Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Given this, I don't think Felicity Huffman is going to get any jail time.

Lori Loughlin, on the other hand, is in deep doo doo.

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Wow.

He accepted responsibility for his actions and plead guilty.
He didn’t personally benefit from his actions.
He got six months of house arrest which is no picnic, especially since it goes from now until almost Christmas.
He is a convicted felon and will not be able to work in many types of jobs in the future - including maybe his own.

It’s not what the government hoped for but it’s not nothing given the circumstances. By accepting responsibility and having gotten no personal gain, he’s probably one of the least of the bad actors.

Oh, he got something out of doing it. Why would he do it at all if there was nothing in it for him? Why risk his job and reputation to get Olivia Jade on the crew team?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Wow.

He accepted responsibility for his actions and plead guilty.
He didn’t personally benefit from his actions.
He got six months of house arrest which is no picnic, especially since it goes from now until almost Christmas.
He is a convicted felon and will not be able to work in many types of jobs in the future - including maybe his own.

It’s not what the government hoped for but it’s not nothing given the circumstances. By accepting responsibility and having gotten no personal gain, he’s probably one of the least of the bad actors.

Oh, he got something out of doing it. Why would he do it at all if there was nothing in it for him? Why risk his job and reputation to get Olivia Jade on the crew team?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Wow.

He accepted responsibility for his actions and plead guilty.
He didn’t personally benefit from his actions.
He got six months of house arrest which is no picnic, especially since it goes from now until almost Christmas.
He is a convicted felon and will not be able to work in many types of jobs in the future - including maybe his own.

It’s not what the government hoped for but it’s not nothing given the circumstances. By accepting responsibility and having gotten no personal gain, he’s probably one of the least of the bad actors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lori Loughlin Wants to ‘Expose’ USC’s Admission Practices Amid College Scam

And stuff about USC and her and her husband having the same law firm except the article was kinda confusing in the particulars and implications

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/lori-loughlin-wants-to-expose-usc-s-admission-practices-amid-college-scam/ar-AACxteZ?ocid=ientp

I am not a lawyer. As a layman, the way I understand the link, Lori Loughlin has information about a family that made a substantial donation to USC and got their son/daughter offered admission - akin to Harvard's development case (admission offer in exchange for a large sum of donation). If in future USC files a civil suit against Lori Loughlin and her husband for bringing about bad reputation to USC, she plans to conduct extensive discovery process and make public how USC trades admission offers for large donations.

I truly hope USC and Lori Loughlin will fight it out in the civil court so that admission offer for large donations will become tpxic and all universities will abandon such an abhorent practice. I also hope legacy admissions will also be a thing of the past - Harvard already has such a bad reputation through it's own law suit.

Harvard has

[b]Hoping big donors stop donating to colleges[/b]. So that maybe your kid has a tiny slice higher chance to get in, but poor kids have a more difficult time paying. Nice goal.

That is the falsehood being spread and gullible people like you believe. Harvard's endowment fund was $39.2 billions at the end of the fiscal year 2018 (June 30, 2018). Harvard uses part of its earnings from only two of its 13000 different funds (albeit two largest funds) to support faculty and students.

https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/endowment

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/endowment-18

Do you think the endowment came from the endowment elves?

Or from big donors?

If that is how you justify wealthy people buying Harvard admission, and Harvard selling admission to wealthy people, let me give you some other real-life scenarios and you think about them if you can justify/tolerate:
1. In some countries a wealthy killer can pay money (called blood money) to a victim's family and with the consent of that family avoid conviction from courts.
2. What if a State govt or Federal govt in the US institutes "pay to play" in awarding govt contracts and uses the money given to fund some public works projects.

In short, the end doesn't justify the means.

Utter imbecile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:Stanford sailing coach sentenced today. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/college-admissions-scandal-stanford.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"The coach, John Vandemoer, was given a far lighter sentence than prosecutors had sought: a single day in jail — time the judge said had already been served — and six months of home confinement as part of two years of supervised release."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lori Loughlin Wants to ‘Expose’ USC’s Admission Practices Amid College Scam

And stuff about USC and her and her husband having the same law firm except the article was kinda confusing in the particulars and implications

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/lori-loughlin-wants-to-expose-usc-s-admission-practices-amid-college-scam/ar-AACxteZ?ocid=ientp

I am not a lawyer. As a layman, the way I understand the link, Lori Loughlin has information about a family that made a substantial donation to USC and got their son/daughter offered admission - akin to Harvard's development case (admission offer in exchange for a large sum of donation). If in future USC files a civil suit against Lori Loughlin and her husband for bringing about bad reputation to USC, she plans to conduct extensive discovery process and make public how USC trades admission offers for large donations.

I truly hope USC and Lori Loughlin will fight it out in the civil court so that admission offer for large donations will become tpxic and all universities will abandon such an abhorent practice. I also hope legacy admissions will also be a thing of the past - Harvard already has such a bad reputation through it's own law suit.

Harvard has

[b]Hoping big donors stop donating to colleges[/b]. So that maybe your kid has a tiny slice higher chance to get in, but poor kids have a more difficult time paying. Nice goal.

That is the falsehood being spread and gullible people like you believe. Harvard's endowment fund was $39.2 billions at the end of the fiscal year 2018 (June 30, 2018). Harvard uses part of its earnings from only two of its 13000 different funds (albeit two largest funds) to support faculty and students.

https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/endowment

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/endowment-18

Do you think the endowment came from the endowment elves?

Or from big donors?

If that is how you justify wealthy people buying Harvard admission, and Harvard selling admission to wealthy people, let me give you some other real-life scenarios and you think about them if you can justify/tolerate:
1. In some countries a wealthy killer can pay money (called blood money) to a victim's family and with the consent of that family avoid conviction from courts.
2. What if a State govt or Federal govt in the US institutes "pay to play" in awarding govt contracts and uses the money given to fund some public works projects.

In short, the end doesn't justify the means.

Utter imbecile.

Says an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lori Loughlin Wants to ‘Expose’ USC’s Admission Practices Amid College Scam

And stuff about USC and her and her husband having the same law firm except the article was kinda confusing in the particulars and implications

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/lori-loughlin-wants-to-expose-usc-s-admission-practices-amid-college-scam/ar-AACxteZ?ocid=ientp

I am not a lawyer. As a layman, the way I understand the link, Lori Loughlin has information about a family that made a substantial donation to USC and got their son/daughter offered admission - akin to Harvard's development case (admission offer in exchange for a large sum of donation). If in future USC files a civil suit against Lori Loughlin and her husband for bringing about bad reputation to USC, she plans to conduct extensive discovery process and make public how USC trades admission offers for large donations.

I truly hope USC and Lori Loughlin will fight it out in the civil court so that admission offer for large donations will become tpxic and all universities will abandon such an abhorent practice. I also hope legacy admissions will also be a thing of the past - Harvard already has such a bad reputation through it's own law suit.

Harvard has

[b]Hoping big donors stop donating to colleges[/b]. So that maybe your kid has a tiny slice higher chance to get in, but poor kids have a more difficult time paying. Nice goal.

That is the falsehood being spread and gullible people like you believe. Harvard's endowment fund was $39.2 billions at the end of the fiscal year 2018 (June 30, 2018). Harvard uses part of its earnings from only two of its 13000 different funds (albeit two largest funds) to support faculty and students.

https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/endowment

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/endowment-18

Do you think the endowment came from the endowment elves?

Or from big donors?

If that is how you justify wealthy people buying Harvard admission, and Harvard selling admission to wealthy people, let me give you some other real-life scenarios and you think about them if you can justify/tolerate:
1. In some countries a wealthy killer can pay money (called blood money) to a victim's family and with the consent of that family avoid conviction from courts.
2. What if a State govt or Federal govt in the US institutes "pay to play" in awarding govt contracts and uses the money given to fund some public works projects.

In short, the end doesn't justify the means.

Utter imbecile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lori Loughlin Wants to ‘Expose’ USC’s Admission Practices Amid College Scam

And stuff about USC and her and her husband having the same law firm except the article was kinda confusing in the particulars and implications

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/lori-loughlin-wants-to-expose-usc-s-admission-practices-amid-college-scam/ar-AACxteZ?ocid=ientp

I am not a lawyer. As a layman, the way I understand the link, Lori Loughlin has information about a family that made a substantial donation to USC and got their son/daughter offered admission - akin to Harvard's development case (admission offer in exchange for a large sum of donation). If in future USC files a civil suit against Lori Loughlin and her husband for bringing about bad reputation to USC, she plans to conduct extensive discovery process and make public how USC trades admission offers for large donations.

I truly hope USC and Lori Loughlin will fight it out in the civil court so that admission offer for large donations will become tpxic and all universities will abandon such an abhorent practice. I also hope legacy admissions will also be a thing of the past - Harvard already has such a bad reputation through it's own law suit.

Harvard has

[b]Hoping big donors stop donating to colleges[/b]. So that maybe your kid has a tiny slice higher chance to get in, but poor kids have a more difficult time paying. Nice goal.

That is the falsehood being spread and gullible people like you believe. Harvard's endowment fund was $39.2 billions at the end of the fiscal year 2018 (June 30, 2018). Harvard uses part of its earnings from only two of its 13000 different funds (albeit two largest funds) to support faculty and students.

https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/endowment

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/endowment-18

Do you think the endowment came from the endowment elves?

Or from big donors?

If that is how you justify wealthy people buying Harvard admission, and Harvard selling admission to wealthy people, let me give you some other real-life scenarios and you think about them if you can justify/tolerate:
1. In some countries a wealthy killer can pay money (called blood money) to a victim's family and with the consent of that family avoid conviction from courts.
2. What if a State govt or Federal govt in the US institutes "pay to play" in awarding govt contracts and uses the money given to fund some public works projects.

In short, the end doesn't justify the means.