Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Found this on the ASU thread:


Loughlin's first husband, Michael R. Burns, graduated from ASU. Burns is now the vice chairman of film company Lionsgate. Giannulli went to USC, but does not appear to have graduated.

How can Loughlin sit and bash ASU when her ex went there and is worth 10 million now. I guess an USC drop-out who makes more, but is a cheat, is what they wanted their ditz daughter to strive for.

Have they fired her from Hallmark yet? Has Target dropped him yet?

Yeah. I just don’t hate these people that much.
Sure what they did was wrong, but I don’t really want them to loose everything because of it. I hope They aren’t dropped from their respective careers.

So you think a slap on the wrist should suffice? That will get the people cirrrupting admissions to stop.

Sorry, they need to lose their jobs. They are worth plenty. Their kid could have gone to any college and would still be rich. Enough with these idiots.

Parents fined.
Kids... if they were complicit, expulsion. If not, I think they review the quality of the person’s work.

Don't you think a fine is too easy? This is a set of people used to buying their way into and out of everything. I think they should all have some jail time, frankly.

Anonymous wrote:I was wondering how Lori Loughlin had $500,000 to blow on bribes, but then I remembered that she's married to Mossimo of "Mossimo for Target".

It got me thinking about the many, MANY pairs of Mossimo leggings, tanks, tees, etc. I've gotten at Target over the past 10 years & I'm pretty sure I can be considered an accomplice to this crime for bankrolling this guy for so many years.

Sigh... serves me right for being such a basic bitch...

Hahahahaha. This made my morning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "scandal" at Oxbridge isn't lesser qualified students getting in through connections or hooks or parents' wealth or legacies. That's not the issue because it's not an issue, those who get admissions are very well qualified. The "scandal" is the heavy concentration of Oxbridge students coming from private schools and a particular handful of private schools, but that is more a reflection of the sheer dominance of private education among upper middle and upper class Britons. Far more entrenched than in the United States. Even among state school students, the same handful of prestigious selective entry state schools also dominate. So it's the chicken and egg problem, and something that's really not comparable to the American admissions scandals.

Just to use as a case point: no one from the current generation of the royal family has gone to Oxbridge. You think they would be denied at the Ivies? Fat chance. Same with kids of prime ministers. Blair only had one child go to Oxbridge, I believe. The others went to other (albeit still quite good) universities. You don't get admitted just because your father's a duke or a billionaire or a famous BBC star. You gotta have the qualifications first.

You don’t think Prince William would have been admitted? I sincerely doubt they would not have made a space for him at any of the premier Oxbridge colleges. I think he chose a different path.

Of course, Brideshead Revisited is my guide!

He didn't even bother to apply. Because it was known he wouldn't have met the qualification expectations. Same with the other royal grandkids. Oxbridge admissions works on the basis that the schools themselves encourage certain students to apply and discourage others. In theory anyone can apply but the schools will actively discourage lesser qualified students from applying, so the schools do a lot of weeding out the applicants before they even apply to Oxbridge. It's not like in the US with many applying to the Ivies on the off chance. The downside, insofar as there is one, is that it means the system is set up so the schools with the greatest familiarity with Oxbridge, both state and private, have an inbuilt advantage through knowing how to coach their preferred students to get into Oxbridge. Plenty of ambitious students will switch schools for sixth form to go to specialist sixth form colleges that have a strong track record of Oxbridge admissions specifically to increase their chances of Oxbridge admissions. Or sixth form at other private schools. And so forth.

Brideshead Revisited is utterly irrelevant to Oxbridge, just as the 1920s Harvard/Yale world is to today's campuses.

This has been riveting but not surprising.

I am wondering and perhaps this has been addressed here why they have not disclosed the names of the other parents just the two celebrities?

Also when and how will they determine if the kids knew, which I can't help but think they did and feel they should be accountable.

Do you think they will be allowed to remain in their respective colleges?

Glad this is finally under the public spotlight, it has gone on way too long.

Anonymous wrote:Influencing coaches for admission is not a new thing. Fifteen years ago when my son was a HS senior I sent a video of him playing HS tennis to coaches at some very prestigious universities he was interested in, including some of the ones currently in the news. My son is missing his leg below his knee but with his prothesis he is an incredible player. He would not have been able to compete at the D1 level. Two of the coaches called me to say they would see what they could do and he ended getting into both schools. My son never knew about it. He did have very good grades and SAT’s and he might have been able to get in on his own but I did what I could. But bribing people to help? Never. FWIW - my son is now an orthopedic surgeon.

Congrats! He sounds like a great person. Anne thanks for the one positive anecdote on this thread.

Someone posted this on CC.

I did some searching on the Web to see where the parents themselves went to school. The list appears to be heavily represented by parents from highly selective schools, perhaps indicating that some parents may have thought (rightly or wrongly) that certain schools helped them and would therefore help their children.

Gregory Abbott, Princeton ‘72
Marcia Abbott (nee Meighan), Hotchkiss School, Duke
Gamal Abdelaziz, University of Cairo, Egypt
Todd Blake, Vanderbilt ’88, University of Michigan MBA ‘93
Diane Blake, Providence College ‘86
Jane Buckingham, Horace Mann HS ’86, Duke ‘90
Gordon Caplan, Cornell ’88, Fordham University JD ‘91
I-Hsin Joey Chen
Gregory Colburn, UCLA Medical School ‘84
Amy Colburn
Robert Flaxman, University of Southern California
Manuel Henriquez, Northeastern ‘87
Elizabeth Henriquez
Douglas Hodge, Dartmouth ’79, Harvard Business School MBA ‘84
Felicia Huffman, New York University
Augustin Huneeus, UC Berkeley, Northwestern/Kellogg Business School
Bruce Isackson, UCLA ‘80
Davina Isackson, University of Miami BA ’84, MS ’86, PhD ‘91
Michelle Janavs
Elisabeth Kimmel, Stanford ’86, Harvard Law School JD ‘90
Marjorie Klapper, UCLA ‘90
Lori Loughlin, no college
Mossimo Giannulli, University of Southern California (reportedly dropped out)?
Toby MacFarlane
William McGlashan, Yale, Stanford Business School
Marci Palatella
Peter Sartorio, Arizona State Univ ‘89
Stephen Semprevivo, Harvard ’88, Harvard Business School MBA ‘94
David Sidoo, University of British Columbia ‘82
Devin Sloane
John B. Wilson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ’81, Harvard Business School MBA ‘83
Homayoun Zadeh, USC School of Dentistry DDS ’87, Univ of Connecticut PhD
Robert Zangrillo, University of Vermont, Stanford Business School

Anonymous wrote:The "scandal" at Oxbridge isn't lesser qualified students getting in through connections or hooks or parents' wealth or legacies. That's not the issue because it's not an issue, those who get admissions are very well qualified. The "scandal" is the heavy concentration of Oxbridge students coming from private schools and a particular handful of private schools, but that is more a reflection of the sheer dominance of private education among upper middle and upper class Britons. Far more entrenched than in the United States. Even among state school students, the same handful of prestigious selective entry state schools also dominate. So it's the chicken and egg problem, and something that's really not comparable to the American admissions scandals.

Just to use as a case point: no one from the current generation of the royal family has gone to Oxbridge. You think they would be denied at the Ivies? Fat chance. Same with kids of prime ministers. Blair only had one child go to Oxbridge, I believe. The others went to other (albeit still quite good) universities. You don't get admitted just because your father's a duke or a billionaire or a famous BBC star. You gotta have the qualifications first.

You don’t think Prince William would have been admitted? I sincerely doubt they would not have made a space for him at any of the premier Oxbridge colleges. I think he chose a different path.

Of course, Brideshead Revisited is my guide!

Anonymous wrote:Baudrillard might call this scandal a simulation effect, right? Pretending it’s a scandal that the system is rigged and breaks in favor of the powerful who can pay to play masks the fact that in fact it’s biz as usual.

The guy at the center set it up as a fake charity so the parents’ payments to him would be tax deductible... these are all practices from the .1% playbook.

Anthropologist Laura Nadar’s essay “Studying Up” about how wealthy people hold on to their cultural/capital in part by not allowing anyone to know their culture or cultural practices (hard for anthros and sociologists to study the wealthy) feels so relevant.

This is a less subtle version of what has been happening for years. Endow a building football stadium and library and your grand/kids get in. And you seem magnanimous. But this, too, is cheating.

This is big money corruption!

Baudrillard might call this scandal a simulation effect, right? Pretending it’s a scandal that the system is rigged and breaks in favor of the powerful who can pay to play masks the fact that in fact it’s biz as usual.

The guy at the center set it up as a fake charity so the parents’ payments to him would be tax deductible... these are all practices from the .1% playbook.

Anthropologist Laura Nadar’s essay “Studying Up” about how wealthy people hold on to their cultural/capital in part by not allowing anyone to know their culture or cultural practices (hard for anthros and sociologists to study the wealthy) feels so relevant.

This is a less subtle version of what has been happening for years. Endow a building football stadium and library and your grand/kids get in. And you seem magnanimous. But this, too, is cheating.

The "scandal" at Oxbridge isn't lesser qualified students getting in through connections or hooks or parents' wealth or legacies. That's not the issue because it's not an issue, those who get admissions are very well qualified. The "scandal" is the heavy concentration of Oxbridge students coming from private schools and a particular handful of private schools, but that is more a reflection of the sheer dominance of private education among upper middle and upper class Britons. Far more entrenched than in the United States. Even among state school students, the same handful of prestigious selective entry state schools also dominate. So it's the chicken and egg problem, and something that's really not comparable to the American admissions scandals.

Just to use as a case point: no one from the current generation of the royal family has gone to Oxbridge. You think they would be denied at the Ivies? Fat chance. Same with kids of prime ministers. Blair only had one child go to Oxbridge, I believe. The others went to other (albeit still quite good) universities. You don't get admitted just because your father's a duke or a billionaire or a famous BBC star. You gotta have the qualifications first.