Operation Varsity Blues

[Anonymous]

I thought the random (not involved in the scandal) kids they featured crying/shocked about not getting into Stanford for social media were really grim. Disappointment is of course understandable but they really seemed surprised and devastated about not getting something that is famously a long shot even for the most excellent students. Their parents and counselors did them a disservice by not making sure they understood that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely a bad taste for stanford since it looked like the corruption went higher than an individual coach.

+1

Hint: Stanford is not the only ivy prone to "pay to play".

Um. Stanford is not an Ivy.

I went to an actual Ivy. We knew who the kids were that bought their way in, and we knew the others. It’s pretty obvious.

Lol it's literally more prestigious that all the Ivies save Harvard.

But guess what, it's still not an Ivy....and your statement is easily debatable. STANFORD is NOT an IVY. A comparable West Coast alternative, still NOT an IVY.

[Anonymous]

The emphasis that Stanford places on athletics made it an easy mark for Rick Singer.

Stanford is always touting its triumphant wins of the all-inclusive Capital One Cup or the Directors Cup, which are based on order of finish in the broad array of sports programs. Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of its undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of its peer institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely a bad taste for stanford since it looked like the corruption went higher than an individual coach.

+1

Hint: Stanford is not the only ivy prone to "pay to play".

Um. Stanford is not an Ivy.

I went to an actual Ivy. We knew who the kids were that bought their way in, and we knew the others. It’s pretty obvious.

Not an Ivy. Far better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the random (not involved in the scandal) kids they featured crying/shocked about not getting into Stanford for social media were really grim. Disappointment is of course understandable but they really seemed surprised and devastated about not getting something that is famously a long shot even for the most excellent students. Their parents and counselors did them a disservice by not making sure they understood that.

Disagree strongly. Teenagers are emotional. They are allowed to care. They are allowed to dream, even get their hopes up a little.

A reaction, that is filmed, does not mean the student was devastated for days/weeks/months on end. In fact, if you watch those videos, often they reappear days or even hours later, completely fine, waxing philosophical.

[Anonymous]

I’d love to know how many people try the backdoor and are really unsuccessful. And I mean big donations of say 2M+. Are the kids of these donors REALLY not getting in? Or was that just a line Singer sold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The emphasis that Stanford places on athletics made it an easy mark for Rick Singer.

Stanford is always touting its triumphant wins of the all-inclusive Capital One Cup or the Directors Cup, which are based on order of finish in the broad array of sports programs. Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of its undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of its peer institutions.

I would think it would be a lot easier to slip a fake athlete through admissions at a school that did not have the sort of extremely strong teams Stanford does across the board. It’s big news in the youth sports world and wherever a kid lives if he or she get recruited to play there or at any school that is a powerhouse in the sport in question. Almost all the kids who do get recruited have ridiculous athletic resumes. If someone who didn’t have that sort of athletic pedigree was listed as a recruit, there would be all kinds of gossip about it in the youth sports world. Schools and coaches with teams that never or rarely make playoffs receive far less scrutiny, so a rando could fly under the radar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely a bad taste for stanford since it looked like the corruption went higher than an individual coach.

+1

Hint: Stanford is not the only ivy prone to "pay to play".

Um. Stanford is not an Ivy.

I went to an actual Ivy. We knew who the kids were that bought their way in, and we knew the others. It’s pretty obvious.

Lol it's literally more prestigious that all the Ivies save Harvard.

But guess what, it's still not an Ivy....and your statement is easily debatable. STANFORD is NOT an IVY. A comparable West Coast alternative, still NOT an IVY.

Lol are you insecure you went to a non-HYP Ivy? It's really not up for debate and I have no bone in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d love to know how many people try the backdoor and are really unsuccessful. And I mean big donations of say 2M+. Are the kids of these donors REALLY not getting in? Or was that just a line Singer sold?

does Harvard care about a 2M donation from a prospective parent? Sure is the 2M is part of a pattern of giving from a family, their offspring is going to get in, but a one time 2M donation from a rando? I doubt Harvard or Stanford would care at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The emphasis that Stanford places on athletics made it an easy mark for Rick Singer.

Stanford is always touting its triumphant wins of the all-inclusive Capital One Cup or the Directors Cup, which are based on order of finish in the broad array of sports programs. Stanford’s more than 850 varsity student-athletes today represent 12% of its undergraduate population, a far higher percentage than exists at nearly all of its peer institutions.

I would think it would be a lot easier to slip a fake athlete through admissions at a school that did not have the sort of extremely strong teams Stanford does across the board. It’s big news in the youth sports world and wherever a kid lives if he or she get recruited to play there or at any school that is a powerhouse in the sport in question. Almost all the kids who do get recruited have ridiculous athletic resumes. If someone who didn’t have that sort of athletic pedigree was listed as a recruit, there would be all kinds of gossip about it in the youth sports world. Schools and coaches with teams that never or rarely make playoffs receive far less scrutiny, so a rando could fly under the radar.

College athletic recruiting is a hit-or-miss proposition. Not all legitimate recruits pan out athletically to compete at the next level. The more slots there are, the more opportunities to hide the Singer frauds. Stanford has 36 -- count'em 36 -- intercollegiate sports programs. More sports, more chicanery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d love to know how many people try the backdoor and are really unsuccessful. And I mean big donations of say 2M+. Are the kids of these donors REALLY not getting in? Or was that just a line Singer sold?

does Harvard care about a 2M donation from a prospective parent? Sure is the 2M is part of a pattern of giving from a family, their offspring is going to get in, but a one time 2M donation from a rando? I doubt Harvard or Stanford would care at all

The general point is do the offspring of big donors really not get in? I truly doubt that. Someone who donates enough for a building (clearly more than 2M) the school isn’t going to turn down the kids of the donor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely a bad taste for stanford since it looked like the corruption went higher than an individual coach.

+1

Hint: Stanford is not the only ivy prone to "pay to play".

Um. Stanford is not an Ivy.

I went to an actual Ivy. We knew who the kids were that bought their way in, and we knew the others. It’s pretty obvious.

Lol it's literally more prestigious that all the Ivies save Harvard.

But guess what, it's still not an Ivy....and your statement is easily debatable. STANFORD is NOT an IVY. A comparable West Coast alternative, still NOT an IVY.

Lol are you insecure you went to a non-HYP Ivy? It's really not up for debate and I have no bone in this.

I actually graduated from an HYP. Hint for PP, HYPSM is not ordered as such alphabetically...but for the SM suffix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can an applicant lie about their race/ethnicity? Isn’t their actual race noted in the high school transcript, or counselor’s recommendation?

If you get 23 & Me, you can find that 1% or less of an under-represented minority to check on the application.

One has to be a quarter (25%) of a minority to check a race box.

Source?

I think they have to just go on the word of the parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can an applicant lie about their race/ethnicity? Isn’t their actual race noted in the high school transcript, or counselor’s recommendation?

Worked out well for Elizabeth Warren

This is going to happen more and more. As the incentives increase, more parents will claim that they are black or Hispanic.

The smart ones will plan ahead and just register them in Kindgarten as such

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can an applicant lie about their race/ethnicity? Isn’t their actual race noted in the high school transcript, or counselor’s recommendation?

If you get 23 & Me, you can find that 1% or less of an under-represented minority to check on the application.

One has to be a quarter (25%) of a minority to check a race box.

Source?

I think they have to just go on the word of the parent.

Being black can follow the “one drop rule” Hispanic is even broader:

From the US Census Bureau:

“How Do I Answer the Question on Race?

Answer: The individual who responds to the census decides what his or her racial identity.”