Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think that squash teams and all other non-conventional teams should probably be evaluated. Seems like these low-profile sports teams are a backdoor to school admission. Not saying that this is the case for all, but they tend to fly under the radar.

I would think the conventional teams are worse.

This sheds more light on it:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/harvard-fencing-coach-brand-needham-house-sale-prospective-student-dad.html

My favorite quote:

Zhao couldn’t remember exactly when, but thinks it was over a dinner that he heard Brand bemoan his commute from Needham to Harvard fencing practice — which can take an hour during rush hour — especially in the winter snow. Zhao knew that Brand’s wife worked in Cambridge as well. “He did not ask me, ‘Jack, can you buy me a house?’ No. No. No. That is just not the situation,” Zhao said in the airport interview.

Zhao explained it was more that he offered to buy the house and Brand told him what he thought it was worth. “From my perspective, I’m just making his life better plus making a good investment,” he said. Zhao said he had eyeballed the house inside and out, and thought it was “pretty cozy” and a good deal, even though he didn’t do a formal inspection or get it assessed. “You can ask me why didn’t you check the market value of the house? I did not because I trust him,” Zhao said. “He gave me the price… I said, ‘fine.’ ”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol.. buyer said it was an "investment" but then sold it at a loss of over $300K.

I think this type of thing (side door) has been going on for decades and is a lot bigger than anyone realizes.

makes sense

I never thought about it but in retrospect, I'm sure tons of coaches and even admissions folk have been selling spots. They're underpaid and they have something of immense value to other people to sell. So why wouldn't they?

Because it’s wrong? If I’m underpaid I don’t sell my employer’s paper clips and color paper.

DP... I think you are confused. ^PP wasn't saying it was right. Just that it would make sense that this kind of side door dealing has probably been happening for a long time because these admissions folks and coaches aren't paid *that* much but they control a commodity that is in high demand.

No, I understood. I’m merely answering the question the poster asked, “why wouldn’t they?” Because it’s wrong. That’s why they wouldn’t, or shouldn’t. It’s why all of us shouldn’t. Ethics matters. Legality matters. If they’d behaved ethically we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think that squash teams and all other non-conventional teams should probably be evaluated. Seems like these low-profile sports teams are a backdoor to school admission. Not saying that this is the case for all, but they tend to fly under the radar.

The Harvard lawsuit on behalf Asian students exposed data which showed that athletes get a significant boost at Harvard and that the prep school students often gravitate to (fencing, sailing, crew, tennis) who are recruited for these sports tend to be wealthy.

Of course, the strongest boost of all was given to legacy applicants, who also did sports, who in the words of one Harvard employee "bleed Crimson."

But these are all sports girls can participate in, so if you're going to have equality in college athletics, which is mandated by Title IX, you're going to have to offer these sports.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think that squash teams and all other non-conventional teams should probably be evaluated. Seems like these low-profile sports teams are a backdoor to school admission. Not saying that this is the case for all, but they tend to fly under the radar.

The Harvard lawsuit on behalf Asian students exposed data which showed that athletes get a significant boost at Harvard and that the prep school students often gravitate to (fencing, sailing, crew, tennis) who are recruited for these sports tend to be wealthy.

Of course, the strongest boost of all was given to legacy applicants, who also did sports, who in the words of one Harvard employee "bleed Crimson."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dad was bragging about his kids’ “perfect SAT scores” yet neither boy was a PSAT national merit semi- nor finalist? Interesting...

Dad's been buying things for a long time.

The PSAT and the SAT are totally different things. You have shot at NMSQT, whereas you can retake the SAT as many times as you want.

PSAT is a great predictor of SAT score. This dad was bribing his kids a portfolio for literally 10 years, you think it’s above him to bribe their way to better SAT score? As if. I’d also bet he was an active donor to STA - and we know how that works...

I think the SAT scores are legit - his kids could still be 99 percentile on the PSAT and not be NMSF in DC because the cutoff is so high for DC. My kid got a 220 on the PSAT (so not NMSF) and a 1560 on the SAT.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think that squash teams and all other non-conventional teams should probably be evaluated. Seems like these low-profile sports teams are a backdoor to school admission. Not saying that this is the case for all, but they tend to fly under the radar.

yea.. I wonder how many of the "elite" universities are taking a closer look at their "athletes".

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else think that squash teams and all other non-conventional teams should probably be evaluated. Seems like these low-profile sports teams are a backdoor to school admission. Not saying that this is the case for all, but they tend to fly under the radar.

No, they are needed for Title IX.

Anyone else think that squash teams and all other non-conventional teams should probably be evaluated. Seems like these low-profile sports teams are a backdoor to school admission. Not saying that this is the case for all, but they tend to fly under the radar.

Not surprised. STA/NCS parents have the same douchey entitled attitude that those LA bastards do.

Over the years, I wonder how many of the Cathedral schools admissions to the Ivy-s were bought?

great journalism. That is what I miss about the news these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dad was bragging about his kids’ “perfect SAT scores” yet neither boy was a PSAT national merit semi- nor finalist? Interesting...

Dad's been buying things for a long time.

The PSAT and the SAT are totally different things. You have shot at NMSQT, whereas you can retake the SAT as many times as you want.

PSAT is a great predictor of SAT score. This dad was bribing his kids a portfolio for literally 10 years, you think it’s above him to bribe their way to better SAT score? As if. I’d also bet he was an active donor to STA - and we know how that works...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You pay to play. It's so wrong that Jared Kushner's entry is legitimate because his dad paid Harvard directly while Zhao will be investigated because he paid the fencing coach (by buying his house above market value). Both were buying entry into Harvard. It shows how corrupt the American system is once you scratch below the surface.

Are you really stupid enough to equate these two scenarios?

NP. I don’t think it’s stupid to draw a parallel. Both are morally corrupt. It’s just that one scenario is legal.

Don't like either scenario but his is how I see it. Donations like those made by Kushner's family typically benefit the university as a whole - perhaps a new building, expensive new science equipment, an endowed chair for a professor, etc. Perhaps it frees up money that the university was going to spend regardless on those things and that money can now go to a scholarship or renovating another building or something else. The only people that benefited from buying the house over market price were the fencing coach and perhaps the son.

There was also the charity donation when Zhao's older son was applying. Little hard to parse, but Zhao donated to a charity which then donated $100K the Harvard fencing coach's new foundation. He kept the foundation running a couple years, paying himself a $22K salary and spending administrative fees and covering travel expenses. The foundation then donated the remainder to some local charities and closed shop. There'd be some benefit to the final charities, but the bulk is money laundering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol.. buyer said it was an "investment" but then sold it at a loss of over $300K.

I think this type of thing (side door) has been going on for decades and is a lot bigger than anyone realizes.

makes sense

I never thought about it but in retrospect, I'm sure tons of coaches and even admissions folk have been selling spots. They're underpaid and they have something of immense value to other people to sell. So why wouldn't they?

Because it’s wrong? If I’m underpaid I don’t sell my employer’s paper clips and color paper.

DP... I think you are confused. ^PP wasn't saying it was right. Just that it would make sense that this kind of side door dealing has probably been happening for a long time because these admissions folks and coaches aren't paid *that* much but they control a commodity that is in high demand.