Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

If found guilty, I wonder if the Academy will rescind Felicity Huffman's membership? (They should).

This reminds me of what might be a very controversial view of mine. I think local control of education is a mistake and the responsibility of the public-school system should be moved from state and local government to the Federal Government.

Thank you, Sonic, for clarifying.

I don't know these kids, so I don't know if they are lazy and dumb so I'll take that back for now. The disability thing, though, really bothers me.

I have a nephew, who'll be 28 in May. He, like his younger siblings, now 26 and 22, was a straight A student, but unlike either of them, had/has a very real disability that required him to be allowed to take extra time to complete his SATs a decade ago. He was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a severe congenital heart defect that required a series of operations during which he stopped breathing several times that created all kinds of mental and physical problems including a chronic case of OCD (chronic obsessive disorder) which causes him to take longer to do things. Think Monk, which is unsurprisingly his favorite TV show.

Knowing the struggles he went through to get into college and eventually graduate with honors in two majors in science and math, hearing about this kind of a charade really pisses me off. It's shameful beyond words.

Mister Tee wrote: To me, this says you've normalized what the super-wealthy do simply because it's been going on so long.

I say, bribes is bribes is bribes.

One of the things Huffman (and probably others) are accused of is falsely claiming disability for their daughter in order to take advantage of favorable testing conditions. I would not agree that bribes is bribes in this case. Whatever you may think about the advantaged wealthy or super-wealthy, this really is a brand of disgusting all on its own.

Big Magilla wrote:

OscarGuy wrote:If colleges really wanted to stymie this kind of thing, which they don't, they could just say that anyone who donates over X amount will have their children barred admission.

That, said, they won't. However, not all folk who build buildings do so to get their kids into the school. My alma mater has had several generous donors who aren't likely to want to get their kid into Missouri State University by buying buildings.

However, my biggest question is how does a $15,000 donation to the school different from donating a building (which is really just a monetary donation to have the building built)? It's the same thing, just with a different name on it.

It's not that they're donating money to the school. They're paying someone to take admission tests for their lazy, dumb kids who couldn't cut the mustard on their own. The donation is a coverup for/in addition to the bribe.

To go into further detail, the $15,000 went to a fake preparatory program to arrange for a fake proctor to oversee her SATs, to arrange for her to take the tests offsite with no other students or teachers around, to arrange for extra test time - claiming "disability" and actually fighting the school to get these accommodations - and to ensure a guarantee that she'd receive a score of 1450 or more. The $15,000 went straight to the program that arranged all this, and it was disguised as a non-profit org to help "disadvantaged youth", so Huffman and all the other parents also received a very nice tax deduction. Other students had false athletic credentials drawn up and other things like that, but the Huffman allegations are really a special brand of disgusting.

In fact, I don't think any of the money in question went to paying off schools at all. This was money spent in order to fake test scores and credentials so they could get into these schools. The schools don't seem to have benefited at all, although some people (athletic coaches) affiliated with these schools may have personally benefited. There really is no comparison between donating a building and what is alleged here, other than wealth being the prime motivator. One is tit-for-tat nepotism, the other is very similar to something our good friend Akash did years ago to get into Colombia or Yale (I forget which). Give A. credit, at least he took the initiative to do the dirty work on his own.

I will withhold judgement as to whether their kids were lazy and dumb. They are, however, victims of their parents misdeeds and probably blameless. And for all we know they probably could cut the mustard very capably, just not necessarily at an elite university. I mean, come on, is someone lazy and dumb if they score less than 1450 on the SATs?

OscarGuy wrote:If colleges really wanted to stymie this kind of thing, which they don't, they could just say that anyone who donates over X amount will have their children barred admission.

That, said, they won't. However, not all folk who build buildings do so to get their kids into the school. My alma mater has had several generous donors who aren't likely to want to get their kid into Missouri State University by buying buildings.

However, my biggest question is how does a $15,000 donation to the school different from donating a building (which is really just a monetary donation to have the building built)? It's the same thing, just with a different name on it.

It's not that they're donating money to the school. They're paying someone to take admission tests for their lazy, dumb kids who couldn't cut the mustard on their own. The donation is a coverup for/in addition to the bribe.

Mister Tee wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:To me, this says you've normalized what the super-wealthy do simply because it's been going on so long.

I say, bribes is bribes is bribes.

Then lock 'em all up. Take the names off the hospital wings and whatever else donated names adorn if you want to make it an even playing field.

If colleges really wanted to stymie this kind of thing, which they don't, they could just say that anyone who donates over X amount will have their children barred admission.

That, said, they won't. However, not all folk who build buildings do so to get their kids into the school. My alma mater has had several generous donors who aren't likely to want to get their kid into Missouri State University by buying buildings.

However, my biggest question is how does a $15,000 donation to the school different from donating a building (which is really just a monetary donation to have the building built)? It's the same thing, just with a different name on it.

Big Magilla wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:I took it to mean that this is underhanded as opposed to donating a building which there for everyone to see.

Isn't that a bit like saying Trump can't be committing treason because he's doing it so openly?

Not really. The rich and powerful buying favor has always been taken for granted. Donating buildings and other things did have benefit for others, unlike stealing a placement in a university that disenfranchised a more deserving candidate.

To me, this says you've normalized what the super-wealthy do simply because it's been going on so long.

I say, bribes is bribes is bribes.

Mister Tee wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:I took it to mean that this is underhanded as opposed to donating a building which there for everyone to see.

Isn't that a bit like saying Trump can't be committing treason because he's doing it so openly?

Not really. The rich and powerful buying favor has always been taken for granted. Donating buildings and other things did have benefit for others, unlike stealing a placement in a university that disenfranchised a more deserving candidate.

Treason, though, that's another story. It wasn't that long ago that they still executed people for treason. The Rosenbergs were executed on June 19, 1953.

I'm not saying Trump, his sons, daughter and son-in-law and various associates should be executed, but I would love to see them departed to Russia. I'm sure Putin could find homes for them in Siberia.

Big Magilla wrote:I took it to mean that this is underhanded as opposed to donating a building which there for everyone to see.

Isn't that a bit like saying Trump can't be committing treason because he's doing it so openly?

If we're lucky, this could lead to a major look at how skewed college admissions are to the wealthy in this country as a whole, but more likely we'll stick to the juicy celebrity scandal. And how unlucky is Felicity?: for once in her life, she's the biggest name on a list -- and all it does is ensure she's the face of a tabloid scandal.

I took it to mean that this is underhanded as opposed to donating a building which there for everyone to see.

Huffman has been arrested. A warrant has been issued for Lori Loughlin who is out of the country and told to turn herself in.

Huffman's "contribution" was $15,000. Laughlin and her husband were ready to belly-up $500,000. Those Hallmark Mystery movies she's been making must be really lucrative.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fe ... spartanntp

Tell me I'm wrong: this is a case of the middling/nouveau affluent clumsily doing what the long-time super-rich have been doing without interference for centuries.

Not to diminish the wrongness and criminality of what was done here. But it stuck in my craw to hear the guy making the charges say "This is not like donating a building" -- as if THAT is a perfectly acceptable way of gaming the system.

Another article also mentions "Huffman's husband" who would be Oscar nominated William H. Macy:

"They allege that Huffman and her husband "made a purported charitable contribution of $15,000...to participate in the college entrance exam cheating scheme on behalf of her eldest daughter. Huffman later made arrangements to pursue the scheme a second time, for her younger daughter, before deciding not to do so."

Federal agents say they have recorded telephone calls with Huffman and a cooperating witness."

The Oscar nominated actress is among those charged in a $25 million college entrance exam cheating scheme:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fe ... s_20190312