USC says it will deny all students linked to admissions scandal (and has denied six already)


#21

What about students that were denied entry? What about the people that have already graduated but entered under proven shady circumstances?

I do think that the steps these schools are already taking are ok but there’s still a lot that needs to be addressed.


#22

That’s a very different problem. This was not just that sort of thing (buying a building to get your kid in or your kid getting an extra point for being a legacy). This was changing grades, faking exams (like the SAT or ACT), lying on applications, and outright bribery to individuals, not just an endowment.

Hopefully, this will bring light to the issue you describe, but at this point none of that is actually breaking any laws, as unjust as it is.


#23

There appears to either be a misquote in this article, or a non sequitur quote included:

“If UCLA discovers that any prospective, admitted or enrolled student has misrepresented any aspect of his/her application, or that information about the applicant has been withheld, UCLA may take a number of disciplinary actions, up to and including cancellation of admission,” a university spokesperson told Buzzfeed.


#24

It’s not just a new take, it’s actually breaking laws.


#25

Yeah UCLA and USC students don’t like to get mixed up with each other. And UCLA is a public University which, while still prestigious, is still considerably more affordable and accessible than USC (which the UCLA kids sometimes refer to as the “University of Spoiled Children.”)


#26

UCLA is not the same as USC


#27

There was probably more hesitancy to try to pull this at Stanford (which some did, according to the other articles). However, Stanford doesn’t just have extremely difficult admissions, it is also very competitive once the students are there. It’s one thing to fake a 1420 SAT, it’s another to back that up with the diligence and intelligence needed to even pass a freshman class at Stanford.


#28

Perhaps the parents of the denied six can get them back in by the usual (read: time-honored and allowed) method; donate a shitload of money for the improvement/construction of a campus wing/library.


#29

Thanks for pointing out the error.

You might want to @ the author (@Carla_Sinclair) to draw their attention.


#30

Welcome, Rachel, to our community. I hope you like cats, because we like cats.


#31

The ringleader himself used a good description for how this is different than what FFabian is referring to:

Acceptance based on academic performance is getting in the Front Door.
Acceptance based on donation to the school and/or family ties is getting in the Back Door.
Faking test scores/bribing coaches is getting in the Side Door.

What I like about USC’s announcement is that it basically says, “Don’t let the Side Door hit you in the ass on your way out!”


#32

I wonder what getting in the chimney might be :thinking:


#33


#34

Personally, I’d take USC (and other institutions) much more seriously if they took measures that stung asses via the back door also. If that happened, what can the “donators” do? Demand the return of their money? Doing so would evidence the connection between donations and admissions, and that would be admitting to bribery.


#35

Legacy admission of the step-child of a cousin thrice removed.


#36

I guess that might cause a drop off in future “donations”.


#37

Re “donations” (as opposed to donations), I think that’s what we want.


#38

Huh? Every university in the country takes back-door donations, has a legacy policy, has a jock policy. That’s not going to change in any way. It’s sleazy, but it’s the way things are, and it’s not illegal. It’s annoying for people to be saying this Side Door activity is just like Back Door activity. No. No, it’s not.

Very simple. They stop donating. Donating as an alumnus isn’t a “one time” thing. It’s ongoing. It’s class dues. It’s special donations for new capital projects or endowments. It’s bequests in the wills of alumni/ae.

I hazard to guess, those who were better credentialed (yet pushed aside because they weren’t rich) would not agree with that. Also, legal (for now) or not, those payoffs are essentially bribes if it gets uncredentialled, but rich, boneheads in while pushing aside those who are more worthy; that type of behavior is at the heart of this scandal. I don’t see an “every university” argument as supportable. If it was, then should we consider side-door donations okay if “every university” did it?

I am talking about sleazy, Back Door donations – these are the type that are not at issue in the current scandal.

To complicate matters (and our ability to properly channel outrage) even more, I think there’s the suggestion that some of these Side Door donations were quid-pro-quo Back Door donations. That is, the money went to the college’s sports department as a donation and not to the coach. So the coach was corrupt, but not as corrupt as he’d be if he put the money in his own pocket.


#39

I hazard to guess, those who were better credentialed (yet pushed aside because they weren’t rich) would not agree with that. Also, legal (for now) or not, those payoffs are essentially bribes if it gets uncredentialled, but rich, boneheads in while pushing aside those who are more worthy; that type of behavior is at the heart of this scandal. I don’t see an “every university” argument as supportable. If it was, then should we consider side-door donations okay if “every university” did it?


#40

There’s a massive difference between the side door and the back door.

The back door injects funds into the institution for buildings, staff, equipment, etc. Stuff that all students can benefit from.

Is it unfair that a perk of making a mega-donation like that is that your kid gets in? It may well be. But I think a case can be made that that kid is not really taking a place from somebody else, because the donation expands the university in some sense.

The side door, on the other hand, is straight-up fraud. Nobody benefits except corrupt individuals. On top of that, deserving applicants are shut out.