And did so by saying she was a soccer recruit for one of the top programs in the nation, she was part of a top 5 recruiting class. What a disgrace.
"Oh she scored 200 goals with her club team but we never saw her on any recruiting websites? Let's give her the #10 jersey!" Surprisingly the young lady went along with the ruse. Imagine being on the field with national team members from the US & Canada. Jeebus.
The hardest thing to understand from this whole scandal is why didn't the rich kids just game the college admissions process the way many wealthy Americans already do? (tutors, SAT prep programs, great prep schools, etc) it's not like these kids were too busy working 30 hours a week at Burger King and spending an hour on the school bus everyday... I mean that's already an incredible advantage over the majority of kids in America. Just use your wealth to gain advantage that isnt available to everyone, but also isnt illegal. All you have to do is actually try.... That's what makes it even more infuriating. Either these kids were 1) lazy 2) stupid 3) or just not meant for Univeristy at the age of 18.
It is a "disgrace," but ranks about 15,700 on the current disgrace scale (which is horrifying, of course). Also, they could have easily confirmed her credentials prior to admitting her. Perhaps, checking if she was from one of the top programs in the nation. Maybe, a "try out" or even just a "work out" prior to signing. UCLA is completely complicit and their response is total crap. "UCLA did not return requests for comment but appeared to defend Lauren’s role on the team in a statement to the LA Times, saying its teams consisted of 'student-athletes with varying levels of athletic achievements.'” “'Some team members are on the roster for the purposes of preparing the team for competition and may not play in games,' a spokesman told the paper, saying he couldn’t comment on specific students."
The thing is that getting into a lot of these schools is pretty difficult as is, even for smart kids from backgrounds in which they can afford all of this stuff. I know a kid who is applying to colleges this year who did not get into University of Virginia, but got into the University of Pennsylvania. His dream school was UVA. It sucks, he found out the news about both schools on the same day and was dejected despite getting into an ivy league school. There are a lot of parents that despite having these advantages, would be willing to pay even more for a guarantee. On one hand, I feel bad for these parents because they did not have enough money to do this the "legal" way no one apparently cares about. On the other hand, some of these kids had no business going to these colleges in the first place. Those kids were not in the "sorry, but we only can accept so many", but rather were in the "No, but thanks for paying the application fee" pile. As someone who went to college in the last 12 years, the greatest advantage one has in getting into some of the more elite universities is going to the right prep school where yearly tuition is often comparable to that of attending a private college. In the DC area, these are schools like Georgetown Prep, Maret, St Albans, Gonzaga, St. Johns, Sidwell Friends, etc where tuition alone is 30k to 60k a year.
Penn's reputation is really taking a hit these days. I can't imagine why? I would like to see Penn relegated out of the Ivy League for what they've done and let Vassar take their spot.
Next time you see a Penn grad, rag them about Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky. Trust me, the HATE that, even more than the connection to Trump.
My cousin remains convinced that I attended Penn State. It has been more than 30 years now, and there's nothing I can do to change her mind.
I'm only posting that because it has popped in my news feed a couple of times: Millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and this couple feels “average” because they only make $500,000. These privileged a**holes can F*CK right off.🖕 https://t.co/AP1UZUclbC— Power to the People ☭🕊 (@ProudSocialist) March 26, 2019 Here is the full article: https://www.financialsamurai.com/scraping-by-on-500000-a-year-high-income-earners-struggling/
For every person who actually is struggling in this country, there's at least one (if not more) who are doing just fine in the grand scheme of things, but pout.
Yeah, like back in the '80s, I worked for one of Sheldon Adelson's companies. They used to give out year-end bonuses of ~$250 to employees. Not huge, but certainly appreciated. One year they didn't and he gave the old "we all need to tighten our belts" speech. Then in January, he bought himself a brand-new, powder blue Rolls Royce. By the 4th day, someone smashed a jar of paint thinner over the hood. Swear to God it wasn't me!
And since we are talking about a $1.5mil house being average... https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019...s-poverty-desmond-inequality-research/585265/ Ultimately, they find consistent evidence that the poor, and especially the minority poor, experience the highest rates of housing exploitation. In their most basic formulations, they find that renters in high-poverty neighborhoods experience levels of exploitation that are more than double those of renters in neighborhoods with lower levels of poverty. Neighborhoods with a poverty rate of less than 15 percent have an exploitation rate of 10 percent—meaning that rents cover 10 percent of the actual cost of that housing. (In other words, the actual cost of that rental housing can be paid off in 10 years.) But in high-poverty neighborhoods, those where 50 to 60 percent of residents live in poverty, the exploitation rate is 25 percent, meaning that 25 percent of the value of the property is paid back in a single year of rent. ... Nationally, landlords in poor neighborhoods derive a median profit of $298 monthly, compared with $225 in middle-class neighborhoods and $250 in affluent ones. In Milwaukee, the profit differential is even greater, with landlords in poor neighborhoods raking in $319 per month, more than double the profit ($174 per month) of landlords with properties in non-poor neighborhoods.
Holy crap. Do you know what this means? The Republicans are social engineering a Flyoverlandia repopulation effort through "tax reform." Well you'll take my coastline when you pry it from my wet sandy toes, motherf'ers! Is there any wonder why investing in the Heartland of America is becoming a more popular move by savvy investors? The Heartland is being rewarded and protected by the government. Further, property valuations are much cheaper and net interest yields are much higher. With technology and telecommuting in this strong economy, more people are migrating to lower cost of areas.
Houses in poor areas are cheap, in wealthy areas they are more expensive. But shit, paying off a mortgage in 4 years or even 10 years, those are some high rents or some low house prices. I assume the study excluded interest payments, depending on the rate that can add 75% or so to the price of a house (if no or low down payment). If the study is correct, it means that people should be able to live at home with their parents (if rent free) save for 4 years, then buy straight Cash a property in a poor neighborhood.
I haven't read that particular study, but poor people tend to pay a greater share of their income on housing - the target is 30% IIRC. In Milwaukee, specifically, as of a couple of years ago, those in poor neighborhoods were paying, on average, over 50%, and it was not unusual to find people paying 70% to 80%. I don't know if that included non-housing support like food stamps, but it did include housing support like Section 8. Currently, this is a knock on symptom of the housing bubble. Prices substantially increased (I looked at some data and some specific properties) between ~2000 and 2007, but did not substantially drop between 2007 and 2017 - they were pretty flat and even rose a bit. Beyond that, there are a lot of people who live in the suburbs but own rental properties in the city. While I don't know the specifics, I would not be surprised to find out that those who bought rental properties in the mid 2000s to have that as their income in the late 2000s, thus needing to keep rents high. IOW, the middle class surviving on the backs of the poor. Mind, another issue that I have encountered is out-of-state money coming into Milwaukee, specifically, but other places as well. I bumped into a guy who finds property for out-of-state investors, and he said he was getting a lot of business from California. I checked elsewhere and that was not unusual. This out-of-state money leads to a higher rent because people want to make money on their investments, and unlike the suburbs, the ROI is via rent, not property valuation (as mentioned in the article). I'm not sure how you are looking at this, but it reads as if you are looking at this from the investing class, not the renting class. Unless someone is conscientious, the investing class is going to want to make as much money as possible, which in this case, is on the backs of the poor. The points I am making is that those who are renting are being ********ed, and they have a very difficult time getting un********ed. That is a problem.
Nah, I was thinking that the study probably did not use averages, but picked some examples where the cases are pretty bad. for example I mean, if your rent in 4 years is enough to buy the place you live on, then the place is very cheap to buy. Maybe we need a program that can identify those situations and buy out those types of homes and start a rent to own program. Here are some of the cheapest available places in Chicago https://www.apartmenthomeliving.com/chicago-il/apartments-for-rent/cheap 2+ beds for about 750 to 800. 800 * 12months * 4 years = 38,400 (ignores rent inflation, so maybe 40K-42K). For the investor class, a 40-45K 2+ bed house or apartment for sale would be an very good deal. Now the conditions and/or location of such places are probably not attractive to anyone that has 40K+ in cash to invest. Living in cities is very expensive, but cities have good public transit to move around for poor people with out cars (at least East of the Mississippi). Living outside cities (far away in many cases) is much cheaper, but getting around with out private vehicles is very expensive/time consuming.
An apt renting for $800 won't sell for $40k. At least double, I would tink. Even $80k implies a 12% cash return (before taxes and expenses) on the investment. The house next to me is renting for an annual 7% to 8% of its sale value.