Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the ACT/SAT cheating part was done is crazy. Mark Riddell, a 36 year old Harvard grad, would fly in to one of the cheating test sites in Texas or California. The students were told to tell the testing people they had to take the test there if they were not from the area that they had a bah mitzvah or something. Mark Riddell would either take the test for them, sit with them and tell them the answers while they took it, or change the answers for it. He did this for multiple tests including the subject tests.

Also applications were faked with made up sports and ethnicities. The girl who got into Georgetown had him take her tests and got a fake tennis history made up.

I hope they release all 700 names. Just follow the money. Most of the students knew. Also I don’t think future students should have to take these standardized tests. They are paying College Board for a test that only measures how well you can cheat.

This shows that colleges don't really verify these activities.

And this seems to be the craziest part of this story! Taking this logic to the extreme, why do colleges ask for transcripts, while they just should take the applicants' word for it.
Ridiculous.

I wouldn't go that far. It certainly shows they don't verify when the application already has an "admit" tag on it. Perhaps thinking, Why bother revetting the "already vetted" applicant?

Presumably they trusted the crooked coaches to do the vetting. Maybe now they’ll put in some layers of oversight.

Whatever happened to the student at Georgetown who participated in the cheating and worked with her proctor during the SATs? Is she still in school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow- The Isackson family spent $600,000 to get their daughters into UCLA and USC as fake athletes. Even transferred Facebook shares. That is on top of tuition. Disgusting family.

+1

disgusting

The hutzpah of these people is amazing.

Anonymous wrote:Wow- The Isackson family spent $600,000 to get their daughters into UCLA and USC as fake athletes. Even transferred Facebook shares. That is on top of tuition. Disgusting family.

+1

disgusting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How the ACT/SAT cheating part was done is crazy. Mark Riddell, a 36 year old Harvard grad, would fly in to one of the cheating test sites in Texas or California. The students were told to tell the testing people they had to take the test there if they were not from the area that they had a bah mitzvah or something. Mark Riddell would either take the test for them, sit with them and tell them the answers while they took it, or change the answers for it. He did this for multiple tests including the subject tests.

Also applications were faked with made up sports and ethnicities. The girl who got into Georgetown had him take her tests and got a fake tennis history made up.

I hope they release all 700 names. Just follow the money. Most of the students knew. Also I don’t think future students should have to take these standardized tests. They are paying College Board for a test that only measures how well you can cheat.

This shows that colleges don't really verify these activities.

And this seems to be the craziest part of this story! Taking this logic to the extreme, why do colleges ask for transcripts, while they just should take the applicants' word for it.
Ridiculous.

I wouldn't go that far. It certainly shows they don't verify when the application already has an "admit" tag on it. Perhaps thinking, Why bother revetting the "already vetted" applicant?

Wow- The Isackson family spent $600,000 to get their daughters into UCLA and USC as fake athletes. Even transferred Facebook shares. That is on top of tuition. Disgusting family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

Most


The Feds have Singer's emails, texts, and banking records. They likely have those of most of his associates. They are first going after the low hanging fruit (current clients they have on tape). They will be working their way down the list of his former clients.

Investigators interview Singer and friends to find out what help they gave to your family. Your cancelled check or wired money is easily identified as is the donation claimed on your tax return. Your child entered or graduated from a certain elite school, also easily verified. The investigators ask the school for your child's admission criteria and then contacts your child's High School to confirm the information. The only thing missing is taped evidence, but cases have been made without it.

More wishful thinking. Without the recordings, it’s nearly impossible to prove intent on the part of the parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

Has anyone looked at Singer's foundation 990?

The IRS has suspended their charitable status, but past foundation donors should have been publicly disclosed on the 990.

I don't have Guidestar access and am not quite curious enough to pay for it just to research this.

There seem to be reporters who have, but they focus on the spending of the charity, not the donors. Maybe the names are there, but the news outlet don't want the liability of mentioning anyone who hasn't been charged.

Actually, I gather it's a public charity and wasn't required to disclose donor names.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

The Feds have Singer's emails, texts, and banking records. They likely have those of most of his associates. They are first going after the low hanging fruit (current clients they have on tape). They will be working their way down the list of his former clients.

Investigators interview Singer and friends to find out what help they gave to your family. Your cancelled check or wired money is easily identified as is the donation claimed on your tax return. Your child entered or graduated from a certain elite school, also easily verified. The investigators ask the school for your child's admission criteria and then contacts your child's High School to confirm the information. The only thing missing is taped evidence, but cases have been made without it.

Well then there must be some folks shaking in their boots right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

Has anyone looked at Singer's foundation 990?

The IRS has suspended their charitable status, but past foundation donors should have been publicly disclosed on the 990.

I don't have Guidestar access and am not quite curious enough to pay for it just to research this.

There seem to be reporters who have, but they focus on the spending of the charity, not the donors. Maybe the names are there, but the news outlet don't want the liability of mentioning anyone who hasn't been charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

The Feds have Singer's emails, texts, and banking records. They likely have those of most of his associates. They are first going after the low hanging fruit (current clients they have on tape). They will be working their way down the list of his former clients.

Investigators interview Singer and friends to find out what help they gave to your family. Your cancelled check or wired money is easily identified as is the donation claimed on your tax return. Your child entered or graduated from a certain elite school, also easily verified. The investigators ask the school for your child's admission criteria and then contacts your child's High School to confirm the information. The only thing missing is taped evidence, but cases have been made without it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

Has anyone looked at Singer's foundation 990?

The IRS has suspended their charitable status, but past foundation donors should have been publicly disclosed on the 990.

I don't have Guidestar access and am not quite curious enough to pay for it just to research this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the public has a right to see all 700+ names no matter who they are. It seems that the first 50 names were picked. If the 700 names are not revealed the public will feel there is another cheating scandal going on. People with more connections or money keeping their names out of the public eye.

I don't think you're going to see the 700 names. The ones that were charged were caught in a sting, some of the things they paid for may not have even been within the offerings fo Singer's group before the FBI became involved. Not defending anyone, but it's unlikely they have the goods on past clients.

They will be outed if their tax forms reflect “donations” to Singer’s fake charity.

I don't know, unless the donors are already public record, I don't see how they are definitely going to be outed without some sort of evidence. Seems like it was registered as a charity, it takes work to show someone made a donation in exchange for services, it takes work to show they knew the charity was fraudulent. It's one thing to throw out the number 700 at a press conference, something else to produce the names. We'll see.

Its sad that people spend so much time putting down "brown applicants" when the people taking their kids places are doing so in an open legal manner (large donations/high profile parents speakers) or illegal manner, bribery. The people on this site may be educated but they are not strategic thinker because whether they want to admit it or not their lunch has been eaten. This is America and there are no shortcuts... You can't have a "nice, meaningful job living in a nice neighborhood making decent money" and think that your kid will have the same opportunity as a wealthy kid where the parents had tough jobs or inherited $$. ...Of course rich kids are going to have more advantages and opportunity. That is the capitalistic system. But instead of talking about that...the cushy people on this site are angry that poor URMs get to go to schools that are still majority white. It is impossible for parents here to see that their personal choices have limited the opportunites that they can afford to give their children. Sad!