<p>So she got all of her degrees at Penn, including at Wharton. They must not teach ethics there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So let us list the ways to "buy"-pa$$ the admissions system.</p>
<ol>
<li>"Consultancy" admit ie: hire one of the admissions staff to be your "consultant"</li>
<li>"Developmental" admit ie: donate money to develop the university</li>
<li>Legacy admit ie: parents are alumni and will donate money</li>
<li>"Athletic admit" ie: get in because people will pay money to see you perform in sporting events.</li>
</ol>
<p>Sure looks like merit comes last.
[/quote]
Agree. It is all in your list (1-4) and 'diversity' claim those commonly acknowloged by public, leave the hole for these adcoms to play. </p>
<p>If 'merit' comes first and most there won't leave so much more let them play. It would be interesting to know how many of these adcom previouse get into the previliged college through those hook themselves. So they would think their behavious are justifiable. How you told your naive kids to put all you confidence in these adcoms? One more 'elite' bubble breaks.</p>
<p>I really don't want to have to go through the pretense of paying for "consulting," so does anyone know the price of admission for these admission officers? Feel free to add to the list?</p>
<ol>
<li>Judith Hodara, associate director of M.B.A. admissions at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania; $$$$$</li>
<li>Donald C. Martin, associate dean for enrollment and student services at Teachers College, Columbia University, and formerly an admissions official at the business school of the University of Chicago; $$$$ </li>
<li> Sherry Wallace, director of M.B.A. admissions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $$$$</li>
</ol>
<p>This is a scandal. Maybe "legal"---but unethical, certainly.</p>
<p>This conflict of interests is absolutely disgraceful. Anyone who suggests otherwise ought to have his head examined. </p>
<p>We can only hope that this incident will help lead to a thoroughgoing reform of the 'admissions consulting' business so the playing field can become more equitable. Applicants should be judged by merit, first and foremost; the process is skewed by the availability of purportedly effective $30,000+ admissions consultants. If the current situation doesn't hurt middle and lower class applicants, I don't know what could.</p>
<p>The US college admission practice and the US tax collection practice have several things in common: loop holes. These loop holes benefit people who take advantage of them. They provide a lot of jobs for tax lawyers, accountants, admission consultants, essay writers,... People who are honest sometimes loose a lot.</p>
<p>Face it, with capitalism, the poor always lose.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Face it, with capitalism, the poor always lose.
[/quote]
And with communism, everyone loses.</p>
<p>I am stunned that the Wharton person thought this would be at all okay. </p>
<p>I just had to go through Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment training here, and sign a form saying I understood the policy. We've always had it on the books but I guess they wanted to make sure all employees got it. Still, this particular situation seems like a no-brainer. I can't believe this woman thought this was acceptable--yet it didn't sound like she was being discreet about it.</p>
<p>I'm gobsmacked, frankly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And with communism, everyone loses.
[/quote]
Yep. So if you want to go from rags to riches or even from middle class to riches, you're going to have to work a lot harder and accept that despite what colleges might have you believe, the system (and life) is not fair, and never will be.</p>
<p>"Face it, with capitalism, the poor always lose."</p>
<p>This is not capitalism. Capitalism extols fair competition. This is BS fraud. And like all frauds, it needs to be monitored by a non-government third-party. I would love to have Wharton's accreditation scrutinized, sending the message to all business schools.</p>