Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I started a thread about the college tuition scandal and somehow it was locked. What's up with that?
Yeah, was it how bad were they academically, or was it how bad were they as persons?The question should be how bad were these students that a 500k donation couldn't get them in so they had to resort to a 500k bribe
The answer is--- very, very bad. Did you not see the comments made by that one actresses twunt kid?Students. Its no secret that rich people buy their marginal student children spots into elite universities through either alumni or non-alumni donations. So they can put them in fancy prep schools, pay for coaches, tutors, SAT prep courses and for most that is enough to get into school. Some need that extra little push so they open up the check book and donate a few hundred thousand to the general development fund and that gets them in. So how bad do they have to be that you have to fake that they are a student athlete and bribe a coach so they can get into school.
From the post's point of view, it just made the big leagues. But cheap-seats guys like me see it as a stolen post.I have no idea. It looks like it was moved to the premium board for whatever reason. I didn't touch it. I guess one of the other mods moved it.
Does that mean I should start charging premium for idea theft?I have no idea. It looks like it was moved to the premium board for whatever reason. I didn't touch it. I guess one of the other mods moved it.
uWTH is going on? $100K to the tennis coach? UT is a great school but ---- $100K compounded at 10%/year for 40 years = $5 million!!! The kid should've taken the money and gone to El Centro Community College!
Does that mean I should start charging premium for idea theft?
and all moderators other than LonghornMM
"I heard Shaka was taking bribes too....... Wink wink"
Allegedly, the women's tennis coach took a bribe. This is possible because of Title IX. During Bill Clinton's term, Hillary wanted to reinforce Title IX. The test case was Brown. Brown had a policy of helping any students who wanted to organize a team. When you let boys and girls decide to play sports, more boys participate. Brown was informed that unless they achieved numerical equality, all federal funding would end. This eliminated all men's non revenue sports and created new women's teams in soccer, rowing, rugby, lacrosse, etc. No one actually watches women's sports, so I think it's easy for a coach to take a bribe, then quietly let the "athlete" leave the team. Who's gonna notice?
I teach an education policy class. We cover this case. I'm sorry but what you stated just factually incorrect on so many levels. Brown is in the Ivy leagues. They are non scholarship and there are no revenue sports. They all lose money and are supported through donations and student fees. In 91 Brown tried to eliminate volleyball and gymnastics. A lawsuit was filed almost a year and a half before Clinton took office. It worked its way through the federal courts and the supreme court refused to hear the case in 1997. Brown restored funding to volleyball and gymnastics, and elevated water polo and crew to varsity level. That resulted in 0 additional scholarships because all sports are non scholarship. They didn't cut any men's sports. In 2011 the proposed cutting a 2 men's sports and 2 women's sports but those.
Hold up---- so Title IX does not apply to any private entity (Brown) that does not take government money in any form?
Gotcha.Brown receives federal funds so title IX applies to them. That case wasn't about funding it was about proportionality. Women made up 52% of the student body but only 38% of the athletes. The settlement was that they had to try and get slots for women to 48.5% without cutting mens teams
Yes. Brown's policy of allowing students to choose to participate or not on their own produced "disproportionate" results because men are more interested in sports than women. We all know that men's minor sports were destroyed.Brown receives federal funds so title IX applies to them. That case wasn't about funding it was about proportionality. Women made up 52% of the student body but only 38% of the athletes. The settlement was that they had to try and get slots for women to 48.5% without cutting mens teams