Anonymous wrote:You mean the universities kept the legally given donations and did not return them to the people committing fraud?

Unpossible!

(and yes I agree the kids fairly competing were worse victims. But your outrage is nonsense.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not true. Back when I was in school you only needed to show 12% Native American blood to get a full ride to any state school (western state). A bunch of us could do that. Plus, those with any black blood in them can claim black.

umm no . The only black people that should be checking off black is monoracial black people.

Says who? If you are even one drop black, claim it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really want to be outraged:
the universities are actually the "victims" in the charging documents. They are the ones who were subjects of the fraud for "honest services" (in the case of their employees).

Why is that outrageous?

If a bank teller steals cash from a depositor, is the bank not also a victim?

NP. I'll paraphrase a line straight out of the film: How many "victims" do you know who wound up with an extra several hundred thousand dollars at the end of the crime?

The universities kept all donations to their athletic programs from Singer (which came through his clients). They liked their pockets and still got to present as victims.

The real victims were the kids fairly competing for the spots at these universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately this scandal will be forgotten soon and the schools will not end up changing much. Other side doors will open. The US seems ok with privilege due to wealth while bashing URM and first gen students for the small number of spots they take

I think it's already forgotten. Does anyone post about the scandal in threads where these schools are mentioned? I saw Wake in a thread just the other day.

Georgetown
Stanford
UCLA
U San Diego
USC
UT Austin
Wake Forest
Yale

BINGO.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not true. Back when I was in school you only needed to show 12% Native American blood to get a full ride to any state school (western state). A bunch of us could do that. Plus, those with any black blood in them can claim black.

umm no . The only black people that should be checking off black is monoracial black people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really want to be outraged:
the universities are actually the "victims" in the charging documents. They are the ones who were subjects of the fraud for "honest services" (in the case of their employees).

Why is that outrageous?

If a bank teller steals cash from a depositor, is the bank not also a victim?

NP. I'll paraphrase a line straight out of the film: How many "victims" do you know who wound up with an extra several hundred thousand dollars at the end of the crime?

The universities kept all donations to their athletic programs from Singer (which came through his clients). They liked their pockets and still got to present as victims.

The real victims were the kids fairly competing for the spots at these universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really want to be outraged:
the universities are actually the "victims" in the charging documents. They are the ones who were subjects of the fraud for "honest services" (in the case of their employees).

Why is that outrageous?

If a bank teller steals cash from a depositor, is the bank not also a victim?

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.

That’s not true. Back when I was in school you only needed to show 12% Native American blood to get a full ride to any state school (western state). A bunch of us could do that. Plus, those with any black blood in them can claim black.

Anonymous wrote:If you really want to be outraged:
the universities are actually the "victims" in the charging documents. They are the ones who were subjects of the fraud for "honest services" (in the case of their employees).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

These folks who used the sidedoor would keep it below the radar. That is, you don't advertise back home that Larla was recruited by USC water polo. You just say that she got into USC.

If the coach is getting bribed, they assign the kid as a freshman benchwarmer - that is a common occurrence for new athletes. Coach keeps the kid off the sports team website. Or assigns them to the practice squad so they don't make the public roster. The kid then gets cut after freshman year. Remember, the coaches were in on the scam so they were incentivized to keep the kids' names out of the public realm.

Kids pan out all the time in sports. The coaches usually have too many qualified team members than there are spots on game day. The parents are paying full freight tuition, so the university is getting their money.

NO ONE CARES. Or even notices.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.