About a year ago, federal prosecutors in Boston were working on a securities fraud case, when their suspect gave them a tantalizing bit of information https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/college-admissions-scandal-questions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/business/college-scandal-mcglashan-caplan.html
If nothing else the Manafort case provided a nice metric by which we'll all be forever comparing the justice system. Get convicted of five counts of filing false tax returns and two counts of bank fraud, totaling in the tens of millions of dollars - 47 months in prison. Paid $500,000 to have someone take the SAT for your kid, 30 to 37 months. Don't get me wrong, I have reason to specifically hate this and hope there's a special spot in karmic hell for these parents, but those just don't seem like roughly equivalent crimes?
"a secret between two people only remains a secret if one of the parties is dead." in this scenario there were hundreds of people involved. pray tell, what could go wrong?
it is not rough equivalence crimes. the Manafort case, which is much more serious, was likely plea bargained down from 20 years max to 47 months. the college case will likely be plea bargained down from 3 years to a year and a day.
It's interesting how most of those in the article, who go to a predominantly black high school, complain bitterly how the wealthy have an unfair advantage for college admission. I would argue that, given exactly the same class ranking, test scores, extracurricular, etc. the black person will get in over the white or Asian. Probably darn near every time. Affirmative Action or not schools still try to balance racial percentages when they can. And let's not forget the "athletic backdoor" that was exposed. Apparently people let in to be on college teams have a lowered standard. This, I would also argue, favors the black student.
Don't know what the numbers are, but I think it is clear that best qualified do not always get in. For example, Asians are held to much higher standard: http://time.com/5546463/harvard-admissions-trial-asian-american-students/ "Currently, Asian-American students, who represent about 5% of public high school students, make up 22.9% of Harvard’s freshman class. Harvard data released as part of the lawsuit showed that admitted Asian-American students have a higher average SAT score and lower rate of admission than any other racial group. It also revealed that Asian-Americans would make up 43% of Harvard’s admitted class if only academics were considered."
Let me spell it out for you, black students aren't overwhelmingly over represented in elite colleges. They are overwhelmingly under represented. Let's not insult anyone's intelligence by pretending we aren't aware of that fact. So, I'll ask more directly, how does that fact pattern match with your assertion that it's easier to get into an elite university as a black applicant than a rich white applicant whose parents paid someone to take your SAT test for you? Or just a plain or white applicant?
Apples and oranges here...I never said they were "over represented" just that they had a certain advantage over other similarly qualified racial groups. Doesn't that seem the case to you? Right here we have the fact Asians are not let in despite the fact they have much higher quals. This means, of course, that other lower-qualified students got in instead. Yes they could be, Spanish, Islander, Caucasian, etc. But some of then were obviously Black. Hey, I'm not putting anyone down here. Just saying that it is somewhat ironic to complain that others have an advantage, when they, too, have one.