theloniusmonk2430 replies5 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
CNN had Frank Bruni (their go-to college admissions expert) and a criminal defense attorney yesterday and the attorney implied that it would be a federal prison, not a country club. The attorney said that since Huffman's kid didn't get in, Huffman's legal team argued that no one was hurt and so Huffman should get a lighter sentence. Bruni strongly disagreed saying a lot of hard working kids got hurt in this scandal. The attorney also aid the colleges were probably co-conspirators in this, very interesting comment from a defense attorney.
doschicos21101 replies219 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
"The attorney said that since Huffman's kid didn't get in, Huffman's legal team argued that no one was hurt and so Huffman should get a lighter sentence. "
"Interesting" defense. So if you commit a crime but suck at it and don't get the results you wanted, the courts should go easy on you. Hmmm....
lookingforward34060 replies376 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
Too funny, doschicos. I think some of these characters get on news shows just to add flavor. They forget the legal significance of intent.
I don't care if some misuse jail vs prison. And imo, some sentences are meant to send a message of fear to others.
I'd like comm service where she works with the needy. As it is, I'm envisioning like the Real Housewives, where they go make soup at a meal site, wear pretty aprons, hob nob with rich friends, then leave before the guests show. Or working a drive to collect fancy clothes or a fundraiser party. Lol.
twoinanddone22947 replies17 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
Huffman actually cheated, signed (or had her child sign) the SAT forms, paid for someone else to take the test.
LL's kids went to a small private school. There is no indication that they didn't do their own work or take the standard SAT test under the standard testing conditions. No indication that they couldn't have gotten into USC on their own merits, just that the parents wanted a sure thing. She was told by the 'expert' that the sure thing was a $250k donation to the athletic department. And it was. I'm not sure how much was on the application that was false. There was a picture of her daughter(s) rowing.
I think USC is looking as bad as LL in all this. The athletic director just resigned, several others in the athletic department are indicted. LL could have said to the admissions office "Here's $250k, so let my perfectly qualified kid in" and there would have been nothing illegal about that. USC set up its admission office in such a way as to allow the athletic department that ability. For all we know, the music department and the film department and the engineering dept may all be set up that way too, with auto admits left up to the department. USC says 'Oh no, they are not" but if they'd been asked if the athletic department was set up that way they would have said no it wasn't.
The attorney also aid the colleges were probably co-conspirators in this, very interesting comment from a defense attorney.
In the scandal, there were certainly college employees (e.g. those knowingly listing fake athletes for athletic admission) who were co-conspirators. But the colleges' admissions offices may just have been careless or have had insufficient checks and controls that could have stopped this kind of thing.
"The attorney said that since Huffman's kid didn't get in, Huffman's legal team argued that no one was hurt and so Huffman should get a lighter sentence. "
"Interesting" defense. So if you commit a crime but suck at it and don't get the results you wanted, the courts should go easy on you. Hmmm....
twoinanddone22947 replies17 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
In the scandal, there were certainly college employees (e.g. those knowingly listing fake athletes for athletic admission) who were co-conspirators. But the colleges' admissions offices may just have been careless or have had insufficient checks and controls that could have stopped this kind of thing.
Okay, but this went on for YEARS. This was the USC system They can't now claim they didn't know or that they had no reason to suspect and no duty to look into it. It WAS their system. They basically said to the athletic dept "Hey, you are in charge of filling these 200 spots every year. Let us know who you pick."
The athletic director says he didn't know, but it was his JOB to know.
theloniusmonk2430 replies5 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
"Interesting" defense. So if you commit a crime but suck at it and don't get the results you wanted, the courts should go easy on you. Hmmm...."
Well yeah, if you try to murder someone and don't, you get charged with attempted murder, not murder. But that's not the point of Huffman's legal team, they were saying it was a victimless crime and so shouldn't come with any prison time. It worked to some extent as the prosecutors wanted one month and she got two weeks.
"Too funny, doschicos. I think some of these characters get on news shows just to add flavor. They forget the legal significance of intent."
Are you talking about the criminal defense attorney or Bruni? Yes, CNN asks them to come on to explain and guess what, add flavor.
"Okay, but this went on for YEARS. This was the USC system"
USC has been known to be a dirty program wrt college football for a long time. People just looked the other way and the NCAA is pretty toothless, the Feds however are not.
austinmshauri8915 replies332 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
Huffman was successful in committing her crime. She paid to have test answers altered so her daughter would get a better score and they were altered. The result of her crime wasn't what she wanted -- her kid wasn't accepted to the school they picked -- but she didn't pay for guaranteed admission. She paid to get the higher scores. That's like stealing a nicer car than what you have because you think it will impress people. You can steal the car, but it doesn't mean people will find it impressive. It doesn't lessen the crime though.
Knowsstuff4192 replies17 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
The only thing that I don't understand is that both of the parents in Huffman case are well known actors. Macy is beloved in Chicago. All they had to do was make a call to Northwestern and she would've been golden. They have connections to Steppenwolf theater. If she wanted to "act" I am sure the parents could of made that happen. This is what doesn't make sense to me.
lookingforward34060 replies376 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
She did need to meet the expected academic levels, including scores, no matter her parental connections. And then the rest of what the college expects in other areas.
Neither parent is an alum and I have no idea what they've "done" for Northwestern that would matter. Just being famous isn't an "it." And the D may have learning disabilities which affected her hs performance.
dropbox77177266 replies0 threadsRegistered UserJunior Member
edited September 17
Even with tutoring and determination, Huffman's daughter's SAT score was going to be in the 1100 range at best (the affidavit to the charging document stated her falsified score was 1420, which was 400 points better than her PSAT, for which she had accommodations).
Knowsstuff4192 replies17 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
@lookingforward. I think your misplacing my sacrasm. He at least is beloved in Chicago. Working with David Mamet and Joe Mantangna etc. If she wanted to act he could of walked her in many places and she could learn to be an actor was my point. I just used NW as an example since they have a great acting school. It's not just for Julia - Luis Dreyfuss son to play basketball... Lol... (yes I know she was an alum).(he also was a decent high school player also... Like he really played basketball not just transposing his head on a player. 🏀.
I don't think they had to resort to cheating. Maybe she never studied since she thought she could just get in anywhere. Maybe she has an LD issue but why does it seems most of these people's kids can't get decent scores. They all don't have LD issues. Maybe it's that they assume they don't need to put the work in? Really don't know honestly.
But if I had that type of money, I would make damn sure my kids had what they needed to be successful. They can afford the best tutors to make it happen. That is the "shameful" part of this. Not intended to be a pun but I will take it. 😉
dropbox77177266 replies0 threadsRegistered UserJunior Member
edited September 18
I don't think they had to resort to cheating. Maybe she never studied since she thought she could just get in anywhere. Maybe she has an LD issue but why does it seems most of these people's kids can't get decent scores. They all don't have LD issues. Maybe it's that they assume they don't need to put the work in? Really don't know honestly.
But if I had that type of money, I would make damn sure my kids had what they needed to be successful. They can afford the best tutors to make it happen.
Kids with below average intelligence are going to struggle mightily to ever score above ~1200 on the SAT - and that is even after extensive prep and tutoring. Most will score under 1000.
A parent like Gordon Caplan, who as the now former chairman of a NYC BigLaw firm spent his entire working life around people with exceptionally high IQs (the other partners in his firm and most of the associates will be in the top 3%, and so will many if not most of the clients). When he arranged for fake scores for his daughter, he was no doubt well aware of what would have been possible for her.
Nrdsb416936 replies159 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
I don't think they had to resort to cheating. Maybe she never studied since she thought she could just get in anywhere. Maybe she has an LD issue but why does it seems most of these people's kids can't get decent scores. They all don't have LD issues. Maybe it's that they assume they don't need to put the work in? Really don't know honestly.
And there's another possibility: that many kids score below 1200, even with tutors, because that's the best they are capable of. NOT that they don't care or don't try. On CC, it seems that EVERYONE makes 1400 plus if ONLY THEY TRY.
milee302092 replies13 threadsRegistered UserSenior Member
many kids score below 1200, even with tutors, because that's the best they are capable of
True. The piece that I don't understand is why parents would want to put their kid in a situation that they're clearly not capable of handling? If your kid works like a dog to get his/her 1200, it's going to be a very miserable college experience to put her into college classes with kids capable of scoring 1450. We have a similar issue for our region's magnet school where applicants have to have a certain level IQ score as one of the entry components. There's apparently some sort of huge underground system that many parents use to game this requirement by going to certain testers who are known to certify certain results for a fee so the kid can get into this top school.
But why? Why would you do that to your kid? Why would you put them into an environment where no matter how hard they worked they were always going to fall a bit short of most of the other students, always going to feel "dumb", always going to be at the bottom of the class?
There are so many other good colleges where a kid with a natural ability = 1200 SAT would thrive, why would you put them somewhere they'd be outgunned from the start?
Replies to: Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot
"Interesting" defense. So if you commit a crime but suck at it and don't get the results you wanted, the courts should go easy on you. Hmmm....
I don't care if some misuse jail vs prison. And imo, some sentences are meant to send a message of fear to others.
I'd like comm service where she works with the needy. As it is, I'm envisioning like the Real Housewives, where they go make soup at a meal site, wear pretty aprons, hob nob with rich friends, then leave before the guests show. Or working a drive to collect fancy clothes or a fundraiser party. Lol.
LL's kids went to a small private school. There is no indication that they didn't do their own work or take the standard SAT test under the standard testing conditions. No indication that they couldn't have gotten into USC on their own merits, just that the parents wanted a sure thing. She was told by the 'expert' that the sure thing was a $250k donation to the athletic department. And it was. I'm not sure how much was on the application that was false. There was a picture of her daughter(s) rowing.
I think USC is looking as bad as LL in all this. The athletic director just resigned, several others in the athletic department are indicted. LL could have said to the admissions office "Here's $250k, so let my perfectly qualified kid in" and there would have been nothing illegal about that. USC set up its admission office in such a way as to allow the athletic department that ability. For all we know, the music department and the film department and the engineering dept may all be set up that way too, with auto admits left up to the department. USC says 'Oh no, they are not" but if they'd been asked if the athletic department was set up that way they would have said no it wasn't.
In the scandal, there were certainly college employees (e.g. those knowingly listing fake athletes for athletic admission) who were co-conspirators. But the colleges' admissions offices may just have been careless or have had insufficient checks and controls that could have stopped this kind of thing.
Something like this is codified in some places (not necessarily applicable to this specific case). For example, California Penal Code 664 specifies that an attempted crime usually carries a penalty of half of that of a completed crime, unless otherwise specified.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=664.
Okay, but this went on for YEARS. This was the USC system They can't now claim they didn't know or that they had no reason to suspect and no duty to look into it. It WAS their system. They basically said to the athletic dept "Hey, you are in charge of filling these 200 spots every year. Let us know who you pick."
The athletic director says he didn't know, but it was his JOB to know.
Well yeah, if you try to murder someone and don't, you get charged with attempted murder, not murder. But that's not the point of Huffman's legal team, they were saying it was a victimless crime and so shouldn't come with any prison time. It worked to some extent as the prosecutors wanted one month and she got two weeks.
"Too funny, doschicos. I think some of these characters get on news shows just to add flavor. They forget the legal significance of intent."
Are you talking about the criminal defense attorney or Bruni? Yes, CNN asks them to come on to explain and guess what, add flavor.
"Okay, but this went on for YEARS. This was the USC system"
USC has been known to be a dirty program wrt college football for a long time. People just looked the other way and the NCAA is pretty toothless, the Feds however are not.
BC women paid 400,000 to Rick Singer for her son to be admitted to UCLA as a "soccer recruit".
Also mentioned was another Canadian who paid 200,000 for someone else to take his son's SAT's.
Neither parent is an alum and I have no idea what they've "done" for Northwestern that would matter. Just being famous isn't an "it." And the D may have learning disabilities which affected her hs performance.
See P.162 on page 73: https://www.justice.gov/file/1142876/download
British Columbia not the Catholic university of note. Lol.
I don't think they had to resort to cheating. Maybe she never studied since she thought she could just get in anywhere. Maybe she has an LD issue but why does it seems most of these people's kids can't get decent scores. They all don't have LD issues. Maybe it's that they assume they don't need to put the work in? Really don't know honestly.
But if I had that type of money, I would make damn sure my kids had what they needed to be successful. They can afford the best tutors to make it happen. That is the "shameful" part of this. Not intended to be a pun but I will take it. 😉
Kids with below average intelligence are going to struggle mightily to ever score above ~1200 on the SAT - and that is even after extensive prep and tutoring. Most will score under 1000.
A parent like Gordon Caplan, who as the now former chairman of a NYC BigLaw firm spent his entire working life around people with exceptionally high IQs (the other partners in his firm and most of the associates will be in the top 3%, and so will many if not most of the clients). When he arranged for fake scores for his daughter, he was no doubt well aware of what would have been possible for her.
And there's another possibility: that many kids score below 1200, even with tutors, because that's the best they are capable of. NOT that they don't care or don't try. On CC, it seems that EVERYONE makes 1400 plus if ONLY THEY TRY.
That's just not reality.
True. The piece that I don't understand is why parents would want to put their kid in a situation that they're clearly not capable of handling? If your kid works like a dog to get his/her 1200, it's going to be a very miserable college experience to put her into college classes with kids capable of scoring 1450. We have a similar issue for our region's magnet school where applicants have to have a certain level IQ score as one of the entry components. There's apparently some sort of huge underground system that many parents use to game this requirement by going to certain testers who are known to certify certain results for a fee so the kid can get into this top school.
But why? Why would you do that to your kid? Why would you put them into an environment where no matter how hard they worked they were always going to fall a bit short of most of the other students, always going to feel "dumb", always going to be at the bottom of the class?
There are so many other good colleges where a kid with a natural ability = 1200 SAT would thrive, why would you put them somewhere they'd be outgunned from the start?