Duke Alumna pleads guilty in college cheating scandal

[SoCalDukeFan]

LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-sartorio-abbott-pleas-20190520-story.html)

First time I have seen Duke mentioned. No idea if they were successful in getting their daughter in.

I could not find previous posts on this topic, but feel free to move.

SoCal

[BLPOG]

LA Times (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-sartorio-abbott-pleas-20190520-story.html)

First time I have seen Duke mentioned. No idea if they were successful in getting their daughter in.

I could not find previous posts on this topic, but feel free to move.

SoCal

Title of thread should (perhaps) be "Duke alumna pleads guilty in college cheating scandal," since, as you mentioned, it's unclear if her daughter matriculated.

[dudog84]

I'm tired of hearing that there is no indication the kids knew what was going on. I know we are a self-deluded (and happily deluded by others) nation, but people basically know how smart they are. And whether they can play field hockey or row a boat.

I believe 800 is still a perfect score on the SAT. The "Duke" girl knows she didn't come close to answering all the questions correctly, yet she gets the results and sees an 800? Give me a break.

Edit: Now, at 18, you're still heavily under the sway of your parents. Just say you did what you were told. Don't lie and show you're even stupider than your tests show.

[sagegrouse]

OK let's get real. They were still fixing test results in September 2018. She could well have been admitted to enter with the Class of 2023 this August, either through early admission or regular admission. Ain't happening. I dunno if Duke has known about these charges for a while, but today's story and court action will make University Admissions aware and scotch any idea of the young woman coming to Duke.

[bundabergdevil]

I'm tired of hearing that there is no indication the kids knew what was going on. I know we are a self-deluded (and happily deluded by others) nation, but people basically know how smart they are.

I don’t know, there’s evidence (and not just my own curmudgeonly observations) that a chunk of people overestimate their smarts. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect or something like that.

Who am I kidding, almost no one I know believes they are precisely as smart as I know they are. Particularly when we’re in disagreement!

[JNort]

I don’t know, there’s evidence (and not just my own curmudgeonly observations) that a chunk of people overestimate their smarts. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect or something like that.

Who am I kidding, almost no one I know believes they are precisely as smart as I know they are. Particularly when we’re in disagreement!

Seems to be that the less you know the more you think you know until you get into the middle where it's a balance. Then there's this quote (Einstein? Aristotle?)

"The more you know, the more you realize you don't know."

[dudog84]

I don’t know, there’s evidence (and not just my own curmudgeonly observations) that a chunk of people overestimate their smarts. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect or something like that.

Who am I kidding, almost no one I know believes they are precisely as smart as I know they are. Particularly when we’re in disagreement!

I get what you're saying, and agree with it. I guess I'm saying that when there's an "objective" measurement, i.e. test, we've got a pretty good idea how well we know the subject matter.

When the teacher gives you an A and you know you crapped out on the test, there has to be some acknowledgement that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. I mean, she's not enrolled at uNC where this appears to be commonplace, or at least no cause for alarm.

[jimmymax]

My favorite quote in this arena is from Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

[BD80]

I don’t know, there’s evidence (and not just my own curmudgeonly observations) that a chunk of people overestimate their smarts. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect or something like that.

Who am I kidding, almost no one I know believes they are precisely as smart as I know they are. Particularly when we’re in disagreement!

Just as many (most?) people overestimate their driving ability. I saw one study where something like 80%+ considered themselves "above-average" drivers.

Of course, this could also be a reflection of the inability of many to comprehend the fundamentals of mathematics.

[Reilly]

... Then there's this quote (Einstein? Aristotle?)

"The more you know, the more you realize you don't know."

I'm pretty sure that was Mark Twain, or Yogi Berra, or Bum Phillips ...

Denver article: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/22/college-admissions-scandal-abbott-guilty/

[bundabergdevil]

Arguably, this is the university version of the cheating scandal (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/us/university-oklahoma-best-colleges-ranking/index.html). Suspect it's much more widespread than the UO and Temple examples provided. I'd be shocked if a significant number of universities didn't inflate their data. When it comes to ratings, rankings, admissions, resumes, recognition, earnings and profit, or any other measure of success and accomplishment, it's probably a safe bet that a not insignificant number of people and institutions lie, inflate, obfuscate, and/or cheat.

And, yes, when balls, frisbees, or drones land on my lawn, I keep them!

[Indoor66]

Just as many (most?) people overestimate their driving ability. I saw one study where something like 80%+ considered themselves "above-average" drivers.

Of course, this could also be a reflection of the inability of many to comprehend the fundamentals of mathematics.

100% is mental and the other half is physical.

[Jeffrey]

Do these parents actually believe they're helping their children by getting them in a school above their child's ability level?

[duke79]

Do these parents actually believe they're helping their children by getting them in a school above their child's ability level?

LOL, well, in many of the reported cases, the parents paid a LOT of money to get their kids into colleges they would otherwise not get in. So, the parents, rightly or wrongly, must have believed it was worth the "investment".

Furthermore, as I'm sure many people on this board realize, at many of these highly rated schools (including Duke), getting in is the hardest part. Once you're in, if you're reasonably intelligent and have some degree of motivation, you should be able to do fine and get a degree. And I do think that there is value, in the long run (disputed by some, I know), in having a degree from a "prestigious" school on your resume.

[budwom]

^ from what I've seen, some parents could easily justify the cost because of the prestige factor they covet. They get to brag about what great school their kid got into. No small thing. (Probably omitting the bribe aspect)

[Jeffrey]

^ from what I've seen, some parents could easily justify the cost because of the prestige factor they covet. They get to brag about what great school their kid got into....

.... or, they get to brag their kid beat them up...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/us/admissions-scandal-son-assault/index.html

[cspan37421]

And I do think that there is value, in the long run (disputed by some, I know), in having a degree from a "prestigious" school on your resume.

IMO there is value, but it diminishes rapidly with the # of years since you finished. Very soon, it's what you've done that matters, not where you were educated.

Also agree, it's getting in that is the hard part, not staying in once there.

[El_Diablo]

Do these parents actually believe they're helping their children by getting them in a school above their child's ability level?

It happens all the time, and yes, it can often help the kids out (take, e.g., Jared Kushner as a well-known example).

[bundabergdevil]

IMO there is value, but it diminishes rapidly with the # of years since you finished. Very soon, it's what you've done that matters, not where you were educated.

Also agree, it's getting in that is the hard part, not staying in once there.

I agree with this to a certain extent but a Top 10 - 20 university on your resume is pretty darn important in certain fields in terms of providing the exposure necessary to even have an opportunity to hitch your wagon to a professional star. Let's say your goal is to work in high finance and become an income one percent-er. You know one of the best paths to accomplish this is to work on Wall Street at one of the major investment banks --- those banks recruit at a clip of something like 15 - 20% out of the top 5 schools, near 30% out of the top 10 schools, and 50% out of the top 20. Millions of kids graduate from the ~ 2,000 universities in the USA each year but a disproportionate amount of future masters of the universe (as an example) will be recruited from much less <1% of the total student and university base.

I don't disagree that the further you are removed from college, the more your work needs to speak for itself but boy does a prestigious school help put you in the position to even have the opportunity to say a few words in the first place (in certain professions).

[Jeffrey]

With all due respect, I think some of these posts exaggerate the benefits. I'm starting to think one of you might even claim, if my Dad got me in Yale with a 1,200 SAT and I coasted through with a bunch of C's, then I could one day end up with a Harvard MBA and become POTUS. That's just crazy talk.

[WV_Iron_Duke]

For foreign contractors a degree from a prestigious university means something. I worked with numerous Indian government contractors for years and they all were impressed as hell that I have an MA History from Duke. My MBA from WVU meant nothing to them. And most of these Asians had lived in the US for 6+ years. The two whom I worked with the most, their daughters were attending UVA and Harvard.

[sagegrouse]

LOL, well, in many of the reported cases, the parents paid a LOT of money to get their kids into colleges they would otherwise not get in. So, the parents, rightly or wrongly, must have believed it was worth the "investment".

Furthermore, as I'm sure many people on this board realize, at many of these highly rated schools (including Duke), getting in is the hardest part. Once you're in, if you're reasonably intelligent and have some degree of motivation, you should be able to do fine and get a degree. And I do think that there is value, in the long run (disputed by some, I know), in having a degree from a "prestigious" school on your resume.

Ironically, a NY Times column the other week by "The Ethicist," Kwame Anthony Appiah, reported on research that reached an odd conclusion. The people who benefit most from a degree from a prestigious university are those from the middle and lower middle classes. There is little measurable benefit to those from wealthy families -- presumably because they have all the contacts and intros they need.

So, if true, we are left with "bragging rights" by the parents.

Kindly,
Sage
'Appiah just received an honorary degree from Duke'

[duke79]

I agree with this to a certain extent but a Top 10 - 20 university on your resume is pretty darn important in certain fields in terms of providing the exposure necessary to even have an opportunity to hitch your wagon to a professional star. Let's say your goal is to work in high finance and become an income one percent-er. You know one of the best paths to accomplish this is to work on Wall Street at one of the major investment banks --- those banks recruit at a clip of something like 15 - 20% out of the top 5 schools, near 30% out of the top 10 schools, and 50% out of the top 20. Millions of kids graduate from the ~ 2,000 universities in the USA each year but a disproportionate amount of future masters of the universe (as an example) will be recruited from much less <1% of the total student and university base.

I don't disagree that the further you are removed from college, the more your work needs to speak for itself but boy does a prestigious school help put you in the position to even have the opportunity to say a few words in the first place (in certain professions).

Exactly right! In many different professions and occupations, having the "right" degree can be a huge advantage for (at least) getting your foot in the door. Obviously, it is NO guarantee or getting a job or subsequently being successful at that job but it certainly can help. Furthermore, it can be a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy, when people who go to the top schools become successful, they tend to hire and promote people like themselves. Of course, I know some people who will not specifically hire anyone from the top schools because they thing they are spoiled, over-indulged "know-it-alls" who will not be good employees (and maybe a certain amount of envy comes into play).


With all due respect, I think some of these posts exaggerate the benefits. I'm starting to think one of you might even claim, if my Dad got me in Yale with a 1,200 SAT and I coasted through with a bunch of C's, then I could one day end up with a Harvard MBA and become POTUS. That's just crazy talk.

LOL, so true! Of course, it also didn't hurt that GWB's father was wealthy and well-connected and could help his son in his career - business and political.


Ironically, a NY Times column the other week by "The Ethicist," Kwame Anthony Appiah, reported on research that reached an odd conclusion. The people who benefit most from a degree from a prestigious university are those from the middle and lower middle classes. There is little measurable benefit to those from wealthy families -- presumably because they have all the contacts and intros they need.

So, if true, we are left with "bragging rights" by the parents.

Kindly,
Sage
'Appiah just received an honorary degree from Duke'

Interesting research that I tend to believe but I'd like to see how the study was conducted.

[Jeffrey]

Ironically, a NY Times column the other week by "The Ethicist," Kwame Anthony Appiah, reported on research that reached an odd conclusion. The people who benefit most from a degree from a prestigious university are those from the middle and lower middle classes. There is little measurable benefit to those from wealthy families -- presumably because they have all the contacts and intros they need.

So, if true, we are left with "bragging rights" by the parents.

Kindly,
Sage
'Appiah just received an honorary degree from Duke'

The Ethicist should have politely declined the degree, his family is wealthy.

[Jeffrey]

Of course, it also didn't hurt that GWB's father was wealthy and well-connected and could help his son in his career - business and political.


I wonder if Gregory Abbott thought about that when Malcolm was going postal?

[SoCalDukeFan]

Do these parents actually believe they're helping their children by getting them in a school above their child's ability level?

There were several kinds of cheating evidently. One was inflating SAT/ACT scores, submitting ghostwritten essays, etc. This is clearly trying to get in when the child may be not qualified.

But lets look at the fake sports stuff. Duke and probably almost every other division 1 school is willing to admit athletes who would not get in otherwise. Should Duke be letting in these student/athletes if it is "above their ability" level? If a student took the SAT's himself, no cheating, wrote his own essay, did his own high school work, and then submitted that he was an athlete when he was not but got in as a recruited walk-on, then is the school above his level.

Duke accepts around 10% of the applicants. My guess is that many that can do the work were not accepted. There is a big difference between no-accepted and not being able to do the work.

I am not condoning the cheating. I also think the kids knew in almost every case and should be expelled and the parents punished. However I also think that some who got in this way can handle the workload at the school.

SoCal

[dudog84]

There were several kinds of cheating evidently. One was inflating SAT/ACT scores, submitting ghostwritten essays, etc. This is clearly trying to get in when the child may be not qualified.

But lets look at the fake sports stuff. Duke and probably almost every other division 1 school is willing to admit athletes who would not get in otherwise. Should Duke be letting in these student/athletes if it is "above their ability" level? If a student took the SAT's himself, no cheating, wrote his own essay, did his own high school work, and then submitted that he was an athlete when he was not but got in as a recruited walk-on, then is the school above his level.

Duke accepts around 10% of the applicants. My guess is that many that can do the work were not accepted. There is a big difference between no-accepted and not being able to do the work.

I am not condoning the cheating. I also think the kids knew in almost every case and should be expelled and the parents punished. However I also think that some who got in this way can handle the workload at the school.

SoCal

I think whether they can handle the workload in these cheating cases is immaterial.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think whether they can handle the workload in these cheating cases is immaterial.

I said I think the students should be expelled and the parents punished. I would agree that it is wrong and the consequences the same.

I was replying to "Do these parents actually believe they're helping their children by getting them in a school above their child's ability level?"

However I would say that a parent of a student who say was in the 10- 15% percentile of those applying to a certain school that only accepts the top 10%, that yes they were trying to help.


SoCal

[Nick]

Should Duke be letting in these student/athletes if it is "above their ability" level? If a student took the SAT's himself, no cheating, wrote his own essay, did his own high school work, and then submitted that he was an athlete when he was not but got in as a recruited walk-on, then is the school above his level.
SoCal

It all goes back to the question of what kind student body do you want? My understanding is that the most generous donors tend to be extroverted jock types (and probably legacies too), so schools are flexible on academic criteria for jocks. You can debate over whether the goal of a university should be to increase its endowment as much as possible, but if that's the prime directive then it will drive your admission policies.

[BLPOG]

...My understanding is that the most generous donors tend to be extroverted jock types...

My understanding is that what you described there is a thoroughly defective category. Sorry if that comes off as overly harsh, but I have a strong distaste for these sorts of categorizations of Duke students and alumni. My experience - both in relation to my contemporaneous student body, and decades of alumni I've known - is that the folks who defer to simple generalizations of Duke students and alumni tend to have the least understanding of them.

[Nick]

My understanding is that what you described there is a thoroughly defective category. Sorry if that comes off as overly harsh, but I have a strong distaste for these sorts of categorizations of Duke students and alumni. My experience - both in relation to my contemporaneous student body, and decades of alumni I've known - is that the folks who defer to simple generalizations of Duke students and alumni tend to have the least understanding of them.

I'm not categorizing anybody, I'm operating under the assumption that admissions decisions are driven, at least in part, by financial considerations. If anybody has any data, I'm all ears. I got nothing.

[sagegrouse]

It all goes back to the question of what kind student body do you want? My understanding is that the most generous donors tend to be extroverted jock types (and probably legacies too), so schools are flexible on academic criteria for jocks. You can debate over whether the goal of a university should be to increase its endowment as much as possible, but if that's the prime directive then it will drive your admission policies.

I don't think you are right. Let's look at the named entities at Duke:

Perkins -- lawyer and chair of the Duke Endowment -- neither alum nor athlete, although a very impressive guy -- we sat together at dinner once
Rubenstein -- entrepreneur -- Carlyle Group -- definitely not an athlete, but a national treasure because of his many public-spirited donations
Bostock -- football player and extremely successful in various business activities
Nicholas -- not a varsity athlete, but founded Boston Scientific
Pratt -- CEO of Pfizer -- no indication that he played varsity sports at Duke
J.B. Fuqua -- never went to college

That's one for six.

[BD80]

I don't think you are right. Let's look at the named entities at Duke:

Perkins -- lawyer and chair of the Duke Endowment -- neither alum nor athlete, although a very impressive guy -- we sat together at dinner once
Rubenstein -- entrepreneur -- Carlyle Group -- definitely not an athlete, but a national treasure because of his many public-spirited donations
Bostock -- football player and extremely successful in various business activities
Nicholas -- not a varsity athlete, but founded Boston Scientific
Pratt -- CEO of Pfizer -- no indication that he played varsity sports at Duke
J.B. Fuqua -- never went to college

That's one for six.

I understand those notorious extroverted jocks Bill and Melinda Gates have donated generously to Duke.


And yes, they are jocks, they play Pickleball!

[Nick]

I understand those notorious extroverted jocks Bill and Melinda Gates have donated generously to Duke.


And yes, they are jocks, they play Pickleball!

Then why are athletes given preferential treatment in admissions? I can understand football / basketball athletes, as those are revenue generators. But why are athletes in minor sports given a break on admissions?

[Reilly]

... why are athletes in minor sports given a break on admissions ...

PR for the school. Tradition of wanting to excel in competition.

Interesting article: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/


That raises a baffling question: Why are colleges willing to lower their admissions standards to recruit the best athletes when their expensive sports programs are unlikely to return the investment?

For some colleges, it’s a ploy to burnish their national reputation by getting their name out there, on the field or on the court. And, in some cases, it works: After Florida Gulf Coast University made a David-and-Goliath-like run to the March Madness Sweet 16 in 2013, the school saw a 27.5 percent jump in applicants the following year.

Incidental marketing aside, sports can also make a college seem more attractive to its students. Athletics, Thelin says, “is one of the few unifying activities that can bring the school together. Football, especially.” And, he told me, college sports can nurture loyalty to an institution years after a student leaves campus, and perhaps inspire one to donate money to the school.

But how many people are really going to lacrosse games and sailing meets and the other sporting events that don’t typically have graduates reaching for their checkbook? Part of it is the power of tradition: For more than a century, colleges—starting with elite schools in the Northeast—have fixated on physical activity and sports as a way to mold young, impressionable students to their making. That continues today: “Strong academic colleges often like to at least offer the prospect of the sound mind, sound body,” Thelin says. And, still, colleges need to field a minimum number of sports to join a particular conference, such as the Ivy League, which prevents them from putting all their cards on the table for high-profile sports exclusively.

[Kdogg]

I don't think you are right. Let's look at the named entities at Duke:

Perkins -- lawyer and chair of the Duke Endowment -- neither alum nor athlete, although a very impressive guy -- we sat together at dinner once
Rubenstein -- entrepreneur -- Carlyle Group -- definitely not an athlete, but a national treasure because of his many public-spirited donations
Bostock -- football player and extremely successful in various business activities
Nicholas -- not a varsity athlete, but founded Boston Scientific
Pratt -- CEO of Pfizer -- no indication that he played varsity sports at Duke
J.B. Fuqua -- never went to college

That's one for six.


I understand those notorious extroverted jocks Bill and Melinda Gates have donated generously to Duke.


And yes, they are jocks, they play Pickleball!

Also big non athlete non alumni donors:
Leon Levine - Family Dollar stores
David Thomas - Wendy's

So that's one for nine?

[bundabergdevil]

I motion to count Mr Thomas twice on account of his contributions to the decline of this - and presumably many other - athletic bodies.

[Bostondevil]

For foreign contractors a degree from a prestigious university means something. I worked with numerous Indian government contractors for years and they all were impressed as hell that I have an MA History from Duke. My MBA from WVU meant nothing to them. And most of these Asians had lived in the US for 6+ years. The two whom I worked with the most, their daughters were attending UVA and Harvard.

I wonder who they bribed to get them accepted.

Sadly, or maybe not, the college cheating scandal has affected every kid who goes to a prestigious university.

[WV_Iron_Duke]

Bostondevil says:"I wonder who they bribed to get them accepted.
Sadly, or maybe not, the college cheating scandal has affected every kid who goes to a prestigious university."
The daughters likely were admitted due to their minority status as exceptional foreign students. My fellow coworkers from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka didn't make enough $ for bribes :)

[Bostondevil]

Bostondevil says:"I wonder who they bribed to get them accepted.
Sadly, or maybe not, the college cheating scandal has affected every kid who goes to a prestigious university."
The daughters likely were admitted due to their minority status as exceptional foreign students. My fellow coworkers from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka didn't make enough $ for bribes :)

Duke accepted 11.5% international students last year. That is one of the biggest forces behind the cheating scandals that rarely gets mentioned. Duke is actually on the low end of that statistic among highly selective schools. Every Ivy plus Duke and Stanford accepted record numbers of international students last year. None of those schools increased enrollment. International students are taking up more and more slots at these schools in the zero sum game of admissions. Are these kids exceptional students? Probably, although some are athletes and some have wealthy parents, and some have both. Are they more exceptional than the American students they are replacing? No. They aren't. And that's a problem. American families subsidize our universities with our tax dollars at a time when more and more American students are getting squeezed out.

My solution is to quit making it a zero sum game. We should start putting financial pressure on American universities to increase the enrollment of American students. Duke, among others, lauds their increase in international students as improving the quality of the education for all. Exposure to different cultures is a benefit. Well, sure, except you are decreasing the number of American students who receive that benefit. Duke's undergraduate enrollment has not increased since I was there in the '80s. Meanwhile the number of applications has more than tripled. There is no good reason why the student body size has not increased as well.

[Reilly]

... Duke's undergraduate enrollment has not increased since I was there in the '80s. Meanwhile the number of applications has more than tripled. There is no good reason why the student body size has not increased as well.

This shows 1,740 enrolling for the class of 2022: https://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/Classof2022profileWEB.pdf

How big were Duke's entering classes in the 1980s? I thought they were 1,600 or less but don't know for sure. If they were 1,600 exactly, an increase of 140 to 1,740 would be an 8.75% increase in class size (140/1600).

[Bluedog]

This shows 1,740 enrolling for the class of 2022: https://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/Classof2022profileWEB.pdf

How big were Duke's entering classes in the 1980s? I thought they were 1,600 or less but don't know for sure. If they were 1,600 exactly, an increase of 140 to 1,740 would be an 8.75% increase in class size (140/1600).

Pratt increased in size after they built more facilities and recruited additional faculty. They started looking to matriculate ~50 more students/class in around 2008 (?) I think.

Edit: Happened between 2005 and 2009:
"2005: Pratt begins a four-year expansion of its undergraduate class – adding 50 students each fall to raise total enrollment to more than 1,200 by 2009."
https://pratt.duke.edu/alumni-giving/history/timeline-text

[chris13]

Duke accepted 11.5% international students last year. That is one of the biggest forces behind the cheating scandals that rarely gets mentioned. Duke is actually on the low end of that statistic among highly selective schools. Every Ivy plus Duke and Stanford accepted record numbers of international students last year. None of those schools increased enrollment. International students are taking up more and more slots at these schools in the zero sum game of admissions. Are these kids exceptional students? Probably, although some are athletes and some have wealthy parents, and some have both. Are they more exceptional than the American students they are replacing? No. They aren't. And that's a problem. American families subsidize our universities with our tax dollars at a time when more and more American students are getting squeezed out.

My solution is to quit making it a zero sum game. We should start putting financial pressure on American universities to increase the enrollment of American students. Duke, among others, lauds their increase in international students as improving the quality of the education for all. Exposure to different cultures is a benefit. Well, sure, except you are decreasing the number of American students who receive that benefit. Duke's undergraduate enrollment has not increased since I was there in the '80s. Meanwhile the number of applications has more than tripled. There is no good reason why the student body size has not increased as well.

1) Do the international students pay full sticker price? I know these elite colleges are supposed to be need blind but I wonder if this matters. Also, and this is not a Duke specific issue, the kind of things that help get you into selective colleges are the kind of things it helps to have family wealth buy (private schools, travel sports teams, admissions counseling, etc.). I wonder how the economic profile of the international students compares to the American.

2) 14.5% of the students at the Ivy plus college system (Ivies plus Duke, Stanford, MIT and UChicago) came from the top 1% of the income distribution. 13.5% came from the bottom 50%. https://www.businessinsider.com/elite-colleges-top-1-vs-bottom-50-equality-of-opportunity-project-2017-1

3) The cynical part of me believe that elite colleges want to drive the acceptance rate at low as possible because more selectivity keeps them at the top of the US News ratings which argues against increasing class size.

4) The really cynical part of me has a hard time distinguishing between alumni donations, legacy preference and athlete preference, and the kind of bribery that happened in these cases. I can see the difference, but it often seems like one of degree rather than kind.

[Bostondevil]

This shows 1,740 enrolling for the class of 2022: https://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/Classof2022profileWEB.pdf

How big were Duke's entering classes in the 1980s? I thought they were 1,600 or less but don't know for sure. If they were 1,600 exactly, an increase of 140 to 1,740 would be an 8.75% increase in class size (140/1600).

I stand corrected. Bravo, Duke. Entering classes vary as does the student body population but 1740 freshman is higher than freshmen classes of the 1980s. I haven't checked freshman class sizes - what I was checking (and it's been a couple of years since I did it) was number of undergraduate degrees conferred at graduation. (And, tbh, I was looking at Harvard more than Duke because I am currently more familiar with Harvard undergraduates.) I know the class size when my oldest son matriculated at Duke was not as high as 1740. Total undergraduate enrollment is listed at ~6600, in the '80s it hovered around 6000. Individual class size does not remain constant for 4 years, of course, and freshman enrollment tends to be higher than upperclass enrollment (by year). I found this useful document - https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/statistics. I do notice that the number of full time faculty has increased by about 150%. Do I think the class size should do the same? No. The smaller size is one of the strengths of a school like Duke, but they could certainly increase the class size without losing the feel. I think Duke should seriously consider increasing by another 1000 students or so, hovering around 7500 total undergraduate enrollment. I think pretty much all of the most selective schools should do the same.

[sagegrouse]

Then why are athletes given preferential treatment in admissions? I can understand football / basketball athletes, as those are revenue generators. But why are athletes in minor sports given a break on admissions?

Under the heading of "that's the way it is," consider this:


November 1958: At inaugural ceremonies for the University of Washington’s new president, Charles E. Odegaard, President Clark Kerr of the University of California last week offered some of the green fruit of his experience: “I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty.”

(a) Every college in the country that competes in athletics wants to be successful: this means ensuring that there are competitive ath-a-letes admitted in every sport.

(b) If no one played the admission-preference game, then there could be a random distribution of talented athletes across the colleges, but, in fact, there is competition for athletes in every sport at every level.

(c) Consider the U. of Chicago, the first major university to abandon big-time athletics -- it dropped out of the Big Ten in 1946 after abolishing football in 1939. It prides itself today as offering no advantages in admissions for any athlete. But as detailed in the NY Times Mag a while ago -- the coaches can take the application of any football recruit to the admissions office and get an immediate decision on admission. Uhhh,... that's an advantage.

(d) I had a friend take his large and mobile son to interview at a small but prestigious New England college with Division III athletics. The football coach urged the son to take the SAT's again (his scores were already pretty good). "I get only three exceptions in football [from admissions], and I am not wasting one on a tackle."

(e) I had another friend's son go to an admissions session at an Ivy League school that was all or mostly prospective athletic recruits. An inexperienced admissions counselor came in and stupidly said, "The only reason you are being seriously considered for admission is that you are athletes." The kid was so mad he was spitting and went elsewhere.

[Bostondevil]

Under the heading of "that's the way it is," consider this:



(a) Every college in the country that competes in athletics wants to be successful: this means ensuring that there are competitive ath-a-letes admitted in every sport.

(b) If no one played the admission-preference game, then there could be a random distribution of talented athletes across the colleges, but, in fact, there is competition for athletes in every sport at every level.

(c) Consider the U. of Chicago, the first major university to abandon big-time athletics -- it dropped out of the Big Ten in 1946 after abolishing football in 1939. It prides itself today as offering no advantages in admissions for any athlete. But as detailed in the NY Times Mag a while ago -- the coaches can take the application of any football recruit to the admissions office and get an immediate decision on admission. Uhhh,... that's an advantage.

(d) I had a friend take his large and mobile son to interview at a small but prestigious New England college with Division III athletics. The football coach urged the son to take the SAT's again (his scores were already pretty good). "I get only three exceptions in football [from admissions], and I am not wasting one on a tackle."

(e) I had another friend's son go to an admissions session at an Ivy League school that was all or mostly prospective athletic recruits. An inexperienced admissions counselor came in and stupidly said, "The only reason you are being seriously considered for admission is that you are athletes." The kid was so mad he was spitting and went elsewhere.

Why was that a stupid thing to say?

[BLPOG]

Why was that a stupid thing to say?

It's insulting (as a generalization to a group by someone who probably didn't have a full grasp of the admissions credentials of everyone present and simply assumed they were all unqualified).

[YmoBeThere]

It's insulting (as a generalization to a group by someone who probably didn't have a full grasp of the admissions credentials of everyone present and simply assumed they were all unqualified).

But aren’t you now making a similar error to the one ascribed to the young counselor? You’re assuming that the counselor did not know the backgrounds of the attendees but have no evidence of such. The error of the counselor could just be that they are overly forthright in presenting the facts.

[BLPOG]

But aren’t you now making a similar error to the one ascribed to the young counselor? You’re assuming that the counselor did not know the backgrounds of the attendees but have no evidence of such. The error of the counselor could just be that they are overly forthright in presenting the facts.

I'm basing my comment on my recollection of the previous time this specific story was recounted on the board.

[Bostondevil]

It's insulting (as a generalization to a group by someone who probably didn't have a full grasp of the admissions credentials of everyone present and simply assumed they were all unqualified).

I don't know how long ago this happened, but the admissions rates at Ivies are under 10% for all of them except Cornell. Harvard's is under 5%. Admission rates for recruited athletes? Aren't that low. Even if they are equally academically qualified (which many of them are not), that is not why they are accepted. To believe otherwise is very naive.

Also, it is not assuming they are unqualified to tell a bunch of recruited athletes that they are being seriously considered only because of athletic talent. At 5-10% acceptance rates, very few candidates of any kind are being seriously considered for admission. Recruited athletes are a special category in any admissions office and they get accepted if they meet minimums on the academic side, not maximums. Granted at an Ivy, those minimums will be higher than at many other schools, but still, they are only looking for the minimum. If that weren't true - what would be the point in bribing coaches to put students on the recruited athlete list?

[Nick]

1) Do the international students pay full sticker price? I know these elite colleges are supposed to be need blind but I wonder if this matters. Also, and this is not a Duke specific issue, the kind of things that help get you into selective colleges are the kind of things it helps to have family wealth buy (private schools, travel sports teams, admissions counseling, etc.). I wonder how the economic profile of the international students compares to the American.


Generally, yes they do. More so than Americans, anyway. My wife's niece is a bright girl from Nicaragua who has good grades, good SAT scores and wants to do biomedical engineering but federal aid is only for American citizens. (And if you think affording college is difficult on a middle class American salary, try it on a middle class Nicaraguan salary.)

[Reilly]

... overly forthright ...

I'm going to start using this: I apologize if I was overly forthright ...

What's one of the definitions of charm -- the ability to make others feel good about themselves ... https://www.bustle.com/articles/191027-11-interesting-habits-of-charming-people-according-to-experts

And the takeaway of now-president-of-UVa Ryan's graduation address when he was at Harvard -- we should make others feel beloved.

[sagegrouse]

[Sage Grouse wrote -- An inexperienced admissions counselor came in and stupidly said, "The only reason you are being seriously considered for admission is that you are athletes."]


Why was that a stupid thing to say?

Well, almost everything falls under the heading of "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

First, you are trying to entice the men and women in the room to come to Penn, and you begin by insulting their intelligence and scholastic accomplishments.

There were applicants in the room that would have been admitted regardless of athletics, including my friend's son.

To get more technical, some or maybe even all were recruited athletes who already met the Ivy League minimum standards for acceptance: the Academic Index (https://www.fencingparents.org/college-bound-fencer/2019/2/26/how-do-elite-colleges-use-the-academic-index-in-the-athlete-recruitment-of-fencers). If the admissions counselor was pointing out that the Academic Index enabled students to be admitted with quals up to one std. dev. below the student body average, well, duh.... But that's UPenn's decision, not yours.

[Bostondevil]

[Sage Grouse wrote -- An inexperienced admissions counselor came in and stupidly said, "The only reason you are being seriously considered for admission is that you are athletes."]



Well, almost everything falls under the heading of "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

First, you are trying to entice the men and women in the room to come to Penn, and you begin by insulting their intelligence and scholastic accomplishments.

There were applicants in the room that would have been admitted regardless of athletics, including my friend's son.

To get more technical, some or maybe even all were recruited athletes who already met the Ivy League minimum standards for acceptance: the Academic Index (https://www.fencingparents.org/college-bound-fencer/2019/2/26/how-do-elite-colleges-use-the-academic-index-in-the-athlete-recruitment-of-fencers). If the admissions counselor was pointing out that the Academic Index enabled students to be admitted with quals up to one std. dev. below the student body average, well, duh... But that's UPenn's decision, not yours.

Some of them, maybe. But not all of them. UPenn received 44,960 applications this year. They accepted 3,345. That's this year and acceptance rates have been going down, so, the odds were better when this incident occurred, but, if this incident had happened this year and your friend's academically qualified son had applied without the athletics behind him, he would have had a about a 7% chance of being admitted. Overall acceptance rate this year was just under 7.5%. UPenn has 33 varsity sports teams. Assuming each team gets 5 recruits a year, that's 180 slots that go to athletes and lowers the non-athlete acceptance rate to 7%. I am probably underestimating the number of slots that go to athletes since I just looked at the lacrosse and heavyweight crew teams rosters and both have 13 freshman on their squads, but, I'll stick with my initial estimate. (I am assuming that all recruited athletes get accepted.) Way more than 7% of the applicants to UPenn are academically qualified. Athletics may not be the only reason he would have been accepted but it is one giant thumb on the scale at these highly selective schools.

More numbers for UPenn's Class of 2023. They accepted 14% international students and 15% were the first in their families to go to college - both categories your friend's son was not in, I suspect. Granted there could be some overlap but adding up the internationals, the 1st gens, and the athletes, we get around 1150 students out of 3345. Since I don't know denominators, I can't calculate an acceptance rate for students not in those categories, but, just looking at the number of slots still available, the acceptance rate certainly isn't going to be higher for the non-international non-athletes. I could be wrong, but I suspect the majority of the applicants to UPenn are not in any of those 3 categories. Again - your friend's son may have been academically qualified but getting in with the qualifications and no athletics is extremely difficult to do, so no, I do not agree he would have been admitted regardless of athletics. He might have been, but it would not have been a sure thing. I concede that I am looking at this year when UPenn's acceptance rate hit a record low, but it hasn't been that much higher in recent years. If we're talking about something that happened 20 or 30 years ago, then yeah - things were different then.

Looking at those numbers though, it's easy to see why we've had a college admissions scandal. It almost makes you wonder why there haven't been more.

[budwom]

^ People have purchased admission to top schools for decades. The difference with the recent case is that it involved so many people and so much fraudulent activity (e.g. widespread cheating on tests, numerous non athletes being deemed athletes, etc).
Helps to be a bit more discreet to get away with this...

[budwom]

having just vacuumed, and feeling frisky, thought I share tales of two sides of the ledger:

I had two classmates who got into Harvard with 400 range SAT verbals...hint, both were hockey stars...one was from a disadvantaged background, was a prince of a guy; the other was just a good hockey player.

On the other side of the ledger: classmate in grad school who had gone to a consensus top three college, was turned down at Stanford B School to which his family had given tens of millions of dollars. (He was no dope, the school he ended up at was also consensus top three). Either Stanford was for some reason highly principled or completely oblivious...I tend to think the latter in this case.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

having just vacuumed, and feeling frisky, thought I share tales of two sides of the ledger:

I had two classmates who got into Harvard with 400 range SAT verbals...hint, both were hockey stars...one was from a disadvantaged background, was a prince of a guy; the other was just a good hockey player.

On the other side of the ledger: classmate in grad school who had gone to a consensus top three college, was turned down at Stanford B School to which his family had given tens of millions of dollars. (He was no dope, the school he ended up at was also consensus top three). Either Stanford was for some reason highly principled or completely oblivious...I tend to think the latter in this case.

Business schools are a lot less deferential to legacies and donors than undergrad programs. When it comes to tens of millions of dollars, though, I think it starts to become more relevant. I read applications for a top three program and we were definitely aware of people's backgrounds (we had codes for "bootstrappers") and did focus on what people made of the resources available to them. However, I was just the first reader, so I don't know as well what went on once the applications were reviewed by more senior people who had more influence in putting together the demographics of the accepted class and had to potentially make big donors happy.

[budwom]

Business schools are a lot less deferential to legacies and donors than undergrad programs. When it comes to tens of millions of dollars, though, I think it starts to become more relevant. I read applications for a top three program and we were definitely aware of people's backgrounds (we had codes for "bootstrappers") and did focus on what people made of the resources available to them. However, I was just the first reader, so I don't know as well what went on once the applications were reviewed by more senior people who had more influence in putting together the demographics of the accepted class and had to potentially make big donors happy.

That's interesting, and I suspect it makes a lot of sense...from just my own personal, non scientific observations, most people seem to have more allegiance to their undergraduate school than their graduate school, and tend to give more money accordingly....

[Jeffrey]

That's interesting, and I suspect it makes a lot of sense...from just my own personal, non scientific observations, most people seem to have more allegiance to their undergraduate school than their graduate school, and tend to give more money accordingly...

I've had similar observations. For example, a former next door neighbor went to a very good (top 20) undergrad school and then was a HBS Baker Scholar. He has given over $10 million to his undergrad school and relatively little to Harvard. His Harvard MBA opened the doors to great wealth.

To be fair, his highest earning years are the next 10-20 and there's still hope for Harvard.

[-jk]

My cousin couldn't get into Duke Med, even with good scores...

It's tough these days, unless you can find/buy your way onto a minor team.

-jk

[SoCalDukeFan]

Got no jail time. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/us/college-admissions-scandal-john-vandemoer/index.html)

There are certainly many sides to this story. Going around the admissions process is wrong, lying is wrong, having someone else take a test for your kid is wrong, etc. etc.

What the coach did is wrong but I do understand the sentence.

There is some conjecture in my scenario, I admit.

I would guess that about every year at budget time he is trying to get more money for his non revenue program. Here come some applicants with qualifications that as much as he can tell are better than many on his team and better than many of the other athletes at Stanford. He probably at least had heard of major major donors getting their kids in with less than stellar records. One of these applicants went Ivy League. Maybe not good enough to get into Stanford but good enough to do the work. So he gets some money for his program using admissions, just as many schools use admissions for big bucks. The pseudo athletes are more academically qualified than many real athletes.

The intersection of admission processes that favor money and athletes and the need for schools to raise money for non revenue sports.

Not justifying it but I do see how it could happen.

SoCal

[Indoor66]

Got no jail time. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/us/college-admissions-scandal-john-vandemoer/index.html)

There are certainly many sides to this story. Going around the admissions process is wrong, lying is wrong, having someone else take a test for your kid is wrong, etc. etc.

What the coach did is wrong but I do understand the sentence.

There is some conjecture in my scenario, I admit.

I would guess that about every year at budget time he is trying to get more money for his non revenue program. Here come some applicants with qualifications that as much as he can tell are better than many on his team and better than many of the other athletes at Stanford. He probably at least had heard of major major donors getting their kids in with less than stellar records. One of these applicants went Ivy League. Maybe not good enough to get into Stanford but good enough to do the work. So he gets some money for his program using admissions, just as many schools use admissions for big bucks. The pseudo athletes are more academically qualified than many real athletes.

The intersection of admission processes that favor money and athletes and the need for schools to raise money for non revenue sports.

Not justifying it but I do see how it could happen.

SoCal

Please give me a break. Anyone with a IQ above 6 would know that what he did was cheating his school, if not illegal. If it happened, the coach is a dunce.

[budwom]

No excuse for what he did, but have to say it's a heavily mitigating factor that he didn't earn a dime personally from this, all the money went to the Stanford program.

[Reilly]

Marcia Abbott to report to federal prison January 3: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/student-s-parents-both-sentenced-month-prison-college-admission-scam-n1063831

[HereBeforeCoachK]

No excuse for what he did, but have to say it's a heavily mitigating factor that he didn't earn a dime personally from this, all the money went to the Stanford program.

I would have to have a forensic accountant review this before I would necessarily believe a dime or two didn't get back to him somehow. I mean, that's why people do this kind of thing.