College administration bribery scandal

BaileyCatts said:
Oh that's a good point. I don't remember now so maybe the article did say that. I don't know why I can't find it now. But seriously ... they apparently had enough proof to have it all notated in the case file that this person paid $6.5 million to get their kids in and the schools involved, but they didn't charge them yet?! So again it makes me wonder how high a ranked official is that person that they still have not been charged. That shoulda been the first person charged.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's that simple. The people who were charged were charged based on wiretaps and emails in which they made statements about specific actions while acknowledging that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Singer, the guy who was the center of it all, warned some people not to say anything incriminating (and has been charged with obstruction for doing so), so there are clients of his who are on his records as having participated in the scheme but aren't being charged because they didn't incriminate themselves on the record.

The list of parents who were charged in the case is public and I believe it is complete, which is why I think the parent who spent all that money is probably one of the parents who wasn't charged. From what I have read, there were a lot of them.
 
clairecloutier said:
I thought this was one of the best articles I've read about the college admissions scandal:

College admissions are corrupt because universities are. Here's how to fix them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...PSjlTraxAQ6NzgCPoNyjBw&utm_term=.441654740c61
Click to expand...

I found this article interesting because it focuses on the culpability of universities in all this.

Legally speaking, the argument the prosecutors are making here is that the universities are the victims of fraud--that they have a valuable commodity in the form of admissions placements and that they were defrauded of those placements by the accused. I found that an interesting argument when I read it, because it seems to me that the universities are at least tacitly complicit in all this.

Past history would indicate that there will be reviews and handwringing and few if any changes at all in the system. I am not even sure what changes you could make to the system. Even if admissions were based solely on academics, the top schools would still have more applicants than slots--how would they make the decision? And in the US, there really isn't a good way to assess academics, anyway. Education standards are wildly inconsistent, and the SAT and ACT are not considered particularly effective at assessing and predicting achievement. Any selection method is going to require some type of assessment. What would you assess once you have a cut-off for academic achievement?
 
Japanfan said:
And apparently she didn't even learn to punctuate properly at the university she didn't legitimately get it into.

What a waste of a spot in university.
Click to expand...
Olivia Jade doesn't seem to be very intellectually inclined to say the least, but the article indicates that there are punctuation marks that are not supposed to be used in trademark applications, even though they are commonly used in other contexts. I doubt Jade took a class focusing on this at USC, and given her income from her influencer activities, I imagine she paid someone to file for trademark.

It makes a cute story, though.
 
I live in a city where what college you went to matters, at least in the first decade after school. Those schools help get you the right internships and calls to the CEO or MoC from donor parents or connections who get the kid’s resume to the top of the pile. Sometimes all the way to the White House (see Miller, Stephen.)

After your first two or so jobs, though, it’s about what you’ve done and know and how well you’ve networked. The worst hire I ever made but one was a Harvard kid and one of the best was from a tiny lib arts school in Maryland noone’s ever heard of.

Social capital is key. When PRkid moved to LA, my work colleague needed a nanny and PRkid had good experience. Turned out she was also writing and editing my colleague’s emails etc and when there was a slot for a part-time associate at the office, there she was. Two jobs later PRkid has a much-in-demand skill (managing donor prospect research) and every job she applied for in DC so far at least gave her an interview.

But mom’s colleague started it all. Lots of liberal political Jewish kids want to work at my former organization but she was in the right place at the right time. Those are the chances that people with unconnected parents don’t get (as I know, because I was one myself.)
 
Jimena said:
A very good piece in The Atlantic about this scandal: here
Click to expand...
:blah:

Even though she has experience with "horrible parents" of college applicants and has a few quotations from some of the prominent defendants, when Flanagan writes
These parents—many of them avowed Trump haters—are furious that what once belonged to them has been taken away, and they are driven mad with the need to reclaim it for their children. The changed admissions landscape at the elite colleges is the aspect of American life that doesn’t feel right to them; it’s the lost thing, the arcadia that disappeared so slowly they didn’t even realize it was happening until it was gone.
Click to expand...
she is engaging in sheer speculation. There are no statements from any of the defendants (whether before or after the indictments) that actually say that this is what they felt.

Lori Loughlin didn't go to college, and according to one of their daughters, Mossimo Gianulli used the money his parents thought was being used for tuition to start his own business. I would question whether either of them felt that they had a right to a U.S.C. education for their daughters.

As for Gordon Caplan, the article says that the went to Cornell undergrad and Fordham law school. Successful though he may be, it isn't as if he himself had a Yale education.

The Atlantic could do with some better editors. :COP:
 
Vagabond said:
Exactly. And if you read the headline and the bit I quoted, you would think she is reporting, not stating opinions.
Click to expand...

You would? That headline screams "opinion piece" to me, as does the bit you quoted :confused:.
 
The title of the piece is They had It Coming. And it's under the theme of "Ideas". How would anyone think after reading that that it was anything but an opinion piece?

You can certainly not agree with her opinion. But questioning her on journalistic grounds makes no sense to me. Color me confused by your criticism.
 
The second part of the headline is: "The parents indicted in the college-admissions scandal were responding to a changing America, with rage at being robbed of what they believed was rightfully theirs." There is nothing in the article to establish that the the indicted parents actually felt that way.
 
Vagabond said:
The second part of the headline is: "The parents indicted in the college-admissions scandal were responding to a changing America, with rage at being robbed of what they believed was rightfully theirs." There is nothing in the article to establish that the the indicted parents actually felt that way.
Click to expand...

A, writers don't usually write their own headlines and b, the author is clearly basing her interpretation of how the indicted parents felt on her experiences with similar parents. This is certainly not definitive, but again, it's an opinion piece.

And c, if Lori Loughlin and her husband hadn't felt entitled to a USC education for their daughters, they wouldn't have felt that it was just fine to use fraud to get the daughters there. People who take things they don't need from others do so because they feel like they deserve those things more than the people who have them.
 
Vagabond said:
The second part of the headline is: "The parents indicted in the college-admissions scandal were responding to a changing America, with rage at being robbed of what they believed was rightfully theirs." There is nothing in the article to establish that the the indicted parents actually felt that way.
Click to expand...

That's actually the most common theme in most if not all fraud cases. It's a pretty safe assumption to make. There is always some justification for their actions because they deserved something they felt they couldn't get. Very few are in it for the thrill. I would say the thrill of getting away with something would apply more to the guy who organized it all. And he probably still has a reason why he deserved the money too.
 
Prancer said:
A, writers don't usually write their own headlines
Click to expand...
Which is why I said
Vagabond said:
The Atlantic could do with some better editors. :COP:
Click to expand...
Prancer said:
b, the author is clearly basing her interpretation of how the indicted parents felt on her experiences with similar parents. This is certainly not definitive, but again, it's an opinion piece.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said:
Vagabond said:
Even though she has experience with "horrible parents" of college applicants and has a few quotations from some of the prominent defendants, when Flanagan writes
These parents—many of them avowed Trump haters—are furious that what once belonged to them has been taken away, and they are driven mad with the need to reclaim it for their children. The changed admissions landscape at the elite colleges is the aspect of American life that doesn’t feel right to them; it’s the lost thing, the arcadia that disappeared so slowly they didn’t even realize it was happening until it was gone.
Click to expand...
she is engaging in sheer speculation. There are no statements from any of the defendants (whether before or after the indictments) that actually say that this is what they felt.
Click to expand...
What's your problem here?
Prancer said:
And c, if Lori Loughlin and her husband hadn't felt entitled to a USC education for their daughters, they wouldn't have felt that it was just fine to use fraud to get the daughters there. People who take things they don't need from others do so because they feel like they deserve those things more than the people who have them.
Click to expand...
mpal2 said:
There is always some justification for their actions because they deserved something they felt they couldn't get.
Click to expand...
None of which has anything to do with the assertions in the headline and the essay itself that the Varsity Blues parents were responding to a changing America or a changed admissions landscape.

People can and sometimes do illicit things out a sense of entitlement that has nothing to do with a sense of loss.
 
I'm going to ask a stupid question - why doesn't the university just take the money and forego the "admissions criteria"?
If people have enough cash to buy a cheating entrance into the universities why not cut out the "middle man" and just take the money and run?
 
Doing that openly (vs. covertly) would make the school less desirable IMO. A lot of these schools are able to reject so many candidates because there is a belief that only the highly deserving can get in. If anyone can get in and that is well-known, that completely changes the dynamic and will lower the quality of candidates they get.
 
Actress Felicity Huffman, 13 others to plead guilty in U.S. college admissions scandal: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-u-s-college-admissions-scandal-idUSKCN1RK27B
Actress Felicity Huffman and 13 other people have agreed to plead guilty to participating in what prosecutors call the largest college admissions scam uncovered in U.S. history, federal prosecutors said on Monday.
...
Prosecutors, as part of a plea deal, agreed to recommend a prison term at the “low end” of the four to 10 months Huffman faces under federal sentencing guidelines. She also agreed to pay a $20,000 fine and restitution.
Huffman, who is married to the actor William H. Macy, in a statement on Monday said she was “ashamed of the pain I have caused my daughter, my family, my friends, my colleagues and the educational community.”
“My daughter knew absolutely nothing about my actions, and in my misguided and profoundly wrong way, I have betrayed her,” the former best actress Oscar nominee said.
Click to expand...
 
Those who did not plead guilty yesterday might be having second thoughts.

Lori Loughlin Faces New Charge in College Admissions Scandal
Federal prosecutors indicted the Hollywood actress Lori Loughlin and her husband, the designer Mossimo Giannulli, along with 14 other parents on mail fraud and money laundering charges on Tuesday, the latest development in the sweeping college admissions fraud investigation....

[Loughlin and Gianulli's]daughters, both current students at U.S.C., have also faced repercussions, as U.S.C. has placed an academic hold on students tied to the scandal, preventing them from registering for classes.
Click to expand...
But will Olivia Jade Gianulli still be able to experience the things that really matter to her, like game days and partying? Or will she have to wear a scarlet letter "P" for "Pariah" instead?:unsure:

:violin:
 
I liked seeing Felicity admit her wrong doing and take her punishment. If she does her time than as far as I am concerned I won’t see the problem at all with her career resuming we all make mistakes and the potential Jail is a big punishment.
 
I don't know Becca. I am impressed with the way Ms. Huffman is handling the situation. I think things could swing either way with her career. Serving her time doesn't erase what she did. I would think it will be the first thing that pops to people's minds when they see her name. That could be good for an actress............but...........
 
becca said:
I liked seeing Felicity admit her wrong doing and take her punishment. If she does her time than as far as I am concerned I won’t see the problem at all with her career resuming we all make mistakes and the potential Jail is a big punishment.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between making a mistake because you don't understand something and deliberately plotting to get an unfair advantage. She was smart to plead guilty now and avoid getting hit with bigger penalties or more charges, but that doesn't mean that what she did was a simple "mistake".
 
once_upon said:
I'm going to ask a stupid question - why doesn't the university just take the money and forego the "admissions criteria"?
If people have enough cash to buy a cheating entrance into the universities why not cut out the "middle man" and just take the money and run?
Click to expand...

Some of the universities involved in this are public universities. So theoretically they're supposed to serve everyone, not just those who have the most money.
 
overedge said:
There's a difference between making a mistake because you don't understand something and deliberately plotting to get an unfair advantage. She was smart to plead guilty now and avoid getting hit with bigger penalties or more charges, but that doesn't mean that what she did was a simple "mistake".
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But Huffman is definitely coming across better that Loughlin is.
 
once_upon said:
I'm going to ask a stupid question - why doesn't the university just take the money and forego the "admissions criteria"?
If people have enough cash to buy a cheating entrance into the universities why not cut out the "middle man" and just take the money and run?
Click to expand...
The amounts of money involved in these bribes (typically $15,000 to $250,000) aren't nearly enough to make the pertinent colleges and universities sit up and take notice.

I did a quick check on line and saw that Yale's endowment is about $29 billion, Stanford's is about $25 billion, and even U.S.C.'s is about $4.6 billion. All of these institutions can and do get donations of $250,000 or more that don't come with the obligation to admit any particular student, let alone one who would not be able to get in on her own.
 
overedge said:
There's a difference between making a mistake because you don't understand something and deliberately plotting to get an unfair advantage. She was smart to plead guilty now and avoid getting hit with bigger penalties or more charges, but that doesn't mean that what she did was a simple "mistake".
Click to expand...

I wasn’t saying simple mistake. Simple mistakes don’t lead to Jail. But if she goes to jail and pays her debt than I feel like okay.

I feel the US does a bad job rehabilitating people. IMO.

This being said she is an actress and clearly is smart enough to listen to her lawyer.

Federal prosecutors they don’t take a case that is frankly not slam Dunk. They don’t mess around if it’s dicey they throw it the states. Feds win 90 percent of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

TAHbKA
Interview with Volosozhar/Trankov
2 3
Replies
67
Views
17K
Mad for Skating
Mad for Skating
TAHbKA
Samokhvalov's interview with Nina Mozer `When am mad my inner Montserrat Caballé wakes up'
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
Vagabond
Vagabond
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information