If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Old and busted: stripping Penn State of football wins. The new hotness: stripping Penn State of its academic accreditation   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 283
    More: Interesting, Penn State, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, university presidents, accreditation, NCAA, scandals  
•       •       •

15705 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Aug 2012 at 7:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



283 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-14 02:38:47 PM  

Endive Wombat: Fine, assuming they lose their accreditation, the school is toast at that point. Students can transfer to other schools...the campus basically becomes a ghost town. What happens with the physical school itself?


Totally late to the party on this one, but...

paintball.
 
2012-08-14 02:41:37 PM  

Kahabut:
Next time pick a really good engineering school, and this won't be a problem.


http://www.psu.edu/ur/rankings/

Look at this actual physical evidence of how farking dumb you are.
 
2012-08-14 02:53:48 PM  

rka: They are ensuring PSU honors the guidelines for being accredited in the first place. PSU has plenty of opportunity to ensure they continue to meet the guidelines and if they do so absolutely nothing will come of this.


This is the most likely outcome.
 
2012-08-14 02:59:39 PM  

you have pee hands: taliesinwi: I'm pretty sure HR managers can use something called "a calendar" and realize that said student's degree was granted before the loss of accreditation. It would suck more to be a senior at the school right now, but as others have said, there are always options.

Maybe. If you take away accreditation tens of thousands of students, maybe with 100+ credits, are screwed. If those credits lose value the students may be out upwards of $50k and several years of their lives and of course student loans follow you until you die. Scholarship football players can always almost transfer to a lower caliber football school and find someone to give them a scholarship, or keep their scholarship and not play (per the terms of the NCAA punishment) but the same isn't true of the rest of the students who would see their degree lose most of its value. There's no guarantee anyone would take them as transfers or accept the credits, and for all the in state students benefiting from in state state school tuition almost anywhere else they could go would be more expensive anyway.

As a punishment this is a ridiculous overreach and I'd be surprised as hell if it happens.


It's better than bleeding the school dry over the course of months/years and then you wake up one semester and the entire Computer Science program is cancelled for lack of money. My dad went to a mid level I admit losing accreditation is being shot in the leg instead of the head, but at least you can recover from a leg wound.

As others have said, this probably won't happen anyway.
 
2012-08-14 03:08:42 PM  

spentmiles: As outlined in the Freech report, the low level employees of the athletic department were responsible for recruiting young boys by way of various football camps. The underlings, like McQueary, got the scraps while the choice pickings were sent up the line to Sandusky. Sandusky, along with those of similar rank, then tested the boys with various forms of sexual abuse. The cream of the crop -- the 1-2% out of the hundreds of applicants -- were then sent up to Paterno who basically wrote the book on sodomy. When Paterno was done with the kid, he'd have sex with him one last time while slitting his throat. The janitors of the athletic department would then discard the bodies in the incinerators. As Freech pointed out, this system went on for decades. It ran so smoothly that no one detected a thing. It wasn't until McQueary sent a boy with herpes up the chain that Sandusky got angry and threatened to fire him. McQueary, whose wife was battling ovarian cancer at the time, couldn't afford to lose his medical benefits, so he blew the proverbial whistle.

Yet even with all of those facts, the NCAA just slapped their wrists and sent them to the corner for a little while. If I was a Penn State student, I would dig up Paterno myself and defile his corpse with an ax handle. As to why Sandusky is still alive testifies to the far reach of college football. I'm sure he's promising scholarships to every inmate with a hard on or a shank. He will get his in hell.


The sad part is, people will think you're serious, because there are people in the "burn it to the ground" mob who actually think this.
 
2012-08-14 03:10:12 PM  

Axissillian: beta_plus:
No one really knows. But in those cases, look at who has the biggest incentive to make someone like that disappear.


Why would Penn State have an incentive to murder someone who ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE YOU farkING POSTED he declined to press any charges?

Do you think Penn State has assassins who break into the homes of DA's and plant evidence of faking their death on a computer?


So? What was on that hard drive? More evidence about Penn State perhaps?
 
2012-08-14 03:16:50 PM  

The Muthaship: Kyro: Yeah. Everyone knows two wrongs make JUSTICE.

Punishing an institution for wrongdoing is, itself, a wrong now?


Only if the institution is guilty of wrongdoing, and not individuals.

Make a reasonable and logical argument as to why PSU should lose its accreditation as a punishment for the Sandusky scandal rather than the punishments that have already been levied by the NCAA and internally. Sandusky and anyone (staff, faculty or administration) who knowingly turned a blind eye to his behavior should be drawn and quartered, but PSU losing their academic accreditation as further punishment is ludicrous. There is no justice in that. Do all the employees of a major corporation lose their jobs when the CEO, CFO or other C-level exec is accused and convicted of a crime -- even one as heinous as Sandusky's? I think not...
 
2012-08-14 03:29:27 PM  

liam76: PSU actually treated their player mor elike regular students than most big footballs schools.

Go look at their graduation rates and grades.


Does anyone believe those statistics, though? That's the problem. Once you know that a significant number of students were exempt from all academic conduct rules, their degrees become worthless. And unless you know exactly who they were, everybody else's degrees are devalued too.
 
2012-08-14 03:29:30 PM  

just_intonation: The Muthaship: Kyro: Yeah. Everyone knows two wrongs make JUSTICE.

Punishing an institution for wrongdoing is, itself, a wrong now?

Only if the institution is guilty of wrongdoing, and not individuals.

Make a reasonable and logical argument as to why PSU should lose its accreditation as a punishment for the Sandusky scandal rather than the punishments that have already been levied by the NCAA and internally. Sandusky and anyone (staff, faculty or administration) who knowingly turned a blind eye to his behavior should be drawn and quartered, but PSU losing their academic accreditation as further punishment is ludicrous. There is no justice in that. Do all the employees of a major corporation lose their jobs when the CEO, CFO or other C-level exec is accused and convicted of a crime -- even one as heinous as Sandusky's? I think not...


You do realize that losing accreditation isn't punishment for what Sandusky did and the coverup the school took place in. Their accreditation is in question mainly because their is a real possibility that the civil suits that are going to result from the scandal will leave them financially unstable. Part of the accreditation commissions is to make sure that a school is financially stable and won't close its doors or have to cut classes halfway through a semester leaving students out in the cold after they paid tuition.

So losing their accreditation is a result of the coverup, and karmically punishment, but it is not a direct punishment for what they did.
 
2012-08-14 03:29:46 PM  

just_intonation: Make a reasonable and logical argument as to why PSU should lose its accreditation as a punishment for the Sandusky scandal rather than the punishments that have already been levied by the NCAA and internally.


If I understand what's being done here correctly, it has nothing to do with athletics. What the NCAA did (or does in the future) is irrelevant. They are concerned with the fitness of the administration, and the fiscal soundness of PSU in light of upcoming lawsuits. PSU as an institution is responsible for the actions of the men it chose to lead it. When those men commit crimes in the name of PSU, it is fair for PSU to suffer for it. And it's important for other similar institutions to know that there are consequences for the actions of the people they choose to hand the keys to their schools to.

Lots of people have lost their jobs due to the inappropriate actions of the higher ups in their place of employment. Although, there's no direct threat of that involved here.
 
2012-08-14 03:32:00 PM  

Aarontology: IAmRight: It's ridiculous to punish the individuals involved and not the whole school when it's a professor, but when its an ex-football coach, well, sh*t, it's all football's fault and football has to take all the punishment!

The econ department in conjunction with senior administrative officials didn't cover up the crimes for over a decade in order to preserve the reputation, and more importantly, the income of the department, nor did those crimes happen in the econ department with the full knowledge of the administration. That's what the difference is, and it's a pretty f*cking big difference.

One was one sick fark. The other was one sick fark being enabled and aided by other sick farks to protect a program.


Are you sure? I think that most in the econ department knew -- and looked the other way. There were numerous charges brought against him that weren't pursued as vigorously as Sandusky's. Hell, he even had his own charitable organization to serve boys... There was the fact that they knowingly sent him to Thailand to teach at a cooperative institution where he was not under the same controls and prohibitions. They did reduce him to emeritus status the year after he returned from Thailand, which may or may not have been a move by the administration to distance him from the University... And WSB is an institution in and of itself it it's own sphere.

So, I think the parallels are apt. The only difference I see is that maybe Ward doesn't actually molest boys on Penn property. I think everything else applies...
 
2012-08-14 03:38:24 PM  

Kahabut: Kyro: thatboyoverthere: Yelp I'm having a really hard time giving a fark for them.

How about the engineering student that went to Penn State, was completely disinterested in football and is now job searching with a toxic degree? How is this at all that student's fault?

They chose the school. They intentionally went to a school where football rules all, and as it turns out, farks little kids AND trades them around to alum.

Frankly, they chose poorly.

Next time pick a really good engineering school, and this won't be a problem. No one has ever accused the football coach at MIT of being a child raping sadist.


Really good schools still have this problem. See u Penn. That just doesn't make headlines because there is no football involved.
 
2012-08-14 03:47:19 PM  

orbister: liam76: PSU actually treated their player mor elike regular students than most big footballs schools.

Go look at their graduation rates and grades.

Does anyone believe those statistics, though? That's the problem. Once you know that a significant number of students were exempt from all academic conduct rules, their degrees become worthless. And unless you know exactly who they were, everybody else's degrees are devalued too.


Want to provide proof as to how you know a significant number of students were exempt from academic conduct rules? Or was this more of you doing a drive by comment dull of BS that you imagined happened?
 
2012-08-14 03:59:37 PM  

stonicus: Pichu0102: I'm pretty sure I was wondering of the students should sue because that Penn State degrees could become toxic and not worth what they paid for anymore.
Still wondering that now.

Why would students' degrees now be toxic? No students were accused of molestation, just the faculty. That's like saying anyone from Aurora, CO should be allowed to sue because being from Aurora is toxic and they'll have a hard time getting a job. The perpetrators, in both scenarios, have been caught, and everyone knows it.


Because human beings are not rational and some recruiters could at the very least subconsciously blackball these kids.
 
2012-08-14 04:19:26 PM  

Super_pope: That has nothing to do with dissuading people and everything to do with trying to extract more revenue from people after they're caught. Is a TAX STAMP a deterrent? Uh... yeah I guess. Is it meaningless in relation to going to jail for 20 years? Yep. Tax evasion? Okay I guess that's a little extra time, but you were already losing a huge chunk of your life.


OK, let me explain this a bit more clearly--basically (in states that have marijuana tax stamp laws) if they can't get someone they really want to get on, say, a felony "possession with intent to distribute"...they can get them on the tax evasion charges, which often are quite a bit worse than the penalty for just the weed. (In some cases, it can literally bump up what would just be spending a short time in the county jail to five years of prison--oh, and I should note that at least some of the states involved pretty much remove all civil rights from felons; in Kentucky, for instance, if you've ever been convicted of a felony you can never vote or get any professional licensure (not even for skilled trades like being a plumber or electrician) ever again unless you get an explicit full pardon from the governor...which almost never happens.)

Even more to the point...there are cases recorded (especially where people have sued and lost over double-jeopardy) where the state lost the case re marijuana possession being to the point above a misdemeanor--in at least one case in Alabama losing the case entirely--and still managing to win on the worse charge of tax evasion because the person didn't buy their marijuana stamp. (And yes, this has generally held up in the courts--it's fairly rare that a state marijuana tax stamp law gets overturned on grounds of double jeopardy.)

If Penn State ends up losing its accreditation (which is by no means a done deal)...basically it's going to be the rough equivalent of someone who ends up in prison (and permanently disenfranchised) because they had two joints on them and the prosecuting attorney decided (after only being able to get them for misdemeanor marijuana possession without intent to distribute) to go after them on grounds of not having a tax stamp on their joints and manages to win.

(For those who haven't read the article--the accrediting body hasn't said "yes, we're yanking their accreditation because Penn State's administration is a den of Nittany Shotacats"; they're more saying "We're looking at just how deep of a lagoon of shiat Penn State is likely to be in once the civil suits against the university start hitting the courts, and if it looks like a Nittany Shotacat or three has caused the university to be under such liability that it's liable to be sued into functional bankruptcy, we'll yank the accreditation because there's no way they can function as an accredited school under those circumstances".

If this happens, yes, this will suck for the students and non-Nittany-Shotacat staff. It's also traditionally sucked very badly for regular Joes and Joses and Iosefs in countries we've had under longterm economic and trade sanctions because we felt their leadership did Bad Things. The administration beshat the bed and unfortunately all of Happy Valley has to lie in it. :P
 
2012-08-14 05:04:53 PM  
i.imgur.com

What's shocking is that JoePa is the guy who just keeps giving back to Penn State...

...and that even for all the crap Penn State is getting buried under because of his coverup and culture of special treatment for players and coaches, Penn State fanatics still defend him.

I think it is wrong to consider stripping accreditation over this, and it's also wrong to consider any degree from PSU to be tainted, but continuing to claim that JoePa ran a program steeped in integrity is laughable, at best. In some ways, it's that defense of Joe Paterno that has officials overreacting, if only to give those defenders a big ol' cup of STFU.

Seriously, these people need to think hard about what they say... back in November, all we heard was how innocent JoePa was, and how mistreated he was in all this. One Farker even explained, in great detail how Sandusky and Paterno were not, nor ever were friends or business associates (completely false), and how the great JoePa would never have ignored such an allegation is anybody had actually told him. For the defenders, the goalposts keep changing - but i suspect all of them think, deep down, this is all some horrible frame up of their almighty idol, and if they continue to make their arguments, no matter how irrational, that their version fo the "truth" will somehow become reality, even if they can't really defend his actions without getting laughed out of the forums they post in.

Let's face it... JoePa didn't have the moral fortitude or ethical grounding to see that justice was served in a case of child rape, so that his program would not be tainted by the allegations - REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE - but you'd have us believe that he would have the integrity to drop a player for academic issues or discipline a starting player for violating the law by suspending him for a big game? Part of JoePa's "legacy" was dependent on how he "nurtured" student players into men... but do you defenders honestly expect ANYBODY ELSE to think that he'd never fake that image of "integrity" when it came to players, even if he was willing to cover up and abet further his pal and business partner Sandusky anally raping little boys?

Ever heard of the term "In for a penny, in for a pound?"

In this case, it's "In for a pound, in for a penny", because the idea that he would not cover up academic and discipline issues to make his program look clean, while covering up and abetting child rape is like saying Jeffery Dahmer wouldn't dream of spitting chewing gum on the sidewalk, in defiance of a sign noting the city ordinance against it, even as he was escorting his next victim back to his apartment.

It's also clear the program at Penn State was held in such reverence by the fanatics, that many of the people who knew things were going on would (and will) never reveal how dirty the program was. Is it any wonder the program needed to be sanctioned?

As I have said since November, it is going to get very uncomfortable for fans of Penn State before the dust settles. They are under the microscope, and it's made worse by the arrogant, misguided attitude of some BoT members and students to yell "bring it on" (while those with more knowledge are trying to nudge them and say , "shut up and take what we've been given and hope it blows over before they find out how deep the rot is")
 
2012-08-14 05:06:01 PM  
Hey Penn State, why couldn't you get caught raping boys 5 years ago, so the Big Ten could have kicked you out before we invited Nebraska, and we'd actually have 10 farking schools in the conference?
 
2012-08-14 06:40:31 PM  
Before the scandal broke, if you told people you had a degree from Penn State, they'd think "oh, that school where they worship football"

Now, if you tell people that, they think, "oh, that school where they used to worship football."

Sorry guys, I can't find it in me to feel bad for you.
 
2012-08-14 08:18:22 PM  
liam76:

Want to provide proof as to how you know a significant number of students were exempt from academic conduct rules?

static7.businessinsider.com
 
2012-08-14 08:31:26 PM  

IAmRight: He was also working on a case involving the mob at the time.


Citation?
/No chevys
 
2012-08-14 08:55:14 PM  

IAmRight: Aarontology: I'm all for killing their football program, but this is farking insane.

Oh, right, because it's all football's fault that the president gave the guy powers. And it's so unique a situation and every other school would get killed if they enabled a pedophile to operate for years within their midst.

We'll ignore the econ professor who was linked to earlier at UPenn who was known as a child rapist for years and no one knows about. It's because the econ program was too strong! Damn economics-loving America!

It's ridiculous to punish the individuals involved and not the whole school when it's a professor, but when its an ex-football coach, well, sh*t, it's all football's fault and football has to take all the punishment!


Were the the Penn President and the Board of Trustees actively engaged in a 14 year coverup of this while it continued to occur, meathead?
 
2012-08-14 09:23:29 PM  
As a Buckeye, I was taunted endlessly about how Maurice Clarett's false police report was going to tarnish my degree.

Though I hesitate to dance on the graves of Penn state, I still talk to a lot of people here in PA who genuinely feel that Sandusky is a creep but beyond that, nobody did anything wrong and this is some huge set-up and anyone who testifies about it is some kind of snitch.
 
2012-08-14 09:39:40 PM  
"It is critical to emphasize that Middle States does not issue a warning unless the commission believes that an institution has the capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period and then sustain itself to stay in compliance," Bowen said in the statement. "This certainly is true for Penn State. We're confident that our monitoring report and the site visit will confirm this to the commission."

Basically, they are saying, "show us how you will ensure that this will never happen again". And they seem to be confident that Penn State will answer the mail adequately.
 
2012-08-14 09:45:35 PM  

CapnBlues: Unless... I can't remember, are you one of the users here that has just always hated PSU and is using this as your opportunity to hurt the whole school? I've been gone from fark for a few months, so i don't remember. Your name is familiar to me. In fact, this conversation is reminding me why I've been gone from fark for a few months. Forget it, have a good one, man. All the best to you.


Yes that is obviously it. Im part of some vast underground cionspiracy that has always hated PSU for no reason whatsoever. We are hell bent on hurting PSU and nobody knows why.

I bet they teach about this vast conspiracy in PSU history courses dont they?
 
2012-08-15 04:35:49 AM  

hornblowerfan: This is ridiculously stupid and unwarranted. Do not penalize inmocent students for what the football staff has done. Even now, there are 4 young-ish people in my department at work who are Penn State graduates and who practically wear black ribbons to mourn the loss of their careers.


oh, NOW its dont penalize innocent students for what the football staff has done.... before it was penalize the innocent football players!

/ I agree with you on both accounts, but this is truly hypocritical.
 
2012-08-15 07:39:00 AM  

Something_Creative: My problem with this is that the punishment goes back to the students instead of the school itself, or more importantly, the administration. The fine levied against Penn St.? They said it reduced the amount of scholarships available for new and continuing students. And now, removing accreditation once again only hurts the students. I think all or almost all of the upper echelon of administration should be fired or maybe even personally fined if possible. Let the president of the school have to personally pay for the penalty. I know that my alma mater was smaller than Penn State, and the Chancellor made more money than the President of the United States--I think the leader of Penn State could afford it.


The people who argue this....you understand it's like saying, "Don't send that sexual predator to prison, it'll only hurt his family," don't you? You do understand there are consequences for misdeeds, and yes, often there is collateral damage to the innocent? But how can that be helped? They are additional victims of the original perpetrators, they are not being victimized anew by the forces of justice. Should people be spared prison time because their families will be harmed by their absence?

The crimes committed here were - and I know this is a big word, so just try to understand - institutional, meaning they were aided and abetted all the way up the ladder to the very president of the university. Students will be harmed by the subsequent punishment? Ok, true...but how do you help that and still serve the interest of justice? Are you saying the school should suffer no penalties because innocents will then suffer the result of consequences levied against the school for its crimes? Did you follow that argument to its logical conclusion before stating it?
 
2012-08-15 08:41:44 AM  

karmachameleon: The people who argue this....you understand it's like saying, "Don't send that sexual predator to prison, it'll only hurt his family," don't you?


No it is like saying don't evict the family because the dad got tossed in jail for being a pervert.

Everybody is fine with punishing the predators.


karmachameleon: The crimes committed here were - and I know this is a big word, so just try to understand - institutional, meaning they were aided and abetted all the way up the ladder to the very president of the university.


Allt he way up the ladder implies that people on the bottom rung of the ladder knew, they didn't. This was covered up by a few people and everybody is all abotu doing everything we can to punish them, but punishingt he school after they have lost all ties helps nobody.

Put it this way, do you think Grahm SPanier, Chultz, Sandusky, the Paterno Family Estate are more concerend about lawsuits and jail or PSU's reputation?



veedeevadeevoodee: liam76:

Want to provide proof as to how you know a significant number of students were exempt from academic conduct rules?

Picture that has absolutely no proof


That is what I figured.

And before you try to use it, your earlier article talked about discipline, not academic problems. Still waiting to hear you explain how 7 issues a year in an athletic collegiate organization numbering over 100 shows a serious problem.
 
2012-08-15 08:53:56 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: Super_pope: That has nothing to do with dissuading people and everything to do with trying to extract more revenue from people after they're caught. Is a TAX STAMP a deterrent? Uh... yeah I guess. Is it meaningless in relation to going to jail for 20 years? Yep. Tax evasion? Okay I guess that's a little extra time, but you were already losing a huge chunk of your life.

OK, let me explain this a bit more clearly--basically (in states that have marijuana tax stamp laws) if they can't get someone they really want to get on, say, a felony "possession with intent to distribute"...they can get them on the tax evasion charges, which often are quite a bit worse than the penalty for just the weed. (In some cases, it can literally bump up what would just be spending a short time in the county jail to five years of prison--oh, and I should note that at least some of the states involved pretty much remove all civil rights from felons; in Kentucky, for instance, if you've ever been convicted of a felony you can never vote or get any professional licensure (not even for skilled trades like being a plumber or electrician) ever again unless you get an explicit full pardon from the governor...which almost never happens.)

Even more to the point...there are cases recorded (especially where people have sued and lost over double-jeopardy) where the state lost the case re marijuana possession being to the point above a misdemeanor--in at least one case in Alabama losing the case entirely--and still managing to win on the worse charge of tax evasion because the person didn't buy their marijuana stamp. (And yes, this has generally held up in the courts--it's fairly rare that a state marijuana tax stamp law gets overturned on grounds of double jeopardy.)

If Penn State ends up losing its accreditation (which is by no means a done deal)...basically it's going to be the rough equivalent of someone who ends up in prison (and permanently disenfranchised) because they had two joints on them ...


This is all well and good, but my point is still that additional punishment for the school is meaningless as a deterrent when you have people already committing criminal activities. Someone who's going to make the decision to cover up child-rape for their own benefit at risk of their own personal freedom is not going to reconsider because the football team could lose scholarships, or the school might lose its accreditation. Also in your example the person who (probably) had the weed is being busted. Here its more like someone got caught farking boys in an apartment and the owner of the building covered it up, so all his neighbors lose their housing.

If they could put Jerry to death for tax evasion on his boy-farking stamp that would be something entirely different (and a very funny looking stamp I imagine).
 
2012-08-15 09:27:35 AM  

liam76: No it is like saying don't evict the family because the dad got tossed in jail for being a pervert.


But if the family can't pay rent, for whatever reason, they get evicted.

If Penn cannot show they have a plan to maintain solvency during the shiatstorm about to land on them, they risk accreditation. Done and done.
 
2012-08-15 10:30:55 AM  

ko_kyi: liam76: No it is like saying don't evict the family because the dad got tossed in jail for being a pervert.

But if the family can't pay rent, for whatever reason, they get evicted.


True, but don't have the HOA levying additional fines (NCAA), you don't have people around the country saying how farked up the family is and how they deserve to be kicked out (as you see in this thread).


ko_kyi: If Penn cannot show they have a plan to maintain solvency during the shiatstorm about to land on them, they risk accreditation. Done and done


Penn gets around 800 million a year outside of athletics. They can cover this.

This is nothing more than rattling their cage because it makes the group look like they are doing thier job to peopel who don't grasp the situation.
 
2012-08-15 10:32:20 AM  

liam76: ko_kyi: If Penn cannot show they have a plan to maintain solvency during the shiatstorm about to land on them, they risk accreditation. Done and done


Ignore the bold, I was going to put in "losing" but it makes sense as is, still early for me.
 
2012-08-15 10:55:24 PM  
im sorry this is too far, you dont fark the educational value of every person at a school over something utterly unrelated to academics.
 
2012-08-16 09:28:11 AM  

Daeva: im sorry this is too far, you dont fark the educational value of every person at a school over something utterly unrelated to academics.


There are no real academics at PSU, just a JoePa cult. I'd sooner hire someone from Texas.
 
Displayed 33 of 283 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report