| Author | Post |
|---|
Canadian
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
| Much luck wished!
|
Canadian
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31st, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
| and I just checked.....your D has some GREAT options. Looking forward to hearing what she decides.
|
revkat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 12:02 am |
|
| One last vent about the counseling department at D's school. (The one that had to reprint her letter of recommendation 3 times to get the name of her EA school out of it.) Today two of the counselors (it's a huge school with 8 counselors) were put on administrative leave. Why? Because they altered their own children's transcripts for Stanford applications. They were caught because all the mid-year reports printed out without + or - on the grades so they were all automatically resent by clerical staff. Wow. I'm pretty blown away by the audacity. And their kids were not the ones the other kids would have thought even had a chance at Stanford. So no one from the school got in this year (wonder why?) and they've burned the reputation at Stanford for years to come. Wow. Just wow.
|
Canadian
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 12:19 am |
|
| UN-effing-real!!!
|
Descartes
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 03:13 am |
|
Just saw the movie "The Other Bolelyn Girl" and I must say this is a scandal worthy of the Tudor Court (if the Tudor Court had had children applying to college)!
Really, good information security should prevent this kind of thing, or at least make it detectable to an auditor.
|
Canadian
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 04:15 am |
|
| Just think of what their kids are learning........no college is worth that.
|
revkat
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 04:47 am |
|
I'm pretty sure they don't have the best information security. The question around the school now is "did the daughters know?". My daughter informed me that if I had tried something like that she would disown me! And the plot thickens a bit, these two girls were selected last spring for a state summer program. Those who do the selecting? The counseling staff. When another parent protested she was told that all the teachers were surveyed. Funny thing, the teachers this other child had didn't remember ever getting anything about it. . .
My D didn't apply to Stanford (and her activities/classes haven't overlapped with these girls), but I can imagine how parents of kids who did are feeling. Wonder what these counselors wrote on the recommendations for other kids? I am hoping the school administration has enough integrity to contact the other colleges these kids applied to and send them the accurate transcripts.
|
Descartes
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 05:03 am |
|
Are other schools to which the girls might have applied being contacted, too? I would guess they would be shut-out.
This also would seem to be a criminal offense: falsifying public records. Anybody bringing that up?
|
outwest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | CA |
| Posts: | 646 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 07:04 am |
|
Wow, that's unbelievable. There is always some drama or another around here, but your drama is really shocking.
Peabody, my D was waitlisted at two of her top choices, too. Yours has wonderful options and so does mine. They'll be fine. 
Last edited on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 07:32 am by outwest
|
Consolation
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 502 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 12:02 pm |
|
revkat wrote: Today two of the counselors (it's a huge school with 8 counselors) were put on administrative leave. Why? Because they altered their own children's transcripts for Stanford applications.
Holy Cow!
That is unbelievable!! The other revelations about their kids getting into summer programs are also astounding.
I wonder if these "counselors" attempted to sabotage the recommendations of other kids applying to the same schools as their kids...it would seem that ALL of their work should be reviewed carefully.
Wow. Now I think I've heard everything. It's up there with the Texas Cheerleader Mama. Or perhaps more accurately, it's like an episode of Veronica Mars!
Last edited on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 01:06 pm by Consolation
|
kdmom
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 02:07 pm |
|
Wow!
You know how surgeons don't usually operate on their own family members? Well, maybe guidance counselors shouldn't be allowed to handle transcripts and recommendations for their own kids. (I'm sure the vast majority of counselors wouldn't dream of tampering, but it wouldn't be an unreasonable policy.)
|
ellenrch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
That's so scary. It makes the run-of-the-mill disorganization in our school seem like nothing.
|
Deja
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 204 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 02:24 pm |
|
This is incredible.
Remember the transcript-alteration tale on CC (the OP didn't know what to do about his friend's son explaining to OP how he altered his transcript)?
You should post about this on CC. It would be interesting to see what the responses are.
How embarrassing to be the daughters of these guidance counselors! Now anything that either of these girls ever got at the high school is suspect. Of course now I'm also wondering if the GCs bullied teachers to give these two girls better grades than they should have (always a question if a administrator's or teacher's own children go to the same school where the parent works). And here at least GCs are considered administrators.
In my own school system, I've always suspected that teachers'/administrators' kids get special consideration for things, including gifted identification. There must be a reason why names are left on applications, after all...
|
orangesulfur
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
Wow, that must be a criminal offense. I am so sorry for all the students at the school who will suffer from the wrongdoing of these folks. Terrible.
|
peabodie
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 11:31 am |
|
rookie question here:
for the May 1 decision/deposit deadline, is that a "postmarked by" date or a "received by" date?
I know getting it in earlier can help with housing options, but because of re-visits, D is probably going to go down to the wire on this decision.
|
Descartes
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 12:51 pm |
|
Amateur answer: postmarked by.
But please don't rely on me. Wait for someone more authoritative to respond. Or better, call the admissions offices themselves to verify.
|
peabodie
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 01:43 pm |
|
after searching through the mounds of paperwork and the websites and finding many vague May 1 references, I finally found the answer: it is "postmarked by"
|
moewb
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 27 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
Having read all these crazy admissions/waitlists/deferral sagas, does Carolyn have any sage advice for the parents of 2009?
Every time I read these posts, I become progressively more nervous for DS1 - convinced that his reaches are less likely than my winning powerball (now, that would help with tuition), his match schools are shots in the dark at a target thousands of feet away, and his safety schools are anything but.
I absolutely do not want to encourage MORE applications - but almost feel that I must now do so.
Thoughts?
|
jocelynDAD
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 03:20 pm |
|
Peabodie:
IN 2006 on May 2nd (a Monday), I was sitting in Carleton's Admission Office as they fielded phone call after phone call inquiring about "postmarked date" or "receipt date".
Universally they were told 'postmarked date', but cautioned that since they were very close to their desired yield (number of accepted students) that any acceptances mailed after May 2nd (due to May 1st being a Sunday) would most likely not be admitted to the class of 2009.
|
Descartes
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 03:58 am |
|
| OK, revkat, we're all waiting an update on the Stanford Transcript Scandal. Any news?
|
Current time is 03:34 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
