Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guarantee the SAT scores were bought.

St Albans would have had a sense if the kids were “achieving” well above expected.

So did/would have the schools being investigated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guarantee the SAT scores were bought.

St Albans would have had a sense if the kids were “achieving” well above expected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever GDS trades on debate and liberal warrior...the issue is not GDS or the cathedral school...purchasing a coaches house for an above market value could be done by any parent. The family also gave a large donation to a not for profit that then donated to a program the coach run when the older child applied. Both boys, however, had top grades and scores and most likely would have been admitted anyway.

But lots of people with top grades and scores get rejected, too. It smells like an insurance policy. Probably not an explicit deal, but the dad must have been thinking that it would be helpful to his family.

Anonymous wrote:His wife was probably bribed in and/or used fake scores and fake recommendations. It’s a way of life.

Anonymous wrote:I was always really baffled by the couples where the guy was a super duper high flyer from an Ivy League school and the second or third trophy wife was very beautiful but not exactly an intellect, and they ended up sending kids to Ivy League schools, all of them were accepted into the gifted program etc.

Given that intellect is largely inherited, it just seemed . . . odd that these dudes would have kids who were more successful than the offspring of two Ivy League educated doctors or two Ivy League educated lawyers, etc. And even if you believe it's nurture, not nature, it seemed weird that women who watched TV all day and ignored their kids, who didn't pay attention to current events, etc. were producing these "gifted" kids.

It never added up to me. But now things are starting to make sense.

I was one of those people who would have stood there saying "So Billy got a tennis scholarship? That's so weird! We've known them for 20 years and I've never heard them mention tennis! And he's not on the school team!" and then I would have decided that I was crazy since none of that made any sense. Nice to know it's them, not me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the DOJ will ignore the apparent money laundering aspect and defer to the NCAA, but maybe with the help of Mr. Zhao's legal team?

Can someone explain how this is money laundering?

Disguised bribery as a sale for value, at an inflated valuation. Classic trade-based money laundering. It had all the elements too: placement, layering, and integration.

So in this case, who’s laundering the money? Does the term “laundering” mean that you are taking money earned illegally and converting it to untraceable clean money or is that just the movie description? Because it doesn’t sound like the guy who bought the house did so with illegally earned money.

No, read the section at the end of the article. The dad donated $1 million to a fencing foundation. That foundation in turn donated $100K to a charity newly created by the Harvard fencing coach. The dad's older son was subsequently admitted to Harvard. The Harvard fencing coach's charity only lasted a couple of years after the donation, which could suggest that it was set up for the sole purpose of laundering money.

.

That’s money laundering? Isn’t that how foundations work?

Anonymous wrote:Guarantee the SAT scores were bought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the hypocrite? You or the people who believe the ends justify the means?

What you are describing are average middle class methods. The parents you are describing above are gunners. Gunners know no bounds. Why do you think these families have intergenerational wealth... because they come from a line of gunners. Most people that obtain and hold onto a ton of cash are gunners. Robber barons, Opioid manufacturers, internet apps.. does not matter what time in history.

Gunners or criminals?

I'll take my ethics and send my kids to a "lesser" school, thank you very much.

Wasn't it George Bernard Shaw who ridiculed "middle-class morality?" The rich didn't need it, e.g. Prof. Henry Higgins, and the poor couldn't afford it, e.g., Alfred Doolittle.

That's me. Although our HHI is about $1 million per year. Alas, we are "new money" by DCUM standards, which I am also fine with.

My HHI is several times that, and my DH and I still take our ethics over any of this bull - no private tutors, no extra time, no payments to anyone, no fancy internships. We know people who run in these circles, and we are still shocked. But we were both raised solidly middle class, so we are new money, too.

Do you want an award? It must suck to be your kid with you looking down on everyone and probably your own nonmiddle class kids too

Posters are allowed to commiserate with someone. No need for you to be a jerk about it.

The OP was being a self righteous ass. They’re fair game.

Surely you see the irony of your post?

I think the OP is right to be proud of her ethics and taking a "lesser school." Why shouldn't she feel vindicated by that mindset now that these scandals have brought all this idiocy to light? Doesn't anyone else think that all of this has gotten to be too much for our kids and families?

And call me naive, but I didn't know as a teenager that this crap went on. [/quote
L

Oh my should I be all offended that you’re attacking me? Most people are like the OP and no one deserves to be patted on the head for not bribing people. She’s not some lonely voice crying out in the wilderness no matter how high a pedestal she puts herself on.