[ad_1]
It's no secret that wealth has advantages when it comes to sending your kids to college. Rich and famous parents can donate large sums of money to schools or rely on their names and relationships. Some prestigious colleges explicitly prefer the children and grandchildren of alumni. At Harvard, an investigation revealed last year, these "legacies" admit five times more chances of succeeding than the average Joe.
However, federal prosecutors say that for 33 wealthy parents, these benefits were not enough. A university consultant named William Singer, of Newport Beach, Calif., Pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday for a fraud scheme involving the bribery of SAT supervisors and university coaches on behalf of these families.
The indictment mentions leading actors and business leaders. This would alleviate some crazy stunts – like passing an intermediate exam to a replacement, posing a photo-doctoral student to stick a student's head on the body of an athlete, bribing college coaches and paying up to $ 75,000 for falsified exam results, all in the name of having their children admit through what Singer called "a side door" in schools like Yale, the University of Texas and the University of Southern California.
To better understand this story, here are some things to know about the rich history of college admissions.
Only a fraction of American students attend such schools.
The majority of schools covered by this program are very selective: the University of Texas accepts 4 candidates out of 10 and Yale only 7%. Yet the middle college accepts two out of three candidates. This means that this highly competitive demolition demolition derby simply does not apply to most Americans.
Universities are tax-exempt and taxpayer-supported, with federal support and, in the case of public institutions, public funding. This status is granted because they profess a public mission. Selective institutions actually justify the ban on the masses because, they say, they admit students on the basis of merit.
When a college girl from Spokane, Washington or Sutherland, Texas, goes to the Yale App's website, she reads:
"As we examine each application with care and respect, our admissions team asks two questions:" Who is likely to make the most of Yale's resources? "And who will contribute the most significantly to the Yale community?"
The existence of legitimate admissions and even the recruitment of athletes hampers this brilliant image. This corruption scandal could tarnish it for good. A detail that some critics have found particularly infuriating: In some cases, payments that were actually bribes to academics were channeled from foundations to charitable foundations, which meant that bribes could also request tax exemptions.
This controversy fits into a wider debate about positive action.
Last year, the process of admission to Harvard University – and the very concept of merit in the most selective colleges – was put to the test. American-Asian students have alleged discrimination because they are consistently admitted to rates lower than their scores and ratings at SAT. Harvard denies the allegations.
These are procedures that highly selective colleges, usually very overcrowded with white and wealthy students, try to use to enhance diversity without breaking the law.
Despite struggles for positive action going back several decades, research has shown that low-income students represent only 3% of the most selective colleges in the United States and that racial diversity is also lacking.
These inequalities in American education go back to kindergarten. Access to university counselors and advanced courses is unfair by class and race. According to a recent report by EdBuild, a non-profit organization, white-majority school districts receive $ 23 billion more than districts that primarily host students of color in the United States.
Highly selective colleges have dubious benefits.
With all the general cultural hubbub of encouraging kids to attend a "good school", which now extends to accusations of federal racketeering and wire fraud, one might think that a letter from Thick admission is a good way to lead a successful life. The answer is yes and no.
Low-income students who manage to enter the best universities graduate high and succeed almost as well financially as their peers on a silver spoon.
But according to an analysis by economist Raj Chetty, the colleges that excel the most in promoting social mobility are not the Ivies. These are excellent public institutions and open community colleges, with a large number of working-class students, such as the City. University of New York.
All other things being equal, highly selective colleges seem to confer an income bonus on non-selective colleges. But the choice of a major person, such as engineering, is a much more decisive factor in his subsequent earnings than his choice of college.
If you have more specific dreams, the Ivy League has a virtual monopoly on the Supreme Court.
CEOs, on the other hand, come from a broader set of public and private institutions, with only 14 Ivy Leaguers among the 100 largest companies in the United States, according to one US News and World Report analysis last year.
While many technology billionaires are better known as "university dropout".
For a broader view, Gallup's 2014 survey of tens of thousands of graduates found that college selectivity was not at all correlated with subsequent job satisfaction or job satisfaction. life.
"These percentages did not vary according to whether graduates went to a reputable school or regional state college, one of the top 100 in the region. US News and World Report ranking or one of the last 100. "
No word yet on what it means for the long-term happiness of discovering that your parents have been lying to get you to college from the get-go.
[ad_2]
Source link