Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

1265266268270271279

Replies to: Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

  • notigeringnotigering Registered User Posts: 222 Junior Member
    @twoinanddone Stanford stated they would give out all of the dirty money on the first day this exploded.
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    @notigering "My guess would be that by the time the coach called admissions the girl's file was already on the accepted batch so he skipped the step of adding her to the team."

    I'm sorry but I'm trying to imagine this scenario you think happened:

    A top student with such outstanding credentials that Stanford admits her purely via merit applies to Stanford and her parents hire a college advisor who 1. directs the student to add completely false information claiming to be a sailing recruit to her application and 2. directs the parent to give his sham foundation a half a million dollar donation so he can direct it to the sailing program after she is admitted.

    And you think the parents of this excellent student who was so superb that she was admitted to Stanford via her own strong credentials went along with this sham because they had such a low opinion of their own child's abilities that they preferred to cheat and lie and donate to a sham foundation and perhaps even take an illegal tax donation to get her in?
  • lookingforwardlookingforward Registered User Posts: 31,360 Senior Member
    Oh...how 'bout we take a breather from all the speculation (from which some feel they can build facts.)
  • RandyErikaRandyErika Registered User Posts: 349 Member
    4000+ posts in, and the speculation here seems to be getting worse. Criminal activity isn’t about guilt or innocence - it’s about what can be successfully proven.
  • observer12observer12 Registered User Posts: 268 Junior Member
    edited April 15
    I think this most recent thread began with the question of why Lori Loughlin would plead not guilty even though no one has "successfully proven" anything against her. Is it speculation to discuss this?
  • sushirittosushiritto Registered User Posts: 3,043 Senior Member
    Someone mentioned a few pages back maybe that Federal prosecutors have a fairly high conviction rate in court. They're typically, but not always, some of the best of the best. My apologies for the lack of attribution.
  • RiversiderRiversider Registered User Posts: 399 Member
    edited April 15
    Are there any names among Ivy alumni which popped into your mind when you read about recent college scandals?
  • lookingforwardlookingforward Registered User Posts: 31,360 Senior Member
    Lol, no one has 'successfully proven' because this case is only just getting started. They've barely passed Go.
    So yes, speculation.

    But it's the speculation and accusations against more than is shown in the docs we can see that bugs me. Against the colleges, adcoms...often based on some report of a report from an indirect media player. Etc.
  • 3scoutsmom3scoutsmom Registered User Posts: 5,689 Senior Member
    any idea if the trial will be televised - might make for better day time drama then the OJ trial.
  • notigeringnotigering Registered User Posts: 222 Junior Member
    @observer12 She lied in her application, that's why she was expelled and all credits erased. I didn't say or imply she was a "top student with outstanding credentials, those are your words. Her fraudulent application made her look good enough for Stanford to admit her without the coach materially intervening, that's all that can be implied here.
  • Cardinal FangCardinal Fang Registered User Posts: 17,966 Senior Member
    If Loughlin incorrectly believed that making a large donation to USC would ensure her daughters' acceptance, then why did she also fabricate rowing credentials?

    Why did she work so hard to conceal this scheme from her daughters' high school, if she thought it was legal and aboveboard?

    Loughlin and her husband made these "donations" (which were actually payments for services rendered) to the bogus foundation. If they claimed the donations on their taxes or made the donations out of a donor-advised fund or the like, that would be tax fraud. The feds have charged them with money laundering for "donating" to the bogus foundation.

    I do not forsee Loughlin being found not guilty. The feds have the goods on her. And I'm mystified with the idea that because others also committed crimes, she's not guilty. That doesn't work for speeding tickets and it doesn't work for federal crimes either.

  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 12,561 Senior Member
    I believe Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli are accused of the same crimes?

    I gotta admit the media focus on the moms bugs me. I understand they're the most well known to Average Joe on the Street. But still. Most of the parents charged were dads....20 out of 32.
  • SJ2727SJ2727 Registered User Posts: 1,374 Senior Member
    I think this most recent thread began with the question of why Lori Loughlin would plead not guilty even though no one has "successfully proven" anything against her.

    Isn’t the trial the place for the “successful proof” to happen?
  • ScipioScipio Registered User Posts: 8,836 Senior Member
    "any idea if the trial will be televised - might make for better day time drama then the OJ trial."

    Pretty sure it won't be televised. Cameras are almost never allowed in federal courtrooms.


    "I gotta admit the media focus on the moms bugs me. I understand they're the most well known to Average Joe on the Street. But still. Most of the parents charged were dads....20 out of 32."

    They are not focusing on the moms so much as they are focusing on the celebrities, which in this case both happen to be moms. The indicted dads here are rich but not famous. If a famous male celebrity were indicted in this we'd hear a lot more about him too.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 12,561 Senior Member
    Agree @Scipio . Bill Macy got very, very lucky.

    Still, I have a Mossimo thing or two in my closet.
Sign In or Register to comment.