Why did these guys pay thousands, or millions, to a consultant to cheat for them to fool the admissions committees?
Why wouldn't they have just donated the money directly to the universities? That would have been 1000% above board and legal (although sleazy).
Is it really true that a $500,000 tax-deductable donation wouldn't get my kid into USC? Disclaimer, I do not have $500k, or any college-age children, so I honestly have no idea.
One friend of mine pointed out that one of the accused, I think, paid $6M. Endowing a chair at Yale costs $3M. You can't tell me that putting your name on a chair wouldn't send his kid's application to the top of the pile. Am I missing something here?
That said, Lori Loughlin's bribe was $500K, and there were some others of similar, or greater magnitude. I'd think that's in the ballpark of what you need to donate, at least depending on the school. For those people, yeah, I don't understand why they just didn't get in touch with administrators and talk about a donation.
Unless you can make a 500k donation, and keep it a secret to get the kid in, that method would not work. These parents want everyone to think their progeny is the best thing to ever grace God's Green Earth.
With the scam, at least it's covered up a bit.
Right. And there's nothing wrong with that, in the sense that only two kinds of kids get into Harvard: Smart kids and kids with rich parents. He is the latter. But that's on Harvard, not on Jared.
Perhaps at least some of them thought that’s what they were doing, then were told their kid needed some “extra” help to get in. First it just starts with getting your kid certified with a test taking disablement so they can take an untimed SAT/ACT. Lots of kids get that (they’re told) - what’s the harm? Then it moves on.
Not trying to excuse it mind you. Just saying these things usually happen in steps, and the first few are fairly benign.
Ok then. You're an honest bad parent then
Yeah, I have to agree with this one. The comment previous sure seems like we would all just pay money to have our kids go to a school under false pretenses. I sure wouldn't. How the hell do you learn a fucking thing if you basically do something dishonest to start the learning process. No wonder we are where we are at in this Country right now. Too many people see nothing wrong with being shitty, sneaky and lazy. Work hard and actually achieve something.
Fake outrage, my ass. Why should someone undeserving and apathetic get a slot over someone who is more qualified? It's one thing if the kid really tries hard, but just doesn't have the grades or the boards to get in. That I can see. But this girl clearly was interested in going to college for all the wrong reasons.
Fake outrage, my ass. Why should someone undeserving and apathetic get a slot over someone who is more qualified? It's one thing if the kid really tries hard, but just doesn't have the grades or the boards to get in. That I can see. But this girl clearly was interested in going to college for all the wrong reasons.
Agreed. Many schools would welcome a borderline qualified candidate who didn’t need financial aid. Look at the number of celebrity kids in Ivy League schools and Stanford. These parents could have afforded to send their kids to prep schools or have tutors to get them qualified to the best schools. USC being an exception. Really Lori?
The problem was the kids didn’t care enough to try to qualify or try to pursue a degree. It would have benefitted the kids more to go to a small local private college or a community college to sink or swim.
1900 is a very solid score, but I would think Georgetown had higher standards, especially when you consider that she may not have been the best student in high school.
I mean I did better than 1900, probably had a better GPA than this girl did and I didn't even get into NYU the first time around. And I would think that Georgetown is way more selective than NYU is.
Link - ( New Window )
1900 is a very solid score, but I would think Georgetown had higher standards, especially when you consider that she may not have been the best student in high school.
I mean I did better than 1900, probably had a better GPA than this girl did and I didn't even get into NYU the first time around. And I would think that Georgetown is way more selective than NYU is. Link - ( New Window )
In order for the cheating to work, the increase had to be low enough that it would not get flagged by the Admissions Committee
Quote:
Look at the link below. One of the kids who cheated on the SATs and only got a 1900 out of 2400, which was 320 points higher than she would've gotten with no help.
1900 is a very solid score, but I would think Georgetown had higher standards, especially when you consider that she may not have been the best student in high school.
I mean I did better than 1900, probably had a better GPA than this girl did and I didn't even get into NYU the first time around. And I would think that Georgetown is way more selective than NYU is. Link - ( New Window )
In order for the cheating to work, the increase had to be low enough that it would not get flagged by the Admissions Committee
Right, I get that, but 1900 is enough to get into Georgetown?
But if you're someone with no connection to the university, you can't buy your moron child a seat at any sort of respected university.
They also bribed the tennis coach to get her listed as a recruited athlete.
But if you're someone with no connection to the university, you can't buy your moron child a seat at any sort of respected university.
Charlie Kushner had no connection to Harvard. He gave some money, and Jared got in.
He also said there's a front door -- work hard, get good grades, go through the regular admissions process -- and a back door -- make a big donation. I'm creating a side door.
Another answer to the question, by the way, is that some of these families aren't wealthy enough to give multiple millions to a school, but they can afford to pay a few hundred thousand. That's not enough for the "back door" but enough for Singer's "side door."
My daughter got into Yale and we couldn't afford to pay anyone anything. We had plenty of privilege in the process but we are squarely middle-class. She worked like a demon from 6th grade onward. We couldn't afford private school, so she went through the Los Angeles public schools. (Do you know how hard it is to get into an Ivy from Venice High School?) We could afford some test-prep books but not classes. I drove her to school every day so she'd have a little extra sleep and time to do her homework; that's a kind of privilege, too. Not everyone can do that. But she took a city bus home every day.
Three AP courses as a sophomore, four as a junior, four as a senior. When I went to high school I think I took three as a senior and that was considered a huge workload.
She's a "self-starter" so we never had to push her, but she worked her butt off. This scandal turns my stomach.
Quote:
Ok then. You're an honest bad parent then
Teaching your kids the value of hard work and fair play = bad parenting
Cheating the system = good parenting
Got it. Interesting lessons are you passing on to your kids.
Yes seems pretty excessive, but I'm thinking flight risk and she had multiple mail fraud charges.
But yeah $1 mill is same as R Kelly....
You don't think kids from a super famous family...Bush, Trump, Clinton, Obama have a open invitation?
You don't think kids from a super famous family...Bush, Trump, Clinton, Obama have a open invitation?
The innovations here are actually cheating on the SAT's and paying coaches to say your kid is needed for whatever sports team even though s/he ain't an athlete.
Again I think the folks doing this are just a notch down from the truly rich and truly famous who get their kids in other ways. Out of envy and frustration they resort to stuff like this. T
Like, realistically....WTF is the difference?! Both are clearly done to get an unqualified kid into the university.
You don't think kids from a super famous family...Bush, Trump, Clinton, Obama have a open invitation?
That is not illegal. Don't conflate the two. Those kids of Presidents and corporate giants got in on name. Schools have a right to chose their students. Their families did not cheat by bribing sports coaches to "pick" the child as an athlete to the extent of photoshopping faces on to bodies of actual athletes.
But if you're someone with no connection to the university, you can't buy your moron child a seat at any sort of respected university.
This is correct. I went to one of these universities and I met a couple girls who were pretty open about the fact that they cheated to get in. Nice girls, but incredibly stupid with stupid money to match.
Which is maybe why USC is a special case. 1st, maybe the acting or drama program that the kids wanted to go to is extremely selective...
2nd, We are not talking about a "normally" competitive school. Like... Michigan for example. If your parent is a famous, wealthy celebrity, and they can make a donation, I am guessing that UM will find a spot for you.
But at USC, an expensive private school in LA, the applications are probably lousy with children of famous and wealthy Hollywood celebs, actors, producers, KOLs. It might be much harder to get in as progeny of a celebrity, since that crowd could be dime/dozen over there. Additionally, universities like to accept kids from wealthy families, since those kids end up running the company one day, and sending their own children to the university and funding it anew. However, Hollywood families and children are not really interested in business careers or academia. They just want to grow up to be Instagram influencers or celebrities themselves... so accepting the scion of a wealthy family will not necessarily yield generational dividends.
THIS could explain why these USC parents tried to get their kid in on (fraudulent) academic or athletic merits, and were willing to pay for it. A $500k donation to study acting at USC may not go as far as elsewhere in the country.
I realize things have changed since I went to a third rate school a hundred years ago (where you actually had to earn your grades) but legacies have been around forever.
I realize things have changed since I went to a third rate school a hundred years ago (where you actually had to earn your grades) but legacies have been around forever.
They really don't compete head up. But the legacies families have donated large amount for years and the schools can claim that they have educated former Presidents (Yale and Bushes, etc).
Like, realistically....WTF is the difference?! Both are clearly done to get an unqualified kid into the university.
The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.
This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.
I would really be curious to see statistics of grades for merit entry students versus others.
This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.
Seriously?! There is a bit of willful ignorance in your response.
Yes, I understand that one is illegal and the other isn't. But the end result is exactly the same!
And the only reason one is legal is because the government hasn't deemed it illegal. It's essentially a legal bribe.
Both are scummy actions and take away from normal students.
Donating to school = plausible deniability that it was a "bribe", especially if you have a years long history of (large) donations not just a one time lump sum when your kid(s) applies.
That's really the only difference.
Quote:
The FBI wanted to make a distinction between the accused and those who donate a building to the school.
Like, realistically....WTF is the difference?! Both are clearly done to get an unqualified kid into the university.
The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.
This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.
These schools are mostly private, they can do whatever they want, but they aren't isolated from society We in the public get to call bullshit.
It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$. Of course, there is a cost to admitting rich kids at the expense of smarter kids, and that cost is that the quality of the scholarship and innovation produced by the graduating class will decline.
If it were a public university, which has a specific mandate to serve and benefit the public, this conversation might take a different turn.
Of course, the one thing we know about rich private schools is that they take kids just because theyre rich in addition to kids who are smart. Employers (and prospective students) beware. Harvard only has cache because the rest of us give it cache.
It's the Canada Goose of colleges. Conspicuous consumerism. Doesn't mean it isn't an excellently made coat, and wearing it out in public won't impress strangers.
Quote:
The parents and coaches who are being indicted engaged in criminal behavior and fraud. They cheated on tests. They photoshopped their children's faces on other kid's bodies so as to misrepresent them as qualified high school athletes. In almost all cases, they explicitly lied on the application (one kid, whose actual height is 5ft5in, represented his height as 6ft1in so that he could be recruited for basketball). They bribed coaches with cash.
This is very, very different from a family that makes a donation so that a university will reconsider an otherwise unacceptable application from a student with low test scores. In one instance, the parents and consultants are lying. In another, the university is lowering its own standards.
Seriously?! There is a bit of willful ignorance in your response.
Yes, I understand that one is illegal and the other isn't. But the end result is exactly the same!
And the only reason one is legal is because the government hasn't deemed it illegal. It's essentially a legal bribe.
Both are scummy actions and take away from normal students.
The end result is not exactly the same. When the $ goes into the school, above-board, the funds (in theory) are going to the betterment of the institution, for the benefit of current and future students. (Now, I won't argue about the endowments/politics/ethics of the way these institutions are managed in reality).
In these cases presently making news, the funds are used for the personal enrichment of unscrupulous individuals. It's a whole different barrel of monkeys.
Tangentially, there's a legitimate ethical question behind it all -- if a system could exist where a small percentage of rich, less-than-qualified students were admitted to universities above-board at exhorbitant pricetags, and that money could reliably be used to reduce the cost for existing students or pay the tuitions of some uber-qualified students who could not otherwise afford to attend....is that arrangement ethical or unethical?
Surely it could be argued both ways. I don't know that I have a strong opinion.
The example of the scandal currently in the news is akin to someone lying about a death in the family so that they can get on a convenient flight without getting gouged.
But I could easily argue against this. The entire student body becomes weaker when schools admit less-qualified students. That effects the overall reputation of the school along with all current students and alumni.
I could also argue that schools still charge the same tuition rate regardless of donations. It's like found money to them.
Given the absurd cost of tuition today, money is far more important to students than having a new dorm.
Quote:
The end result is not exactly the same. When the $ goes into the school, above-board, the funds (in theory) are going to the betterment of the institution, for the benefit of current and future students. (Now, I won't argue about the endowments/politics/ethics of the way these institutions are managed in reality).
But I could easily argue against this. The entire student body becomes weaker when schools admit less-qualified students. That effects the overall reputation of the school along with all current students and alumni.
I could also argue that schools still charge the same tuition rate regardless of donations. It's like found money to them.
Given the absurd cost of tuition today, money is far more important to students than having a new dorm.
I guess I don't disagree. My angle was admittedly thoeretical. The reality of the situation is that the cesspool of higher ed endowment and lack of cost structure makes the money going into the school basically indistinguishable from the money going into the shady individual's pocket.
Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?
Quote:
It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$.
Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?
It's beyond applications, though. I believe they also cheated on the SAT and ACT.
Truthfully, I think the entire industry is one big fucking scam. Even my cable bill doesn't have such irresponsible annual increases in cost.
$1.56 trillion in student loan debt and it's only going to get worse.
Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?
Because it wasn’t just application fraud. Their ACT/SAT scores were fraudulent; in some cases a test taker was paid to take the test in the student”s name. Additionally, coaches were bribed to give students athletic placement in sports they had never played.
Quote:
It's bribery. But only if you ignore the fact that Harvard and USC are private clubs. They can admit anybody they want, for whatever reason. Even $$$.
Perhaps someone more educated can help me here, but for private institutions, why does the government care about those who lie on their admissions applications? Shouldn't applications be vetted by the institutions themselves?
They take tons of federal money in the form of financial and various grants.That gives the government the authority to the ntervene. It’s the same reason Title IX can be enforced, along with Department of Education policy.
I'll also be happy to raise my hand as someone who graduated from one of the schools mentioned, donates (albeit on a vastly smaller scale), and assists in recruitment capacities with an absolute intention on looking to leverage any bit of advantage to have my children gain admittance when their times come. I paid my way, full boat, and earned every bit of my degree and look to prosper during my lifetime for the express purpose of giving my children the privileges that I didn't enjoy. I'd prefer to put my children in a position to succeed at a more advanced stage than I began, and with less obstacles. Isn't that one of the purposes of life universal to most? Of course, there is a difference between cheating and using the accepted channels to advance those interests.
Is it fair to leverage wealth and social capital to help your children gain an edge? I won't debate the morality but it's a part of life and its part of the goal seek for many, whether it be via monetary inheritance or a business or real estate or whatever it may be. If you don't want your children to be left behind then compete and win today so that they are set up for tomorrow.
I'll also be happy to raise my hand as someone who graduated from one of the schools mentioned, donates (albeit on a vastly smaller scale), and assists in recruitment capacities with an absolute intention on looking to leverage any bit of advantage to have my children gain admittance when their times come. I paid my way, full boat, and earned every bit of my degree and look to prosper during my lifetime for the express purpose of giving my children the privileges that I didn't enjoy. I'd prefer to put my children in a position to succeed at a more advanced stage than I began, and with less obstacles. Isn't that one of the purposes of life universal to most? Of course, there is a difference between cheating and using the accepted channels to advance those interests.
Is it fair to leverage wealth and social capital to help your children gain an edge? I won't debate the morality but it's a part of life and its part of the goal seek for many, whether it be via monetary inheritance or a business or real estate or whatever it may be. If you don't want your children to be left behind then compete and win today so that they are set up for tomorrow.
That's all fine and trying to help your kids succeed is a universal truth that exists in all societies except some mythical utopia. However, what these parents did for their kids, whom already had all of the advantages in life as kids of wealthy parents, was outright fraud and cheating. They deserve all of the scorn and any legal punishment coming.
Quote:
Quantifiable metrics? Intangibles? And why should a private school care about how anyone else perceives their admission practices? If their admission practices lead to a poor student experience, weak student body, etc then the market will ultimately dictate a decline in prestige, placement, etc. If a private school decides to supplement a relatively homogenous admittance of +4.0/1600s with some athletes, legacies, deep pockets, etc then I don't expect to see much of an issue and I didn't see an issue as a student.
I'll also be happy to raise my hand as someone who graduated from one of the schools mentioned, donates (albeit on a vastly smaller scale), and assists in recruitment capacities with an absolute intention on looking to leverage any bit of advantage to have my children gain admittance when their times come. I paid my way, full boat, and earned every bit of my degree and look to prosper during my lifetime for the express purpose of giving my children the privileges that I didn't enjoy. I'd prefer to put my children in a position to succeed at a more advanced stage than I began, and with less obstacles. Isn't that one of the purposes of life universal to most? Of course, there is a difference between cheating and using the accepted channels to advance those interests.
Is it fair to leverage wealth and social capital to help your children gain an edge? I won't debate the morality but it's a part of life and its part of the goal seek for many, whether it be via monetary inheritance or a business or real estate or whatever it may be. If you don't want your children to be left behind then compete and win today so that they are set up for tomorrow.
That's all fine and trying to help your kids succeed is a universal truth that exists in all societies except some mythical utopia. However, what these parents did for their kids, whom already had all of the advantages in life as kids of wealthy parents, was outright fraud and cheating. They deserve all of the scorn and any legal punishment coming.
And since they’ve been brought up on federal charges, the answer on who will judge them: a federal court.
2nd
also the USC School of Cinematic Arts is one of the hardest schools to get in country to get into
it has an acceptance rate lower than Ivy League schools between 2-5% acceptance. Depending on the track -- the screenwriting section has only accepts 30 students per year from 1500 applicants
180 IQ ?
Hmm. Don't think so, but family has plenty of money (earning VIP student status). That's how you do it the "honest" way. Here's the link ...
https://www.quora.com/As-George-W-Bush-managed-to-graduate-from-both-Yale-and-Harvard-does-this-mean-these-universities-have-much-lower-standards-than-is-generally-claimed-Or-did-he-just-get-a-lot-of-help
We've had deaths in the family, she's had a concussion, she had a stalker, and at every stage there have been people she could call to help accommodate her problems. In my time at SUNYA, as far as I could tell I was pretty much on my own.
Basically, once you're into Yale they will go to great lengths to help you get through it. I think part of that is because they figure that during admissions they identified you as someone they want in their community now and for the rest of your life, and it's bad for them if they turn out to be wrong about that. Once you're in, they want to keep you in.
Students do transfer, drop out and flunk out but if you want to finish, they go to great lengths to help you, even if it's just with a "Gentleman's C."