On Elite College Admissions

The college admissions offices at several elite institutions were rocked, shocked, and supinely mocked this week as the FBI revealed a widespread conspiracy involving over 50 rich parents buying their children's way into college. To which I say: meh.

Obviously this is something that shouldn't happen. It's unfair to the kids that actually earned their way into Georgetown and USC, when the student sitting next to them had someone else take their SAT exam and the rowing coach was bought off to 'recruit' them (just kidding, these kids aren't actually going to class - they'll buy their grades just like they bought their acceptance letters). Then again, life isn't fair.

I'm not saying life shouldn't be fair, it's just that it's not. Donald Trump probably shouldn't have been able to attend an Ivy League university, but a massive donation from Fred Trump coincidentally preceded his son's transfer from Fordham to UPenn. Because that's how the ultra rich have always done it. You buy a building, and secure posterity's ability to also attend such schools.

The big problem is that these people didn't have Fred Trump money, so they couldn't engage in honest graft and had to resort to smaller, under the table bribes. These remain a no-no in today's society - institutions may be bought openly, but it's a scandal if it's done in private. Sorry if I don't see much more than semantics.

You know what's also unfair? That these kids had every opportunity to get into great private schools in the first place. They grew up in homes absent food insecurity, so there was no distraction caused by hunger in elementary school. Their classrooms were well-staffed with excellent teachers and full of students with similarly successful and likely educated parents. They had every opportunity to learn and had access to the resources that would boost their chances of college admittance. And, when they were accepted to college, they could go because their parents had the money to pay the tuition.

There may be a scandal in this story, but the anger is probably misplaced. Everyone hates these parents for doing what a bunch of other people would do if given the chance. They just don't have the chance.

(insert final rant about economic mobility or something because why not)

(follow rant with some weird defense of capitalism, because apparently we don't believe in capitalism in 2019?)

(poorly formed conclusion)

The Lesson of Donald Trump that Art Briles Failed to Heed

Art Briles is a jackass who shouldn't be allowed to coach football again, and any school that hires him should receive the death penalty, or at minimum a loss of scholarships and ban from postseason competition. His transgressions were at best turning a blind eye, and more than likely shielding players from sexual misconduct allegations at Baylor in order to keep them on the field (lawsuits against the school detail instances of victims being told to keep quiet by coaches and possibly being threatened to prevent them from going to the authorities). As such, a scarlet letter should be branded on the members of his coaching staff that were aware/participated in this as well. But the damnedest thing that happened when Briles was released from his position; turned around and filed suit against Baylor.


There's a lot of gumption involved here, and it went even higher. Ken Starr (yes, the same asshole you're thinking of) was Baylor's chancellor and eventually forced to step down due to his complicity. But back to Briles. A Philadelphia law firm hired by the school's Board of Regents concluded that Briles was responsible for creating essentially a black hole of accountability in which "reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared." Delightful. Briles apparently didn't think this was fair, and sued the school for over $1 million because libel because his feelings got a sad.

Funny thing about suing someone for libel, and this is the lesson Trump (may have?) learned about a couple decades ago: your claims become open to investigation and that which you don't want to come out in discovery, comes out. For Trump, he sued an author who claimed Trump wasn't worth much money. Lo and behold, Trump was asked to prove the claim was false, and during discovery it was revealed Trump had grossly inflated his wealth. And this information became public as a matter of court record. (And Trump lost. Because lying.) The lesson: if you're suing someone for contradicting your version of the truth, make sure your version is right. And if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.

Once again, back to Briles. So this fucktard sues Baylor because the school said they couldn't keep a coach that was shielding his rapist players. (And if the media accounts are to be believed, we're talking over 30 rapists in the program, with Briles having personal knowledge of at least one gang rape.) And guess what happens next: the man who sued the school for claiming he shielded rapists has to prove that the school's claim amount to libel, only to have the school provide the evidence that he shielded rapists. Briles dropped his lawsuit today after a small number of text messages and e-mails were released to the public that demonstrated his complicity. Good job: you got what you asked for by having the Regents defend themselves. So once more: if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.

This rambling diatribe is mostly about calling people names to make me feel better about myself, but it also underlines a non-germane point: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. After one of the gang rapes, Briles commented, "those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" This is the type of victim-blaming comment that fosters a rape culture, and you've fucked up on so many levels:
1. This completely deflects from the problem at hand. We've all put ourselves in dumb situations that, in hindsight, we shouldn't have. Lock your car doors, don't walk down that dark alley, keep your wits about you, etc. This is advice that should be dispensed. It shouldn't be considered a lesson learned. It's not 1900, and you don't get to blame the woman for being raped. You blame the rapist for being a rapist, and then you put him in jail. It really is that black and white.

2. The rape culture you've now fostered. Collegiate football players already have a certain expectation of leniency, begging the question, "how much can I actually get away with?" You protected rapists from being punished. Which sends a signal to those rapists, as well as their teammates, that you will protect rapists in the future. Unfortunately, legal repercussions are required to deter shitty behavior in some people, and you've removed such deterrence. You've now created an environment that allows rape. You may (acknowledge, may) be directly responsible for any future sexual assault that your players perpetrate. 

In sum, I'm glad this additional information just came out, I'm saddened that the news means victims must continue to relive the trauma they incurred, and I consider Briles lucky that there's no father with a shotgun pissed off enough to eliminate the life of someone who has no further value to provide society. That's not something I'm advocating. Just making the observation.

Also, the Board of Regents considered reinstating Briles last summer before the lawsuit. Those on the reinstatement side are also shitty people.

That Time The New Yorker Incensed Me Into Writing the Editor

While I find John Cassidy’s concerns on the evolving  (devolving?) value of higher education largely on point (“College Calculus,” September 7), I question what appear to be potshots aimed at Kansas State University (full disclosure: not an alumnus, but I am native to the State and support the school’s research and extension mission). Cassidy is concerned that colleges are enticing students with specialized degrees that may sound exciting and even offer short-term reward, but fail to provide lifetime value. He then holds up Kansas State’s major in Bakery Science and minor in Unmanned Aircraft Systems as examples. While understanding of drone technology holds obvious value as the robotics become more ubiquitous in society (a fact the article fails to acknowledge), Cassidy condescendingly suggests that the purpose of the Bakery Science major is to “run a bakery.” Were this the purpose of the degree, it would well buttress his argument that students are increasingly taking on student loans to obtain unnecessary degrees. Unfortunately for Cassidy, it’s not. K-State’s Grain Science program has been in operation for over fifty years, suggesting it is far from a fly-by-night scheme to bring in additional tuition dollars. The program enjoys 100 percent placement (a statistic Cassidy may find dubious), and graduates earn the highest starting salary of all College of Agriculture graduates (a more difficult fact to quibble over - K-State’s College of Agriculture is consistently ranked among the top ten in the nation, signaling a semblance of worth in the degree.).

The irony is that the bakery program appears to be imbuing students with specific skills that make them more marketable in the workplace. Graduates are trained to work for Kellog’s, Nestle, and King Arthur Flour – not the local donut shop. As genetic science continues modifying the protein composition and nutritional nuances of grains, this training will only increase in value. We now want sweet foods without the sugar content and savory foods without the cholesterol – who do you think develops these products?

This article is dog-whistling at its finest. Cassidy fears that college degrees may only be used for signaling, thereby failing to provide specific training that makes a graduate worth more. He then purposefully singles out a program that provides specific training that makes students more knowledgeable and marketable, but condescendingly suggests these students are only good for running local bakeries. There are undoubtedly examples of narrowly focused degrees with inherent risk that can be mocked. I like to think an Oxford/Columbia/NYU-educated journalist didn’t simply single out a funny-sounding degree from a seemingly Podunk institution in Kansas and decide this was the perfect example without actually doing any research into the program, because that would be really lazy. I like to think this wasn’t a play to an overly educated East Coast audience readily willing to join the mockery of a public school in Kansas, because that would also be really lazy. Unfortunately, the author appears willing to do exactly that. I’m personally familiar with better examples on the East Coast, but we must apparently consider where our readership lies – in the ivory towers of the original colonies, and not the plains of the Midwest.


What's unfortunate is, I otherwise completely agreed with the article.