Felicity Huffman Cheats Like Harvard

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
OK liberal snowflakes, an opinion piece, but damn accurate

The story has it all: wealth, celebrity, big-name universities—and cheating.

It all came together last Wednesday at the John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, where actress Felicity Huffman made her first court appearance since her arrest on charges she’d cheated her daughter’s way into college. The “Desperate Housewives” star stands accused of engaging the services of William Rick Singer to bribe an SAT proctor, who is alleged to have corrected her daughter’s answers to ensure a higher score. On Monday Ms. Huffman agreed to plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

In another Boston federal courtroom, a judge is expected to rule soon on a lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-Americans. The suit, brought by Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Asian-Americans, who on average score much higher on the SATs than black, Latino and white applicants, nonetheless have a lower rate of admission into Harvard than other racial groups.

Here’s the great unasked question: What’s the moral difference between Ms. Huffman’s getting her daughter into college with an SAT score she didn’t earn and Harvard’s institutionally elevating the lower test scores of whites, blacks and Latinos above the higher scores of Asian-Americans? In both cases the result is that some who earned high scores are excluded in favor of some who did not.

A 2013 review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, which became public during the lawsuit’s discovery process, suggested that if Harvard operated on an “academics only” model of admissions “the percentage of Asians would more than double,” to 43%. This is interesting because it also happens to be the percentage of Asian-Americans now at Caltech, where race is not a factor in admissions.

Harvard says the review was incomplete. But it’s far from the only evidence that the university is cheating on how it treats SAT scores. In 2009 Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade studied the SAT scores of 9,000 students who attended one of 10 highly selective colleges or universities. The Asian-American applicants, he found, needed to score much higher than students of other races to have an equal chance of admission.

Specifically, with respect to Asian-Americans, black applicants effectively had their scores boosted by 310 points, Hispanics by 270 points, and whites by 140. Again, it’s hard to discern a bright moral line between Harvard’s giving some applicants an unearned point boost (or point penalty) based on race, and Ms. Huffman’s daughter’s allegedly getting a point boost from someone correcting her answers. Harvard, moreover, isn’t honest about its discrimination. That’s probably because the law tolerates such discrimination only when schools pretend they’re doing something else.



It isn’t only the universities. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has been trying to relax standards at the city’s top public high schools, admissions to which are now based on a single, highly competitive entrance exam. The mayor wants to abolish the test because he is mortified by the racial outcomes it produces. Last month it was reported that only seven of the 895 seats for the freshman class at Stuyvesant, the city’s most selective high school, went to African-Americans.

The mayor is right that this is an appalling statistic. But it’s telling that he’s angry at the test and not at the city’s public schools, which he runs, for failing to provide black and Latino children with an education that would make them competitive.

Instead of insisting on fixing the public schools where children aren’t learning, or giving students access to charters or parochial schools where they would learn, Mr. de Blasio opts for the Felicity Huffman option: find a side door. That means replacing a merit-based entrance exam with a new formula that would ensure the desired racial outcome—even though it would mean admitting less-qualified students at the expense of more-qualified students, again mostly Asian-Americans.

Back at Harvard, meanwhile, there have been some developments. A week ago the university announced that 25.4% of the incoming Class of 2023 identify as Asian-American, a record share. That’s up from 22.7% last year, and up from 19.7% from the year Students for Fair Admissions filed its lawsuit. Organization president Edward Blum says his Asian-American allies call it “the SFFA effect.”

Judge Allison Burroughs is expected to rule sometime in the next few weeks. However the case comes down, the Supreme Court will likely get the last word.

The lessons are clear. Pay someone to change your daughter’s SAT score so she moves ahead of other applicants, and you may be arrested by FBI agents arriving at your home in the early morning with guns drawn. But when an elite university inflates or devalues applicants’ SAT scores based on race—even as it insists it is not discriminating—that’s just business as usual.

The Department of Justice calls it the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted. It involved bribes, doctored exam scores and faked athletic achievements. So who's at fault—parents, colleges or the system? Photo: EPA
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
OK liberal snowflakes, an opinion piece, but damn accurate

The story has it all: wealth, celebrity, big-name universities—and cheating.

It all came together last Wednesday at the John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, where actress Felicity Huffman made her first court appearance since her arrest on charges she’d cheated her daughter’s way into college. The “Desperate Housewives” star stands accused of engaging the services of William Rick Singer to bribe an SAT proctor, who is alleged to have corrected her daughter’s answers to ensure a higher score. On Monday Ms. Huffman agreed to plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

In another Boston federal courtroom, a judge is expected to rule soon on a lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-Americans. The suit, brought by Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Asian-Americans, who on average score much higher on the SATs than black, Latino and white applicants, nonetheless have a lower rate of admission into Harvard than other racial groups.

Here’s the great unasked question: What’s the moral difference between Ms. Huffman’s getting her daughter into college with an SAT score she didn’t earn and Harvard’s institutionally elevating the lower test scores of whites, blacks and Latinos above the higher scores of Asian-Americans? In both cases the result is that some who earned high scores are excluded in favor of some who did not.

A 2013 review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, which became public during the lawsuit’s discovery process, suggested that if Harvard operated on an “academics only” model of admissions “the percentage of Asians would more than double,” to 43%. This is interesting because it also happens to be the percentage of Asian-Americans now at Caltech, where race is not a factor in admissions.

Harvard says the review was incomplete. But it’s far from the only evidence that the university is cheating on how it treats SAT scores. In 2009 Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade studied the SAT scores of 9,000 students who attended one of 10 highly selective colleges or universities. The Asian-American applicants, he found, needed to score much higher than students of other races to have an equal chance of admission.

Specifically, with respect to Asian-Americans, black applicants effectively had their scores boosted by 310 points, Hispanics by 270 points, and whites by 140. Again, it’s hard to discern a bright moral line between Harvard’s giving some applicants an unearned point boost (or point penalty) based on race, and Ms. Huffman’s daughter’s allegedly getting a point boost from someone correcting her answers. Harvard, moreover, isn’t honest about its discrimination. That’s probably because the law tolerates such discrimination only when schools pretend they’re doing something else.



It isn’t only the universities. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has been trying to relax standards at the city’s top public high schools, admissions to which are now based on a single, highly competitive entrance exam. The mayor wants to abolish the test because he is mortified by the racial outcomes it produces. Last month it was reported that only seven of the 895 seats for the freshman class at Stuyvesant, the city’s most selective high school, went to African-Americans.

The mayor is right that this is an appalling statistic. But it’s telling that he’s angry at the test and not at the city’s public schools, which he runs, for failing to provide black and Latino children with an education that would make them competitive.

Instead of insisting on fixing the public schools where children aren’t learning, or giving students access to charters or parochial schools where they would learn, Mr. de Blasio opts for the Felicity Huffman option: find a side door. That means replacing a merit-based entrance exam with a new formula that would ensure the desired racial outcome—even though it would mean admitting less-qualified students at the expense of more-qualified students, again mostly Asian-Americans.

Back at Harvard, meanwhile, there have been some developments. A week ago the university announced that 25.4% of the incoming Class of 2023 identify as Asian-American, a record share. That’s up from 22.7% last year, and up from 19.7% from the year Students for Fair Admissions filed its lawsuit. Organization president Edward Blum says his Asian-American allies call it “the SFFA effect.”

Judge Allison Burroughs is expected to rule sometime in the next few weeks. However the case comes down, the Supreme Court will likely get the last word.

The lessons are clear. Pay someone to change your daughter’s SAT score so she moves ahead of other applicants, and you may be arrested by FBI agents arriving at your home in the early morning with guns drawn. But when an elite university inflates or devalues applicants’ SAT scores based on race—even as it insists it is not discriminating—that’s just business as usual.

The Department of Justice calls it the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted. It involved bribes, doctored exam scores and faked athletic achievements. So who's at fault—parents, colleges or the system? Photo: EPA
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

What are you suggesting be done here? There are lawsuits moving through the courts. Harvard isn't a public institution and it's not like I donate to them.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
OK liberal snowflakes, an opinion piece, but damn accurate

The story has it all: wealth, celebrity, big-name universities—and cheating.

It all came together last Wednesday at the John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, where actress Felicity Huffman made her first court appearance since her arrest on charges she’d cheated her daughter’s way into college. The “Desperate Housewives” star stands accused of engaging the services of William Rick Singer to bribe an SAT proctor, who is alleged to have corrected her daughter’s answers to ensure a higher score. On Monday Ms. Huffman agreed to plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.

In another Boston federal courtroom, a judge is expected to rule soon on a lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-Americans. The suit, brought by Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Asian-Americans, who on average score much higher on the SATs than black, Latino and white applicants, nonetheless have a lower rate of admission into Harvard than other racial groups.

Here’s the great unasked question: What’s the moral difference between Ms. Huffman’s getting her daughter into college with an SAT score she didn’t earn and Harvard’s institutionally elevating the lower test scores of whites, blacks and Latinos above the higher scores of Asian-Americans? In both cases the result is that some who earned high scores are excluded in favor of some who did not.

A 2013 review by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, which became public during the lawsuit’s discovery process, suggested that if Harvard operated on an “academics only” model of admissions “the percentage of Asians would more than double,” to 43%. This is interesting because it also happens to be the percentage of Asian-Americans now at Caltech, where race is not a factor in admissions.

Harvard says the review was incomplete. But it’s far from the only evidence that the university is cheating on how it treats SAT scores. In 2009 Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade studied the SAT scores of 9,000 students who attended one of 10 highly selective colleges or universities. The Asian-American applicants, he found, needed to score much higher than students of other races to have an equal chance of admission.

Specifically, with respect to Asian-Americans, black applicants effectively had their scores boosted by 310 points, Hispanics by 270 points, and whites by 140. Again, it’s hard to discern a bright moral line between Harvard’s giving some applicants an unearned point boost (or point penalty) based on race, and Ms. Huffman’s daughter’s allegedly getting a point boost from someone correcting her answers. Harvard, moreover, isn’t honest about its discrimination. That’s probably because the law tolerates such discrimination only when schools pretend they’re doing something else.



It isn’t only the universities. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has been trying to relax standards at the city’s top public high schools, admissions to which are now based on a single, highly competitive entrance exam. The mayor wants to abolish the test because he is mortified by the racial outcomes it produces. Last month it was reported that only seven of the 895 seats for the freshman class at Stuyvesant, the city’s most selective high school, went to African-Americans.

The mayor is right that this is an appalling statistic. But it’s telling that he’s angry at the test and not at the city’s public schools, which he runs, for failing to provide black and Latino children with an education that would make them competitive.

Instead of insisting on fixing the public schools where children aren’t learning, or giving students access to charters or parochial schools where they would learn, Mr. de Blasio opts for the Felicity Huffman option: find a side door. That means replacing a merit-based entrance exam with a new formula that would ensure the desired racial outcome—even though it would mean admitting less-qualified students at the expense of more-qualified students, again mostly Asian-Americans.

Back at Harvard, meanwhile, there have been some developments. A week ago the university announced that 25.4% of the incoming Class of 2023 identify as Asian-American, a record share. That’s up from 22.7% last year, and up from 19.7% from the year Students for Fair Admissions filed its lawsuit. Organization president Edward Blum says his Asian-American allies call it “the SFFA effect.”

Judge Allison Burroughs is expected to rule sometime in the next few weeks. However the case comes down, the Supreme Court will likely get the last word.

The lessons are clear. Pay someone to change your daughter’s SAT score so she moves ahead of other applicants, and you may be arrested by FBI agents arriving at your home in the early morning with guns drawn. But when an elite university inflates or devalues applicants’ SAT scores based on race—even as it insists it is not discriminating—that’s just business as usual.

The Department of Justice calls it the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted. It involved bribes, doctored exam scores and faked athletic achievements. So who's at fault—parents, colleges or the system? Photo: EPA
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
This has little to do with liberals and everything to do with wealthy people using their privilege. I hope they get the book thrown at them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: b.c. and Klingsor

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
This has little to do with liberals and everything to do with wealthy people using their privilege. I hope they get the book thrown at them.

Yes, and wealthy people using (abusing) their privilege has little to do with academic institutions trying to foster racial diversity. You can question the methods employed by those institutions, but comparison to these cheating parents only clouds the issue.