If less-prepared students flunk out, then "illicit entry" doesn't really work. Back in my era at Duke, the "all-men's average" was 2.3 -- it was easy to flunk out with just a few bad breaks. In the current era at most schools, unprepared students can get C's pretty easily.

Agree with this. I suspect Duke rarely flunks anyone out unless the student fails to show up or makes 0 effort. Of course that attitude won’t pan out if the student ultimately gets a job in private industry.

[Tooold]

Agree with this. I suspect Duke rarely flunks anyone out unless the student fails to show up or makes 0 effort. Of course that attitude won’t pan out if the student ultimately gets a job in private industry.

Duke does flunk people out if they don’t pass at least two classes in a semester (at least for one semester, then they can reapply). Of course it depends on major, and some do hand out a lot more A/B grades than others. But engineering, for example, definitely does not grade on a B curve. My only issue with this is that the students are then in a job or grad student pool with students from Ivies, who ARE graded on a B curve.

[buddy]

We must have been smarter in my day, because I remember the All Men's GPA as more like 2.4. :rolleyes: (The All Women's was more like 2.9--all the more reason to avoid English and foreign language classes on East.) A 3.0 got you on the Dean's list for the semester. Now the Dean's list is the top third of the class. The only time my daughter made it in the aughts was the one semester she had a 3.7. During Freshman Orientation the Dean would tell us to "look to your left, look to your right, one of you won't be here in 4 years." And he was right! Now Duke brags that 99% of entering freshmen will graduate. So it appears the hardest part of graduating from Duke is getting admitted in the first place. I do not doubt this is the case at many other institutions of "higher learning." With those odds, why not pay big time for admission? (Even better if you can go to unc and have the department secretary grade your 147 word papers!) Unfortunately "higher education" had become a cesspool. No wonder people try to game the system.

[uh_no]

Duke does flunk people out if they don’t pass at least two classes in a semester (at least for one semester, then they can reapply). Of course it depends on major, and some do hand out a lot more A/B grades than others. But engineering, for example, definitely does not grade on a B curve. My only issue with this is that the students are then in a job or grad student pool with students from Ivies, who ARE graded on a B curve.

My experience is that engineering doesn't really grade on a curve at all...Starting with Dr. G's class, he literally tells you exactly what you need to do to get an A, and if everyone in the class does that, they'll all get A's.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the large BME/pre-med classes do...but in general, curving was not much of a thing, and profs would be just as happy to give everyone an A who deserved one. The closest thing were the group distribution classes, where the number of A's a given section of the class was allowed to receive was limited by the number of A's that class got on the final....which is really quite absurd...but I actively avoided those classes.

[53n206]

Duke does flunk people out if they don’t pass at least two classes in a semester (at least for one semester, then they can reapply). Of course it depends on major, and some do hand out a lot more A/B grades than others. But engineering, for example, definitely does not grade on a B curve. My only issue with this is that the students are then in a job or grad student pool with students from Ivies, who ARE graded on a B curve.

Doesn't class ranking influence decisions of employers?

[Bluedog]

My experience is that engineering doesn't really grade on a curve at all...Starting with Dr. G's class, he literally tells you exactly what you need to do to get an A, and if everyone in the class does that, they'll all get A's.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the large BME/pre-med classes do...but in general, curving was not much of a thing, and profs would be just as happy to give everyone an A who deserved one. The closest thing were the group distribution classes, where the number of A's a given section of the class was allowed to receive was limited by the number of A's that class got on the final...which is really quite absurd...but I actively avoided those classes.

Agree generally, but some courses do grade to a curve still. I recall accelerated general chem (filled with engineering students) curved to a C+/B- (80%) but that was because they made the tests exams so hard so the average score was like a 70 so they curved UP. Still, with an overwhelming smart class (this was the two semesters of chem in one course so most people had taken AP chem already), many people's dreams of being an engineer were dashed off the bat. In my experience, Duke is definitely much harder in the sciences/engineering than most of the Ivies with lack of grade inflation. Although it's still no Cal Tech in grading harshness.

And yes, MV Calc had that group limit was I was there (if only 20% of people in your class got an A on the final, the Prof could only give 20% an A for their final grade).

[uh_no]

Agree generally, but some courses do grade to a curve still. I recall accelerated general chem (filled with engineering students) curved to a C+/B- (80%) but that was because they made the tests exams so hard so the average score was like a 70 so they curved UP. Still, with an overwhelming smart class (this was the two semesters of chem in one course so most people had taken AP chem already), many people's dreams of being an engineer were dashed off the bat. In my experience, Duke is definitely much harder in the sciences/engineering than most of the Ivies with lack of grade inflation. Although it's still no Cal Tech in grading harshness.

with AP chem, you can skip chem altogether unless you're a BME. :)

[niveklaen]

One comment with respect to grade inflation - one of my econ professor's at Duke said that the inflation was in the quality of the students, not in the grades. back when he started only male children of rich white families could get into school. when women were added, the stupid half of the men were kept out - ie - every single student who used to fall on the bottom half of the curve. when minorities and children from non-rich backgrounds were admitted, the stupidest remaining rich white boys were excluded. with the new student body, there is literally no one left who would not have been a dean's list student back in the 60's. He joked that the new students were so much smarter/better prepared/hard working that he had to keep making his exams more difficult every few years to keep the grades from getting too high. (Prof Yohe (sp?) had been teaching at Duke since the late 60's...)

[sagegrouse]

We must have been smarter in my day, because I remember the All Men's GPA as more like 2.4. :rolleyes: (The All Women's was more like 2.9--all the more reason to avoid English and foreign language classes on East.) A 3.0 got you on the Dean's list for the semester. Now the Dean's list is the top third of the class. The only time my daughter made it in the aughts was the one semester she had a 3.7. During Freshman Orientation the Dean would tell us to "look to your left, look to your right, one of you won't be here in 4 years." And he was right! Now Duke brags that 99% of entering freshmen will graduate. So it appears the hardest part of graduating from Duke is getting admitted in the first place. I do not doubt this is the case at many other institutions of "higher learning." With those odds, why not pay big time for admission? (Even better if you can go to unc and have the department secretary grade your 147 word papers!) Unfortunately "higher education" had become a cesspool. No wonder people try to game the system.

I have the Chronicle article in front of me. The All Men's Average in the spring of 1962-1963 was 2.32. The Women's College, which was able to be more selective in admissions, kicked the men's butt with a 2.77.

Buddy, the "flunk-'em-out" policy was really dumb. These were all reasonably smart people who survived a very selective admissions. They weren't, however, necessarily all "highly motivated." At the same time, the Ivieis were graduating almost everyone. It took many years for Duke to wise up.

[jimmymax]

UNCheaters eating popcorn and enjoying a college scandal that certainly won't involve their institution this time.

[brevity]

UNCheaters eating popcorn and enjoying a college scandal that certainly won't involve their institution this time.

Well...

Los Angeles Times: USC selects Carol Folt as new president as university tries to move past scandals (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-carol-folt-usc-president-20190320-story.html?outputType=amp)


Folt has considerable experience with high-profile campus controversies. She arrived at UNC in 2013 shortly after revelations of a long-running and vast academic fraud involving Tar Heel athletes and “no-show” classes. As chancellor, she implemented reforms and dealt with an NCAA investigation.

[martydoesntfoul]

^^Cannot believe this hasn’t generated any comments as yet. Me included—I’m speechless.

[DrChainsaw]

^^Cannot believe this hasn’t generated any comments as yet. Me included—I’m speechless.

9225

Sometimes, you just need to call the right person...

[subzero02]

things fall apart, the center cannot hold...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

^^Cannot believe this hasn’t generated any comments as yet. Me included—I’m speechless.

There's been a separate thread on this topic. It certainly hasn't been ignored by this community. We love dramatic irony.

[BLPOG]

My experience is that engineering doesn't really grade on a curve at all...Starting with Dr. G's class, he literally tells you exactly what you need to do to get an A, and if everyone in the class does that, they'll all get A's.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the large BME/pre-med classes do...but in general, curving was not much of a thing, and profs would be just as happy to give everyone an A who deserved one. The closest thing were the group distribution classes, where the number of A's a given section of the class was allowed to receive was limited by the number of A's that class got on the final...which is really quite absurd...but I actively avoided those classes.


Agree generally, but some courses do grade to a curve still. I recall accelerated general chem (filled with engineering students) curved to a C+/B- (80%) but that was because they made the tests exams so hard so the average score was like a 70 so they curved UP. Still, with an overwhelming smart class (this was the two semesters of chem in one course so most people had taken AP chem already), many people's dreams of being an engineer were dashed off the bat. In my experience, Duke is definitely much harder in the sciences/engineering than most of the Ivies with lack of grade inflation. Although it's still no Cal Tech in grading harshness.

And yes, MV Calc had that group limit was I was there (if only 20% of people in your class got an A on the final, the Prof could only give 20% an A for their final grade).

I had a couple courses scattered through math/science reqs./core econ classes that applied a curve at some point, usually to either a midterm or final. I remember a math class (diff. eq.?) with grades linked to distributions on the final, as uh_no & bluedog described. In engineering any sort of curve was rare. I don't think I had any ECE classes with a curve, but it varied a little by major and professor (I think I overlapped 3 years with uh_no, so roughly same timeframe we're remembering).

I had one ECE professor who literally described his tests as being designed to "only be finished at the end of the exam period by the best person in the class," who I have to say I think was a grade-A you-know-what. He was basically the opposite of Dr. G. I had another who told us we could - and if we expected to have any chance of a good grade, should - bring and use any resource available to us during tests, including our books, notes, computers, the internet, etc. - only other current students' knowledge was disallowed.

The engineering curriculum is hard to fake your way through. Definitely possible to find alternative majors to do so if that's your goal.

[Acymetric]

My experience is that engineering doesn't really grade on a curve at all...Starting with Dr. G's class, he literally tells you exactly what you need to do to get an A, and if everyone in the class does that, they'll all get A's.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the large BME/pre-med classes do...but in general, curving was not much of a thing, and profs would be just as happy to give everyone an A who deserved one. The closest thing were the group distribution classes, where the number of A's a given section of the class was allowed to receive was limited by the number of A's that class got on the final...which is really quite absurd...but I actively avoided those classes.

I studied in 3 different programs (engineering, music, programming) at 3 different schools (2 small/private, 1 large public) and I am pretty sure I never had a single class graded on a curve. I think I might recall some professors doing some quasi-curving in a physics or math class for a single exam where pretty much everyone did extremely poorly but I can't remember the details and it definitely wasn't something that was done throughout any course I took outside of the isolated case of the exam that would have failed out most of the class otherwise.

I've never heard of that group distribution thing but it sounds awful and I think I would have avoided those classes as well.

[-jk]

I had a couple courses scattered through math/science reqs./core econ classes that applied a curve at some point, usually to either a midterm or final. I remember a math class (diff. eq.?) with grades linked to distributions on the final, as uh_no & bluedog described. In engineering any sort of curve was rare. I don't think I had any ECE classes with a curve, but it varied a little by major and professor (I think I overlapped 3 years with uh_no, so roughly same timeframe we're remembering).

I had one ECE professor who literally described his tests as being designed to "only be finished at the end of the exam period by the best person in the class," who I have to say I think was a grade-A you-know-what. He was basically the opposite of Dr. G. I had another who told us we could - and if we expected to have any chance of a good grade, should - bring and use any resource available to us during tests, including our books, notes, computers, the internet, etc. - only other current students' knowledge was disallowed.

The engineering curriculum is hard to fake your way through. Definitely possible to find alternative majors to do so if that's your goal.

Dr Pelham Wilder (taught me - and my parents - organic chem; Sterly's dad to some of y'all) graded on a curve. And he adjusted the curve year to year based on historical results, so kids in a particularly good class wouldn't be penalized...

One of my toughest and "favoritest" profs!

-jk

[cspan37421]

One comment with respect to grade inflation - one of my econ professor's at Duke said that the inflation was in the quality of the students, not in the grades. back when he started only male children of rich white families could get into school. when women were added, the stupid half of the men were kept out - ie - every single student who used to fall on the bottom half of the curve. when minorities and children from non-rich backgrounds were admitted, the stupidest remaining rich white boys were excluded. with the new student body, there is literally no one left who would not have been a dean's list student back in the 60's. He joked that the new students were so much smarter/better prepared/hard working that he had to keep making his exams more difficult every few years to keep the grades from getting too high. (Prof Yohe (sp?) had been teaching at Duke since the late 60's...)

An interesting argument ... but, for an employer looking to distinguish among Duke grads, it isn't helpful. When everyone's special, no one is special.

Plus, IMO, even if the academic quality among student matriculating is substantially similar, it doesn't stay that way. Not everyone continues to put in the same effort and achieve similar results after they get in.

GPA tells so little these days. Difficulty of course load (volume of work, distribution of grades) varies widely among classes and departments. Duke Magazine documented this many years ago. There was a lot of grouping, too. Engineering and natural sciences were then the hardest to get the best grades in, followed by social sciences, followed by humanities. IIRC, the % of A or B grades by department ranged from about 60-65% to 99%.

[uh_no]

An interesting argument ... but, for an employer looking to distinguish among Duke grads, it isn't helpful. When everyone's special, no one is special.

Plus, IMO, even if the academic quality among student matriculating is substantially similar, it doesn't stay that way. Not everyone continues to put in the same effort and achieve similar results after they get in.

GPA tells so little these days. Difficulty of course load (volume of work, distribution of grades) varies widely among classes and departments. Duke Magazine documented this many years ago. There was a lot of grouping, too. Engineering and natural sciences were then the hardest to get the best grades in, followed by social sciences, followed by humanities. IIRC, the % of A or B grades by department ranged from about 60-65% to 99%.

It even varies widely among sections of the same class, depending on professor.

In the end, a single grade for a class seeks to measure way too many things...effort, ability, progression, knowledge, readiness for further material...that it's never going to be useful. How do you evaluate someone who comes into a class knowing all the material and does the bare minimum vs someone who knows little, and works hard to get most of the material?

Now take that and do it 34 times over for every class taken. Sure, law of large numbers, and a lot of it factors out....but the trials are not independent. It's trivially easy to choose courses one can do well in. For instance, I graduated in 3 years. Did I take a hit to my gpa in order to overload every semester? You're darn right. But it was more worth it for me to learn 20% more stuff than it was to put the extra 40% effort it would have taken to bump some of those classes up from B's to A's.

As an instructor, I've awarded grades....and it's the most awful thing to do for the reasons I outlined above....there's just no way to assign a single value to someone at the end of the semester in any really meaningful way.

tl;dr: grades are dumb.

[RPS]

According to data here (http://www.gradeinflation.com/Duke.html), Duke's average undergraduate GPA has risen from 2.25 in 1932 to 3.51 in 2014, among the highest increases in the nation (perhaps the highest -- more here (http://www.gradeinflation.com)).

[UrinalCake]

USC selects Carol Folt as new president as university tries to move past scandals

I guess Johnnie Cochran was unavailable.

[johnb]

I work at a medical school where that average entering gpa is over 3.8. The students are very smart, but one thing they haven’t experienced much of is genuine and/or idiosyncratic criticism. Since the world is full of things that don’t go your way, this is a problem. Such perfect gpa’s also mean that few took chances, failed, and got back on the horse; most pre-meds avoid any classes in which they’re likely to be mediocre—people do, but it’s hard to average a 3.8 if you’ve made a couple of C’s anywhere along the way.

Some sort of grade standardization would be nice, though even places like Chicago have allowed grades to soar. https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2005/1/18/gpas-get-a-76-boost-from-grade-inflation/

I looked up the guy who did some of the grade inflation research—Stuart Rojstaczer is a former Duke prof who now writes and plays music and maintains this website: http://www.gradeinflation.com

Rojstaczer blames the initial bump on the Vietnam War and the desire to not fail our students. I’ve blamed much of it on US News. Their rankings are hugely important and are significantly based on entering gpa. But his web site is far more detailed and informative.

[cspan37421]

IIRC Valen Johnson, formerly of Duke's ISDS, was also active in this field of inquiry.

[Tooold]

According to data here (http://www.gradeinflation.com/Duke.html), Duke's average undergraduate GPA has risen from 2.25 in 1932 to 3.51 in 2014, among the highest increases in the nation (perhaps the highest -- more here (http://www.gradeinflation.com)).

This is very interesting. Of course, the fact that Duke has had more grade inflation than most could be also attributed to a lower starting point (it isn’t clear to me from the report as I didn’t take the time to look at many other schools. I did notice that Harvard’s most recent average GPA of 3.64 is higher than Duke’s 3.51.)

I don’t like grade inflation. But if some schools are giving all As and Duke is giving Cs, it puts our students at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs or grad school. A systematic change is needed.

[PackMan97]

This is very interesting. Of course, the fact that Duke has had more grade inflation than most could be also attributed to a lower starting point (it isn’t clear to me from the report as I didn’t take the time to look at many other schools. I did notice that Harvard’s most recent average GPA of 3.64 is higher than Duke’s 3.51.)

I don’t like grade inflation. But if some schools are giving all As and Duke is giving Cs, it puts our students at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs or grad school. A systematic change is needed.

...because it's only the grade that matters these days, not the actual knowledge and skills gained.

[devildeac]

This is very interesting. Of course, the fact that Duke has had more grade inflation than most could be also attributed to a lower starting point (it isn’t clear to me from the report as I didn’t take the time to look at many other schools. I did notice that Harvard’s most recent average GPA of 3.64 is higher than Duke’s 3.51.)

I don’t like grade inflation. But if some schools are giving all As and Duke is giving Cs, it puts our students at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs or grad school. A systematic change is needed.

Likely adjusted higher due to SOS/RPI/NET/POM/eOFF/eDEF/etc.

;)

[Tooold]

Likely adjusted higher due to SOS/RPI/NET/POM/eOFF/eDEF/etc.

;)

Makes me laugh

[SlapTheFloor]

This is very interesting. Of course, the fact that Duke has had more grade inflation than most could be also attributed to a lower starting point (it isn’t clear to me from the report as I didn’t take the time to look at many other schools. I did notice that Harvard’s most recent average GPA of 3.64 is higher than Duke’s 3.51.)

I don’t like grade inflation. But if some schools are giving all As and Duke is giving Cs, it puts our students at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs or grad school. A systematic change is needed.

I think it starts with the jobs and grad schools looking more closely at students rather than just their GPA. I knew a lot of kids who would take more remedial courses just to boost their GPA or lower their workload so they could focus more on their other classes (and therefore boost their grades in those). It always seemed such a waste to me. You're at a world class institution with an opportunity to learn from professors who are experts in their fields. How many chances in your life are you going to get to do that?

[uh_no]

I think it starts with the jobs and grad schools looking more closely at students rather than just their GPA. I knew a lot of kids who would take more remedial courses just to boost their GPA or lower their workload so they could focus more on their other classes (and therefore boost their grades in those). It always seemed such a waste to me. You're at a world class institution with an opportunity to learn from professors who are experts in their fields. How many chances in your life are you going to get to do that?

you can't really blame the students though. if you want to work at goldman or go to hopkins med, or harvard law, or whatever a 3.9 looks a lot nicer than a 3.5.

[MCFinARL]

This is very interesting. Of course, the fact that Duke has had more grade inflation than most could be also attributed to a lower starting point (it isn’t clear to me from the report as I didn’t take the time to look at many other schools. I did notice that Harvard’s most recent average GPA of 3.64 is higher than Duke’s 3.51.)

I don’t like grade inflation. But if some schools are giving all As and Duke is giving Cs, it puts our students at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs or grad school. A systematic change is needed.



I think it starts with the jobs and grad schools looking more closely at students rather than just their GPA. I knew a lot of kids who would take more remedial courses just to boost their GPA or lower their workload so they could focus more on their other classes (and therefore boost their grades in those). It always seemed such a waste to me. You're at a world class institution with an opportunity to learn from professors who are experts in their fields. How many chances in your life are you going to get to do that?

The lower starting point theory seems at least plausible. Duke in the 30's may not have been as popular and competitive with Ivies as it is today, and they may have chosen tough grading standards as a way to encourage more effort from students--but I am speculating. Harvard has had extremely high grade inflation for 20 or more years now, primarily because, as I recall, the university concluded that, since it is so difficult to get into Harvard (at least if you don't have the money to buy a building), the students should not be penalized for their own intelligence and the flat-out brilliance of some by being graded on an absolute scale. I may not be getting this exactly right but I remember reading about it a few years ago and that seemed to be the response. This has EVERYTHING to do with grad school admissions (and to a lesser extent job applications), as SlaptheFloor notes.

My daughter, alas, was one of those students who had a deep fear of taking courses in which she might not get the best grades, despite our reassurance that that would be okay. She felt most comfortable in social sciences and tended to stay in that track, where she got excellent grades. Her junior year at Duke she did a semester in Florence where all of the classes would be treated as Pass-Fail by Duke (it was an NYU program so they were transfer credits). She took art history, Dante, drawing, and Italian--it was possibly the most enjoyable and enriching experience in her academic career. I wish we could roll back the careerist focus of so much of today's higher education.

[Tooold]

I think it starts with the jobs and grad schools looking more closely at students rather than just their GPA. I knew a lot of kids who would take more remedial courses just to boost their GPA or lower their workload so they could focus more on their other classes (and therefore boost their grades in those). It always seemed such a waste to me. You're at a world class institution with an opportunity to learn from professors who are experts in their fields. How many chances in your life are you going to get to do that?
Agreed. One of the problems is that recruitment is so different than when I graduated. At that time, you could sign up for on-campus interviews if you got to the career center before the slots were filled—I don’t think companies restricted interviews based upon GPA, at least not the way they do now. So students had a chance to have a personal interview and sell their experience, course load, etc., rather than just be judged on a GpA. It’s my understanding that today’s companies might restrict interviews to students with, for example, a 3.8 GPA, so if you are below the cut-off you have no chance. And some companies don’t come to campus. They rely on internet recruiting and can receive so many applications that they also use GPA as a cut-off. All this does is encourage grade inflation or penalize students who were brave enough to take classes that actually make getting an ‘A’ very difficult.

[BandAlum83]

According to data here (http://www.gradeinflation.com/Duke.html), Duke's average undergraduate GPA has risen from 2.25 in 1932 to 3.51 in 2014, among the highest increases in the nation (perhaps the highest -- more here (http://www.gradeinflation.com)).

Does that mean I can put that my GPA was an adjusted 3.82 on my resume?

[cspan37421]

Maybe there's an untapped market for nationally standardized exit exams by major.

There is the GRE, and a few others (LSAT, MCAT, etc) but I suspect they're only taken by those planning to go to graduate school, and maybe a few masochists.

[sagegrouse]

According to data here (http://www.gradeinflation.com/Duke.html), Duke's average undergraduate GPA has risen from 2.25 in 1932 to 3.51 in 2014, among the highest increases in the nation (perhaps the highest -- more here (http://www.gradeinflation.com)).

The all-men's average (Trinity) was 2.32 in the spring of 1963.

Actually the Women's College had an average of 2.77 that same semester. Way fewer women back then (and really tough to get admitted), so the overall average was 2.48. Looks like most of the inflation happened since then.

IMHO (where the H got erased when I was assigned to House J), the grading was ridiculously hard. I was in a freshman calc class of more than 30 students and -- on a fluke -- got the only A. Moreover, when the average GPA is 2.3, a lot of people flunk out -- which was ridiculous. Only two-thirds of entering men graduated back in the 1960's. The Ivy League percentages IIRC (and there is always a first time) were well over 90 percent -- and no, we weren't that dumb.

[duke2x]

I looked up the guy who did some of the grade inflation research—Stuart Rojstaczer is a former Duke prof who now writes and plays music and maintains this website: http://www.gradeinflation.com. Rojstaczer blames the initial bump on the Vietnam War and the desire to not fail our students. I’ve blamed much of it on US News. Their rankings are hugely important and are significantly based on entering gpa. But his web site is far more detailed and informative.

I never had him, but I remember his comments before he left. I considered them rants at the time, but I somewhat agree with some of his points today. Most schools are treating C- grades or less as an F today. You have to repeat the class and get a C or better instead. Why have a D grade at that point? He didn't then.

Easy classes (by Duke standards--not UNC) are not going away. The best advice I got before I went to Duke was to make sure you have 1 easy course each semester and 2 (UWC was then 2nd for 99% of students) as a first semester freshman. You need to achieve some balance and to adjust to semi-adult life when you got there. I took plenty of classes with the standard Duke grade distribution while I was there.

It's too bad Honors/Pass/Fail doesn't have a future. It eliminates the need for easy classes, encourages people to take risks, and rewards the top 5-8% of students. If you really want the recommendation for work or graduate school, you work for the Honors grade and take advantage offered by the faculty. Your best grades today are usually the ones where you have a keen interest with the subject matter and a professional bond with the professor.

[diablesseblu]

Interesting discussion re: grades and especially with regard to grad school possibilities.

I spent many years as the head of admissions of a top ten MBA program. Whenever we hired a new member of the professional staff, there was a steep learning curve for them re: how to interpret UG GPAs from a broad range of schools. It is an art.

I'm of the vintage where one needed a certain UG GPA to protect you from the draft. However, there was little to no grade inflation then. Later, as the costs of college have skyrocketed (especially during the past fifteen years), students/parents expect a certain "return on investment." Re: Duke, my daughter both graduated from Duke and taught there. Unfortunately, she was both appalled by the grade expectations of her students, and the lengths they would go to to argue their cases for a particular grade.

During my graduate admission days, there was only one school that completely belied all convention. It was William & Mary. I always joked that their transcripts should include a "pink slip key" so that the readers would be prompted to contextualize the grades. Their graduates really needed people to understand there was little to no grade inflation there. But, they were the rare exception.

The real college scandal (globally) these days is not in the admissions office. It is in the "integrity" of the assessment of students' academic performance after they enroll.

[gofurman]

I notice the author collaborated with a professor from my school, Furman. (I also notice the Gamecocks have the highest public school grade inflation...) One interesting list I should have kept was a study I saw done on "hardest schools to get in" vs. the "hardest schools to STAY in". Harvard, etc. was on the list of toughest of schools to get in as you would expect. The article you all have here explains this somewhat with notes like "admissions can be tough at most schools but once a student is there at the school they are a CUSTOMER".. and a highly-paying customer at that.! Harvard was not on the list of hardest schools to stay in. As this study says, once you get in they want you to 'succeed.

But the listing I saw (years ago) also then contrasted that with hardest schools TO STAY IN. Furman was in the top 20 hardest schools to stay in but not on the list of top (50?)schools that are hardest to get in. I always wondered about that when I was at school. Furman was relatively hard to get in for South Carolina but clearly not close to Harvard tough (or probably Duke) by any means. But is a school supposed to coddle you and help you make it? Or teach you to keep fighting and trying? To make sure Johnnie is happy and gets at least a 3.0 while at an expensive school is yet another example of the way everyone gets a trophy these days

[ FYI - one of my professors at Furman was a former professor at Duke and told me he taught the exact same course and graded it exactly the same at both schools.. unfortunately, ACC sports is what differentiates Furman and say, Wake Forest in terms of PR no doubt. it is what it is]

Thoughts? I do like the pass/fail model - we had that at Furman for 1 or 2 courses where you could take a course you wanted to study but knew you weren't a great student in and so you could ... LEARN. Get a C and they just marked it as pass as long as you declared that up-front.

* What I DID NOT like was the +/- system they instituted. That was hard! If you got a 92 in a class as an 'A-' that was a 3.8 or something on your GPA. really? A 92 or so and you know other schools were giving 4.0s for that -- how are you supposed to compete for Grad School etc. But more to this point of your article I don't doubt but what professors would feel guilty about the plus/minus system lowering many GPAs and so inflating grades to counteract that? I.E. the professors may give more As and inflate grades but the students GPA stays roughly the same. That's just a theory to ponder. *Does Duke grade on the plus/minus ? The low A is where it irked me lol

[cspan37421]

Thoughts? I do like the pass/fail model - we had that at Furman for 1 or 2 courses where you could take a course you wanted to study but knew you weren't a great student in and so you could ... LEARN. Get a C and they just marked it as pass as long as you declared that up-front.

* What I DID NOT like was the +/- system they instituted. That was hard! If you got a 92 in a class as an 'A-' that was a 3.8 or something on your GPA. really? A 92 or so and you know other schools were giving 4.0s for that -- how are you supposed to compete for Grad School etc. But more to this point of your article I don't doubt but what professors would feel guilty about the plus/minus system lowering many GPAs and so inflating grades to counteract that? I.E. the professors may give more As and inflate grades but the students GPA stays roughly the same. That's just a theory to ponder. *Does Duke grade on the plus/minus ? The low A is where it irked me lol

Last I checked, Duke also allowed you to take 1-2 classes pass/fail as well, but requires multiple permissions (incl. dean) and has many restrictions. Looks like Trinity CAS now calls it satisfactory/unsatisfactory.

And when I was there, an A- was worth 3.7 on the GPA scale ... but A+ was worth no more than an A. Other than that one exception, all other letter grades followed (B- = 2.7). I think the B+ was 3.3.

Prior to matriculating, I thought the system sounded more fair than just 3.0 for any kind of B, 4.0 for any kind of A. However, I didn't like that you couldn't offset an A- with an A+. I did want to be rewarded for a B+ over a B, though, if I ended up getting some of those.

Turns out my GPA would have been 0.12 higher with the 4/3/2/1 system. Oh well. GRE is validation to a degree, if you take it. So is getting in PBK or the higher Latin honors (the cutoffs have been moved up since I was there).

[gofurman]

Last I checked, Duke also allowed you to take 1-2 classes pass/fail as well, but requires multiple permissions (incl. dean) and has many restrictions. Looks like Trinity CAS now calls it satisfactory/unsatisfactory.

And when I was there, an A- was worth 3.7 on the GPA scale ... but A+ was worth no more than an A. Other than that one exception, all other letter grades followed (B- = 2.7). I think the B+ was 3.3.

Prior to matriculating, I thought the system sounded more fair than just 3.0 for any kind of B, 4.0 for any kind of A. However, I didn't like that you couldn't offset an A- with an A+. I did want to be rewarded for a B+ over a B, though, if I ended up getting some of those.

Turns out my GPA would have been 0.12 higher with the 4/3/2/1 system. Oh well. GRE is validation to a degree, if you take it. So is getting in PBK or the higher Latin honors (the cutoffs have been moved up since I was there).

we had the same issue with A's at Furman (again, not saying Furman is Duke in any way). I always thought it odd to be able to mark a person down for an A- but not up for an A+. Well, that was my 20-year-old rationale.

basketball - no jinx no jinx no jinx

[House G]

I think it starts with the jobs and grad schools looking more closely at students rather than just their GPA. I knew a lot of kids who would take more remedial courses just to boost their GPA or lower their workload so they could focus more on their other classes (and therefore boost their grades in those). It always seemed such a waste to me. You're at a world class institution with an opportunity to learn from professors who are experts in their fields. How many chances in your life are you going to get to do that?

I agree. I still remember things I learned from Professor Butters and Professor Buehler in their course “Coaching Baseball and Track” ;).

[weezie]

What is this Rick Barnes stuff?

https://sportsbybrooks.com/report-rick-barnes-part-of-admission-fixers-ut-scheme/

[johnb]

Does that mean I can put that my GPA was an adjusted 3.82 on my resume?

Sure, though you’ll need to adjust your dbr name to BandAlum32.