Learning lessons about college admissions

I suppose the question comes down to this: who is stupider, the offspring of Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, and others who couldn’t get into college without their parents spending (collectively) millions of dollars on bribes, or the parents who got caught spending millions just to get their kids into a college they weren’t qualified to get into?

This reminds me of a Chinese kung-fu movie whose name I don’t know, but the plot dealt with a young man whose family was killed by outlaws and he wanted to learn kung-fu to extract revenge.  The problem was that he failed the test to get into the local kung-fu school, so he had no way of learning martial arts.  He then concocted a brilliant idea—he would get into the school by applying for a position as a teacher at the school, and once he was inside, he could learn kung-fun and revenge his family.  Of course, the problem is, if he isn’t good enough to get in as a student, how could he get in as a teacher?

If Lori Loughlin’s kid couldn't get into USC by way of her academic credentials (credentials that could only be burnished by having a rich parent who could pay for private schools), then how would she do well there once she got in via being on the crew team?  If you aren’t smart enough to get into a college but you are admitted anyway, you’ll spend four years surrounded by classmates who are smarter than you because they did get in legitimately.  Maybe you’ll graduate with what used to be called “a gentleman’s C” (I’m not sure what it would be called in tis “MeToo” era) but your GPA won’t make the Dean’s list.

Of course, I’m applying logic to the situation.  From what I understand from perusing various articles in the general media, no one involved thought the college admissions process was logical.  Wealthy, famous people had kids who couldn’t get into prestigious schools, so OBVIOUSLY the selection process was biased (it never occurred to these people that it was biased in favor of intelligent people).  A huckster convinced rich idiots that, to get into college, your kid doesn’t have to be smart; your kid needs a “brand” that will impress admissions offices.  I’m a little unclear on how paying off coaches to say your kids are on crew team helps their “brand,” but then I got into an Ivy League law school by doing awesome on my LSAT.

Prestigious schools are prestigious because they can be selective; they can be selective because they attract a large number of applications because they are prestigious.  It’s a “chicken and egg” situation. 

One of the consequences of the scandal is that now there is a lawsuit for $500 billion by someone who claims their kid was kept out of a “good” school because of all the corruption.  One source said that the plaintiff’s child ended up at UC Davis, which was on Money’s list of the 20 Best Colleges in America.  Of course, as was pointed out in the movie Lady Bird, who wants to go to a college known for its veterinary department?

The most ridiculous aspect of all this is that most studies agree that going to a prestigious college does NOT increase a young person’s chances for success.  Extensive research has shown that where your kid goes to college doesn’t have much, if any, impact on subsequent success in life or business.  People who go to prestigious schools succeed because they are smart enough to get into a prestigious school legitimately, and if these types of students opt to go to a non-prestigious school (for financial or geographic reasons), they tend to succeed anyway because of their inherent qualities, not the quality of their education.

But the point of the offspring of famous, wealthy people getting into a prestigious college is not to succeed later in life, but to be seen as being a prestigious student.  In a way, it’s like buying military medals on e-Bay and then wearing them to show how brave you are; or, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz becoming smart just because he’s handed a diploma without having gone to school.

Legislators in California have naturally jumped on the band wagon and are demanding UC do something about the broken admissions system, as if no one with good grades or test scores can get into UC Berkeley because of the tens of thousands of wealthy parents sending checks for $500,000 to the admissions office there (if there were really that many wealthy parents willing to pay $500,000 to get their kid into UC, they could the few non-rich students who somehow squeak in attend for free). 

I don’t understand parents who want to cut corners for their kids and give them stuff they didn’t earn on their own.  Dim-witted kids who get into an elite school are either going to learn how stupid they are, or decide brains are for suckers and stop working.  I agree with the old joke about the dying man who went to his lawyer to draw up his will.  The attorney asked him what he wanted to leave his family, and he said his oldest son should get a million dollars, his two younger sons should get $500,000 each, and his daughter should get $250,000.  The lawyer told him his entire estate was worth $100,000, so where would the children get this money?  The man replied, “Let ‘em work for it, just like I did!”

The Simpsons: Why So Serious (that is, not funny)?

·          

I feel like writing a new post for my blog, but no topic currently inspires me so let me take on a perennial question that has never been conclusively answered: what happened to The Simpsons?

This is a well-known trope in the TV analytics biz:  The Simpsons were possibly the greatest TV show in the history of the medium for eight, maybe ten, seasons.  I own seasons three through five and as much as you might want to gripe about how every commentary track calls that episode a “classic” the truth is, they almost all were classics.  It’s an incredible level of quality control that would make NASA blush.  Of course, one irony is that during the heyday of The Simpsons it never won the Emmy for Best Comedy because, as an animated show, it wasn’t eligible.  By the time the Academy got around to changing the eligibility criteria the show was no longer in its prime, and as a result it is zero-for-30 in Best Comedy Emmys (I am confident that whenever it chooses to hang up its hat it will certainly get a lifetime achievement nomination, if not win).  It has still managed to win a boatload of statutes for voice performance, animated episode, and best song (a category that is less competitive than its Oscar counterpart).

Part of the problem is that, after 30 seasons, continuity is a bitch.  Bart has been in the 5^th grade for 30 years, so what school-related hijinks could he possibly get into that he hasn’t already done?  Episodes in the 1990’s established that Bart grew up in the 1980’s, but to be consistent recent episodes have to show him growing up in the 2010’s.  Homer and Marge have been married for 35 years, despite being in their mid-30’s, so what new marital strife could they encounter for the first time?

Sitcoms aren’t known for character development, but what new facet of Lisa’s personality could they develop after 30 years?  After 30 seasons of sloth and gluttony, how could Homer’s personality subtly change?  It’s like the joke from the episode “The Boy Who Knew Too Much” where Bart picks up the paper and says, “Oh look, Charlie Brown said, ‘Good Grief’; hah, I didn’t see that coming.”

I can’t possibly deconstruct what is wrong with the Simpsons better than the clip "The Fall of the Simpsons: How It Happened."  But let me look at the most recent episode, “I Want You (She’s So Heavy).

The AV Club review notes that the episode takes a while to get going, with several false starts about what the main plot will be about.  But that is a standard Simpsons gimmick from its “glory years,” possibly a way to pad episodes out to 22 minutes which, according to several commentary tracks, they had trouble doing (the extended “rake gag” in Cape Feare was created for the same purpose).  For example, Boy Scoutz ‘n the Hood starts off with Homer on the couch eating peanuts, then has Bart and Milhouse finding $20 and going on a sugar bender, then Bart joins the “Junior Campers,” then, at last, the show settles on the real plot of Bart and Homer going on a father/son camp out.  

What dooms the false starts in I Want You is that the dots are too connected; it’s not random shifts of perspective, but something that someone tried to make it make sense and did too good of a job.  Why do Homer and Marge have to go to mandatory drug counselling led by Superintendent Chalmers at a hotel?  Would buttoned-up Marge really suggest crashing a wedding convention?  Would they really have access to so much champagne they’d get drunk?  And all this plotting just sets up a scenario where Homer gets a hernia and Marge sprains her ankle.

Then Homer’s hernia starts speaking to him, urging him not to do anything other than lie in a hammock.  Since when did Homer need to find a reason to be lazy?  If anything, the hernia is a validation of him lying around and not exercising.  Meanwhile, Marge’s trainer urges her to treat her sprained ankle with exercise, which sounds dubious to me.  The “exercise” Marge chooses is kite-surfing, which consists of standing by the ocean until a strong breeze catches your kite and lifts you into the air.  How is this exercise?  And if it is, how could Marge do it on a sprained ankle?

The whole thing ends when Homer kite-surfs with Marge without having any training, and then the kite-surfing trainer turns out to be a Russian spy whose plan was to gain access to the Springfield nuclear plant via Homer.  Huh?  Russia has nuclear power plants so I’m not sure what they could learn from one as old (and incompetently run) as Springfield’s, and once again, huh?

Meanwhile there is a bunch of filler about the bad babysitter Homer and Marge get for Lisa and Bart (remember when Lisa was able to babysit Bart?  I guess the writers don’t), Bart and Lisa going to Ned Flanders’ for coconut milk (and he wouldn’t give them cocoa why?), and Patty and Selma dragging Homer into the woods for no reason (other than they don’t like Homer).  No one expects realism from The Simpsons, but a half dozen plot points that are dead-ends makes no narrative sense at all.

I don’t understand the economics of The Simpsons staying on the air for another two years.  The vocal cast is expensive, they can’t make as much off merchandizing as they used to, and the lack of quality has been a running gag for TWENTY YEARS.  Maybe the tie in with FXX eliminates the need for aggressive syndication and allows Fox to recoup its expenses in a way that will result in future litigation by Matt Groening. 

Once upon a time The Simpsons were the epitome of how great a quality television show could be.  That was a long time ago, and now it is the epitome of a once-great show churning out more episodes because everyone wants to cash more paychecks.  Modern Family is going through the same phase now; when it began it was fresh and innovative, now it’s just an excuse for writing about how Haley is dumb and Manny is odd.  Ditto Big Bang Theory.  It is the nature of television that too much of a good thing is never enough.

But, as the saying goes, all good things must come to an end.  Even The Simpsons.

Bryce Harper's contract

Can Bryce Harper do math?

Our long national nightmare is over—Bryce Harper has signed a contract!  But the terms of the deal reinforce the idea I mentioned in my previous post that the problem was more with Harper and less a conspiracy among owners.

The contract Harper signed was for $330 million over 13 years with the Phillies, with no opt out clause and a no trade clause.  A lot of talking heads on ESPN stressed that Harper controls his career, that he clearly wanted stability, and now he can proceed like the second-best player in the majors that he is (according to Tony Kornheiser).

First off, as I said before, Harper is good, but he is hardly the second-best player in the MLB today.  Five active players had a higher career WAR by age 25: Mike Trout, Albert Puljos, Mookie Betts, Manny Machado, and Jason Heyward.  Among all players in career WAR Harper ranks 951 with 27.4, just behind former teammate Gio Gonzales who has 27.5.  Nolan Arenado, who just signed a long-term deal with the Rockies, is at 714 with 33.3 (although it is just possible his numbers are helped by playing a mile above sea level).  In seven seasons he made the top ten only twice for home runs, RBIs, OPS, OPS+, and slugging percent, and he’s won only one Silver Slugger award.  He has a tremendous ceiling but is bothered by injuries and mediocre seasons.

After he signed it came out that he had been offered a four-year, $180 million contract by the Dodgers, which he turned down.   So, he was offered $45 million per year and the ability to renegotiate at that time but turned it down for $25.4 million per year.  Maybe Bryce Harper’s agent, Scott Boras, didn’t explain to him that $45 million is more than $25.4.

Maybe those nagging injuries were worrisome to Harper and he wanted a long-term guaranteed deal.  But $20 million a year less?  I suspect that Harper’s ego demanded a bigger deal than Machado’s $300 million deal with San Diego, so Harper opted for a lower per-season total in order to get the headline “Largest deal in baseball history.”

In 5 years, Harper’s salary will be tradable to a team like the Yankees, so Harper can live his childhood dream of playing in pinstripes.  But he will never hold the title of largest single season salary; that will likely go to Mike Trout, whose numbers make Harper look like a weak AAA prospect.  Or maybe with Harper making so little, the Phillies can afford to pay Trout when he becomes a free agent and combine the two in the outfield.  As impressive as that might be, it may not be enough for a World Series without some pitching.

The early like is that Harper is favored to win the NL MVP in his first season with Philadelphia.  I’d love to place a bet on the field.  There is always the injury issue, and even with a history of good batting stats in the Phillies’ ballpark I’d still like to wager on Paul Goldschmidt (Cardinals), Kris Bryant (Cubs), or about a half dozen players on the Dodgers.  Manny Machado makes more sense if you are looking for a narrative of a savior arriving and delivering a long-suffering franchise into the playoffs.

So cheer now Phillies fan, and get ready to boo Harper when he’s earning $25 million for hitting .230 in 2028.