Augie Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 5 hours ago, Uncle Joe said: wrestle? Put him on a bus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, Augie said: Put him on a bus? My college roommate (frosh and soph years) was a wrestler and let me know how good the wrestling program was at Slippery Rock. So I thought the comment somewhat apropos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Uncle Joe said: My college roommate (frosh and soph years) was a wrestler and let me know how good the wrestling program was at Slippery Rock. So I thought the comment somewhat apropos. Cool. Plenz was a swimmer/water polo guy. He be crazy, and so are the wrestlers! That’s some serious endurance! Both more than I was ever good for. Rugby was easy compared to THAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 On 11/6/2019 at 6:14 PM, Irv said: Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools? Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers. I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever. Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years. They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever. Just ask Hunter Biden. The difference is that it's not illegal to pay your way in to a school. It is, however illegal to purchase a fraudulent scholastic record and bribe school officials to accept it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Augie said: Cool. Plenz was a swimmer/water polo guy. He be crazy, and so are the wrestlers! That’s some serious endurance! Both more than I was ever good for. Rugby was easy compared to THAT! I bet my 134# roommate my frosh year he couldn't pin me. He won the 1/2 case in the 1st period. By my sophomore year he had taught me a lot about wrestling. Edited November 8, 2019 by Uncle Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said: I bet my 134# roommate my frosh year he couldn't pin me. He won the 1/2 case in the 1st period. By my sophomore year he had taught me a lot about wrestling. We actually had wrestling in middle school PE. I was pretty darn good at it against the average toad in PE. The most important thing I learned was.....do NOT mess with REAL wrestlers! That is SERIOUS stuff! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 59 minutes ago, Sundancer said: The difference is substantial. Money donated to the school, which money benefits all the students vs. money going to the personal pocket of some admissions person/coach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFia7FhVmuM The ends justifies the means? A substandard student gains entry and the campus gets a new building so everybody is a winner? More like a deserving student gets the shaft because their family did not win life's lottery. That aside the money virtually never falls in a way where all the students benefit. How does the Elizabethan Poetry major benefit from a new wing added to the law school? It's like you have never been on the campus of a major university to hear all the cross talk on undeserving students. It takes more than money to get an undeserving student into a curriculum without the instructors and other students placing that person on a firing line. The record of the undeserving student would have to be cleaned up (lies) to get instructors to work with this student. Are you saying that fabricating a record does not matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: The ends justifies the means? A substandard student gains entry and the campus gets a new building so everybody is a winner? More like a deserving student gets the shaft because their family did not win life's lottery. That aside the money virtually never falls in a way where all the students benefit. How does the Elizabethan Poetry major benefit from a new wing added to the law school? It's like you have never been on the campus of a major university to hear all the cross talk on undeserving students. It takes more than money to get an undeserving student into a curriculum without the instructors and other students placing that person on a firing line. The record of the undeserving student would have to be cleaned up (lies) to get instructors to work with this student. Are you saying that fabricating a record does not matter? t A donation to the school is less money needed to be paid by tuition to secure some benefit. The bribe buys a coach a BMW. This ain't rocket science. One is better and not a crime...And rare. Edited November 8, 2019 by Sundancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 34 minutes ago, Sundancer said: A donation to the school is less money needed to be paid by tuition to secure some benefit. The bribe buys a coach a BMW. This ain't rocket science. One is better and not a crime...And rare. I've never heard of a reduction in tuition because somebody donated a million dollars or two. Now if you want to talk about a scholarship to offset tuition that is a different matter but once again is seldom the case. Usually a donation is made with the intention of buying hard assets such as land, buildings, or equipment. It's sad to see people such as yourself to say it is OK to screw over a deserving student in favor of an undeserving student. In a lot of universities there are only so many spots or chairs as they say so you can't assume they will make extra room for the non-privileged student. As far as rarity goes if accomplishments are near equal you can bet the administrator has a wide latitude to work with in terms of doing a quid pro quo so in that respect it happens more than you think. Just because something is not a crime by statute does not make it ethical or moral. Maybe it should be a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 On 11/6/2019 at 6:14 PM, Irv said: Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools? Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers. I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever. Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years. They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever. Just ask Hunter Biden. Agreed. "Legacy" = affirmative action for rich white folks. At lesser institutions, it's favoring graduates' relatives in hopes of garnering a few thousand dollars in donations. At prestigious institutions, it's giving slots to frequently unqualified candidates who are the children/grandchildren of wealthy, prominent alumni in exchange for millions in donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 9 hours ago, RochesterRob said: I've never heard of a reduction in tuition because somebody donated a million dollars or two. Now if you want to talk about a scholarship to offset tuition that is a different matter but once again is seldom the case. Usually a donation is made with the intention of buying hard assets such as land, buildings, or equipment. It's sad to see people such as yourself to say it is OK to screw over a deserving student in favor of an undeserving student. In a lot of universities there are only so many spots or chairs as they say so you can't assume they will make extra room for the non-privileged student. As far as rarity goes if accomplishments are near equal you can bet the administrator has a wide latitude to work with in terms of doing a quid pro quo so in that respect it happens more than you think. Just because something is not a crime by statute does not make it ethical or moral. Maybe it should be a crime. I didn't say there was a reduction in tuition. Scholarships are often given as the result of donations so it's not "seldom." I never said it's "OK to screw over a deserving student." Colleges are recruiting non-privileged and first generation students like mad right now and if they are qualified, they will get excellent treatment in admissions. Illegal quid pro quo is... illegal? Donations should not be a crime. If you donate a building to a school, that's a boon to generations of students, and if the school (a private institution in most cases) admits a student as thanks to that donor, that admission more than benefits the many other students for years. Setting those issues aside, your post is right on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 10 hours ago, Sundancer said: A donation to the school is less money needed to be paid by tuition to secure some benefit. The bribe buys a coach a BMW. This ain't rocket science. One is better and not a crime...And rare. Alumni contributions seldom actually reduce tuition for all students. The Ivies have monstrous endowments (which are used to provide a reliable revenue stream for operating expenses) and it took an expose by the media about a decade ago to embarrass schools like Harvard and Yale to give almost all students reduced or free tuition. Most contributions to colleges go into endowment and building funds -- often for building Taj Mahal-like sports facilities -- as well as providing inflated salaries for institution administrators, big name professors, and football and basketball coaches. Donations to scholarship funds are the only dollars that are actually earmarked to help students with college costs with the income from those scholarship funds. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SoTier said: Alumni contributions seldom actually reduce tuition for all students. The Ivies have monstrous endowments (which are used to provide a reliable revenue stream for operating expenses) and it took an expose by the media about a decade ago to embarrass schools like Harvard and Yale to give almost all students reduced or free tuition. Most contributions to colleges go into endowment and building funds -- often for building Taj Mahal-like sports facilities -- as well as providing inflated salaries for institution administrators, big name professors, and football and basketball coaches. Donations to scholarship funds are the only dollars that are actually earmarked to help students with college costs with the income from those scholarship funds. Some of this is true and that's why my sentence was written the way it was. Tuitions rose because the government backed student loans. All that extra money, intended to help students who couldn't afford tuition, poured money into the system that resulted in massive tuition increases. Late 70s, and into the 80s to today were an era of massive federal student loan expansion (the bright green in the bars below). The tuition at a school these days is less an amount to be paid, and more the amount that will be paid if you're rich. Colleges get a lot of PR saying they give need-based scholarships in massive amounts but what they really do is have a target tuition (let's say 40K) they have to get in the door, and charge people who can afford it the sticker price of 55K and those who cannot a lesser price of say the 40K they really need for their budget, and can make that 15K difference into a need based "scholarship" that looks like a great effort of good will, but it's really just an inflated number that was reduced. It's a strange system, and the only truth in college financial aid and admissions is that everyone feels screwed. Which is amusing because our university system is the envy of the world as it should be. But we Americans can sure whine about the good life! Edited November 8, 2019 by Sundancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 how much of a total dweeb must the kids be to have to go to this extent? i remember one complete loser and grub at the back of Calculus class, i was hoping at least he was a brain, but he got 4% on the midterm and nobody ever saw him again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 On 11/6/2019 at 5:14 PM, Irv said: Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools? Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers. I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever. Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years. They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever. Just ask Hunter Biden. Everyone knows if the school library is named after your grandfather, or for that matter if your parents and grandparents are alums, you go into another admission pile at an Ivy League. The thing is it's all sub rosa. Actually lying and bribing seems like a different level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Everyone knows if the school library is named after your grandfather, or for that matter if your parents and grandparents are alums, you go into another admission pile at an Ivy League. It's not just Ivy League. They are only a handful of schools. All private schools do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Sundancer said: It's not just Ivy League. They are only a handful of schools. All private schools do this. Well, no. Not ALL. But to your point, most of them do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Sundancer said: It's not just Ivy League. They are only a handful of schools. All private schools do this. they have to do this to survive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 3 hours ago, Sundancer said: Some of this is true and that's why my sentence was written the way it was. Tuitions rose because the government backed student loans. All that extra money, intended to help students who couldn't afford tuition, poured money into the system that resulted in massive tuition increases. Late 70s, and into the 80s to today were an era of massive federal student loan expansion (the bright green in the bars below). The tuition at a school these days is less an amount to be paid, and more the amount that will be paid if you're rich. Colleges get a lot of PR saying they give need-based scholarships in massive amounts but what they really do is have a target tuition (let's say 40K) they have to get in the door, and charge people who can afford it the sticker price of 55K and those who cannot a lesser price of say the 40K they really need for their budget, and can make that 15K difference into a need based "scholarship" that looks like a great effort of good will, but it's really just an inflated number that was reduced. It's a strange system, and the only truth in college financial aid and admissions is that everyone feels screwed. Which is amusing because our university system is the envy of the world as it should be. But we Americans can sure whine about the good life! That's a very partisan and elitist statement -- and it's untrue. Maybe it's not where you're coming from, but most of the proponents of this view are the same people who advocate subsidizing private elementary and secondary education via vouchers; are always worried about "unqualified" people color being admitted to prestigious educational institutions while being just fine with "unqualified" children of alumni taking spots at competitive colleges, etc; and who actively promote the idea that college degrees are unnecessary when, in fact, statistical data shows just the opposite. The rise in the cost of tuition coincides with the decline of government support for higher education, especially on the state level with aid to public colleges and universities; with the rampant inflation of the 1970s and 1980s which raised costs for all organizations and businesses; with the unionization of collegiate faculties which raised the wages of teaching and research staff; and finally, a massive increase in demand, especially for prestigious schools. Except for the issue of government support, these same factors have resulted in massive tuition increases in private elementary and secondary schools where government backed loans have never existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SoTier said: That's a very partisan and elitist statement -- and it's untrue. Maybe it's not where you're coming from, but most of the proponents of this view are the same people who advocate subsidizing private elementary and secondary education via vouchers; are always worried about "unqualified" people color being admitted to prestigious educational institutions while being just fine with "unqualified" children of alumni taking spots at competitive colleges, etc; and who actively promote the idea that college degrees are unnecessary when, in fact, statistical data shows just the opposite. The rise in the cost of tuition coincides with the decline of government support for higher education, especially on the state level with aid to public colleges and universities; with the rampant inflation of the 1970s and 1980s which raised costs for all organizations and businesses; with the unionization of collegiate faculties which raised the wages of teaching and research staff; and finally, a massive increase in demand, especially for prestigious schools. Except for the issue of government support, these same factors have resulted in massive tuition increases in private elementary and secondary schools where government backed loans have never existed. Inflation does explain the rise in college tuition except in very small part: With more money in the form of loans, colleges found themselves flush with cash. What they didn't do with all that money was keep tuitions steady and build only necessary buildings for education. They built tons of new buildings in the university arms race to get more students, hired lots of administrators, and raised salaries. They did what most people (and government officials) do when they get more money. They spent the new money. Weeeeeee! Then because they had more bills, they, wait for it, raised tuition. And started a cycle. Government funding flooding the university system wasn't the only factor in rising tuition but there's hardly an economist who's looked at this problem that doesn't identify it as the prime one. Edited November 8, 2019 by Sundancer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimothyLyall Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) These disputes will go on forever, there have always been scandals at college, so you can take it for granted. Also, after entering college, students have problems with writing an essay, you can do your essay on this page, I think it will help you at the beginning of the school year. Hope this will be helpful. Edited November 13, 2019 by TimothyLyall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 29 minutes ago, TimothyLyall said: These disputes will continue forever, there were always scandals when entering college, so you can take it as given. Hollywood folk manipulating to this extent is kind of novel shows they are the bottom of the barrel in Nouveau Riche rankings.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, row_33 said: Hollywood folk manipulating to this extent is kind of novel shows they are the bottom of the barrel in Nouveau Riche rankings.... I don't think it's novel or new, I think it's just that it's the first time it's been really caught and prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 UC system considering eliminating the SAT, which many schools have done, but with the student numbers it accepts, that would be a shockwave to the standardized test business. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-02/uc-sat-test-optional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 3 hours ago, apuszczalowski said: I don't think it's novel or new, I think it's just that it's the first time it's been really caught and prosecuted. i don't recall the 60s and 70s generation actors having kids that needed a boost to get into Princeton the problem is their $$$ and their name wasn't enough for today, they had to go and manipulate documents and outright lie.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, row_33 said: i don't recall the 60s and 70s generation actors having kids that needed a boost to get into Princeton the problem is their $$$ and their name wasn't enough for today, they had to go and manipulate documents and outright lie.... It's because resources are fewer and competition steep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 7:08 PM, RochesterRob said: Interesting read but I would say that most potential applicants do not have close to the means that Shaw has. I would guess that in most cases the family more or less has a one time shot which means they insist on a quid pro quo. Even then it is not a slam dunk even if the potential applicant's history is white-washed. While admissions is no doubt prone to some leaning on by upper administration faculty often has a considerable say which I saw as a student being accepted into Cornell. Even if the heavy hand of the dean or president prevails the student is very vulnerable once in as he will be in the crosshairs of a number of instructors and fellow students. It would not surprise me that many students who had their family buy their way in wash out after a year. My advisor on his best day was a miserable prick but would not screw anybody over that he though had merit. Somebody that he thought did not deserve a "chair" would receive his undying resentment any way he could dish it out. I give credit to my advisor for finding elective courses that enhanced my GPA. They dont have Shaw's means. But Shaw absolutely bribed the colleges in a similar fashion. I had no advisor so I had to find the electives myself or through my fraternity brothers knowledge to enhance that GPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, bills_fan said: They dont have Shaw's means. But Shaw absolutely bribed the colleges in a similar fashion. I had no advisor so I had to find the electives myself or through my fraternity brothers knowledge to enhance that GPA. I had an advisor every semester I was at a major college. Cornell was and is too big to have any one person (non-faculty) to have a sizable handle on what is out there for courses. I took (intro to) meteorology for my physical sciences elective at the recommendation of my advisor. It is something I would have never thought of on my own to take. I could have taken a university physics course but then would have had the issue of competing with people who ultimately be at the top of the field when they got into their careers. I was asked to pledge a frat but declined in large part due to the increase in room and board I would have to pay. As it was by a miracle I was getting a reduced rate at a university residence that was less than a third of what regular dorms, Greeks, and off campus apartments were getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 On 11/12/2019 at 4:47 PM, row_33 said: i don't recall the 60s and 70s generation actors having kids that needed a boost to get into Princeton the problem is their $$$ and their name wasn't enough for today, they had to go and manipulate documents and outright lie.... That's because you didn't hear so much about the personally lives of the people in Hollywood that you do now. Today you could look up and find out almost any personal detail of a celebrity family on TMZ. There's more money and more people today making it harder to get in. Back then there weren't as many celebrities and rich people like today where every can be considered a celebrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 47 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said: That's because you didn't hear so much about the personally lives of the people in Hollywood that you do now. Today you could look up and find out almost any personal detail of a celebrity family on TMZ. There's more money and more people today making it harder to get in. Back then there weren't as many celebrities and rich people like today where every can be considered a celebrity. did their kids want a fake admission into Stanford or Harvard back then? the status of celebrity "back then" was a million times more public and binding than today.... i have no knowledge of more than 4 or 5 movie stars today, i can name you 100s from the old days..... i have no knowledge of more than 2 pop music acts today, i can name you 100s from the old days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 Just because you can't name many, doesn't mean there aren't more, might just mean you don't follow Hollywood today. With social media and tabloids like TMZ today, you hear about and find out way more detail on celebrities today, and way more people are being considered celebrities today then before because there's way more media for them to become celebrities compared to the 60s and 70s. Back then it was much easier to cheat the system and cover thing up compared to today where everything is documented and digital, records can be accessed from anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundancer Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 4 hours ago, row_33 said: i have no knowledge of more than 4 or 5 movie stars today, i can name you 100s from the old days..... because you're old 4 hours ago, row_33 said: i have no knowledge of more than 2 pop music acts today, i can name you 100s from the old days... see above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 On 11/6/2019 at 10:33 PM, row_33 said: And the GI Bill after WW2 opened up the top schools in a way that would never be dreamed of again for people who never had a chance otherwise those are people whom the school deemed would make a positive contribution by means other than academic. Ken Lay had to get his start somewhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/5/2020 at 12:46 AM, Hedge said: Hope it goes better for her than the college admissions expert she hired. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 On 1/5/2020 at 12:46 AM, Hedge said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) Does she get a discount for only needing enough 'training' to get through a week behind bars for a multi year sentence? Hopefully her husband and kids didn't pay anyone extra to forge some records and get her into this training over someone more deserving....... Edited January 7, 2020 by apuszczalowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Couldn’t she just stream ‘Orange is the New Black’? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) Do forgive me but I didn't read the entire thread. The premise of this thing is bogus imo. The person who was "bribed" was NOT a public servant. I don't know the federal law but in NY, only a public servant can be guilty of bribe receiving. It would appear that the people involved would have the resources to take this to the Supreme Court and would win by perhaps even a 9-0 decision. If not, will bartenders be arrested for getting bigger tips for faster service? Or a maître d in a restaurant for providing a better table? Jmo but I think that the govt. will either drop or lose this case. Edit: Of course the person who received the money should be fired. Edited January 7, 2020 by Bill from NYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 19 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said: Do forgive me but I didn't read the entire thread. The premise of this thing is bogus imo. The person who was "bribed" was NOT a public servant. I don't know the federal law but in NY, only a public servant can be guilty of bribe receiving. It would appear that the people involved would have the resources to take this to the Supreme Court and would win by perhaps even a 9-0 decision. If not, will bartenders be arrested for getting bigger tips for faster service? Or a maître d in a restaurant for providing a better table? Jmo but I think that the govt. will either drop or lose this case. Edit: Of course the person who received the money should be fired. The difference between this and the bartender example is here the parties exchanging money were conspiring to defraud a 3d party (the school). But no question the people who should receive the longest prison sentences are the coaches or whoever at the university were accepting the money and those who took payments to subvert the integrity of the SATs. Hopefully that's happening, but that doesn't generate public interest like the former hottie from Full House. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts