@mdphd92 “Why couldn’t the USC coach simply have said to the normal admissions committee not to read that application because the student was being considered instead for her (fake) athletic talents?”
I don’t know why. But I do know that if that HAD happened, everyone would be questioning the ethical behavior of the USC admissions committee because a coach could tell them not to read the application.
I can only assume that the USC Admissions Committee doesn’t do things like that so the coach didn’t ask it, knowing that he had another coach at UCLA who would play.
Honestly, as more gets revealed, I am willing to bet that rich white people buying athletic recruit seats for their kids has been happening for a while and Singer did not invent it. The USC water polo team was one of the best in the country while allowing in a few ringers whose parents paid lots of money. It would not surprise me if parents “legally” made huge donations to the athletic department which meant their child got an athletic tip at a very selective university over a better student-athlete whose parent didn’t make a big donation – perhaps even a student-athlete who would have to be given need-based financial aid! I’m not talking about what is done illegally when Singer and company manufacture a fake athletic profile. I’m talking about whether a coach might give a tip to a kid whose parent buys the crew team two new shells even if that kid isn’t nearly the rower (or academically successful student) that another kid whose parent didn’t purchase the shells is. There is room for a lot of perfectly legal but unethical practices and I suspect Singer didn’t get this idea out of thin air.
Human nature always seems to gravitate toward easier, universal answers. Each one of these fraudulent applications and each one of these schools are going to be different with different processes and standards. There are some coaches that have tremendous influence over the admissions process, others have little. It can depend on the sport or the division. Some admissions departments are overwhelmed and have little or no time for extraneous investigations. Some of these kids and their parents cheated on tests. Some of them used athletic recruiting bribes. Some used both. We aren’t going to have one size fits all answers here, except for the fact that all of them cheated.
In the case cited in the Daily Beast, the essays were characterized as “unreadable” not as “imperfect”.
The student is characterized as not having language skills solid enough to get through classes.
Based on what I have heard, I think this kind of essay ghost-writing is not that uncommon.
The fact that people are allowed by universities to get away with this kind of ghost-writing before and in college is another sign that the universities want to favor the wealthy.
It might be good to know about parents posting for their children on this CC website. Complaints about the threads in recent years include parents who want their kid to get into elite schools so they have to intervene and they go to willing CC mods to help them dot the i’s and cross the t’s. But many times, this advice is so subjective. Unless mods have actually spoken with real life admissions officers willing to be sourced for their evaluations, then they should be very careful about stating things like ‘this university or college looks for this in X applicant.’ You see these comments on the time by even super moderators at College Confidential.
"Based on what I have heard, I think this kind of essay ghost-writing is not that uncommon.
The fact that people are allowed by universities to get away with this kind of ghost-writing before and in college is another sign that the universities want to favor the wealthy."
I agree that ghost-writing application essays is probably a lot more common than some would like to admit. Like I said in an earlier comment, a lot of people who would never go so far as bribing a coach or having an impersonator take their kid’s SAT exam would be all to willing to hire a ghost writer. However, I don’t think it’s a matter of colleges letting people get away with this or favoring the wealthy. If the AO’s sense that the applicant did not write the essay, the application goes on the reject pile. The whole point is to hire someone who can right a great essay, but still make it sound like it is written by a HS senior - like that Hip Hop essay mentioned earlier.
Of course, the line between having someone review the essay and make suggested corrections and ghost writing the essay can be a fuzzy one. Also, some parents have their own ideas of what the essay should look like, so they heavily edit or ghost write their kids’ essays themselves (there have been students posting on these forums complaining about parents forcing them to use the parents’ essays instead of their own). Of course, it is not necessarily true that these parents’ ideas of what the essay should look like match those of the admissions readers.
“I’m talking about whether a coach might give a tip to a kid whose parent buys the crew team two new shells even if that kid isn’t nearly the rower (or academically successful student) that another kid whose parent didn’t purchase the shells is. There is room for a lot of perfectly legal but unethical practices and I suspect Singer didn’t get this idea out of thin air.”
Easy to see (particularly in a low profile sport like crew or field hockey) a scenario where a wealthy parent of a meh (or worse) team member makes big donation to the team. Maybe that donation gets the kid a nudge on admissions. Or maybe the kid gets to stick on the team and maybe gets a little more playing time. Not really much different from other development situations. And it is very common in HS and in college for the team to rely fairly heavily on fund raising from the families.
What Singer seems to have done in most cases is take things that were already going on (athlete recruiting, test maximizing) and then take it to a whole other level with outright bribes, cheating and fraud.
“If the AO’s sense that the applicant did not write the essay, the application goes on the reject pile.”
I hope this is true but I suspect that at least sometimes it isn’t. In any case if twenty-year-olds are writing the essays, it could be difficult to spot the ghost-writing. I think universities need to be more serious about policing the essays, or if this is impossible, they should eliminate them.
The Isackson’s lived in Hillsborough and the Woodside SC is in Woodside. So, about 20-30 minutes apart. Why not join the local team, like the Burlingame SC, which is a very good soccer club? Not that commuting to a soccer club is unheard of, but usually if you’re commuting, you’re commuting to join an elite team. Woodside SC is not elite, not even close. It’s essentially a local club for young kids to start playing soccer. There are no Development Academy teams or Premier League teams. And if you’re joining one of the top college soccer programs in the country, like UCLA, with elite class players, then you’re typically a member of one of these teams.
Cromwell should know what’s elite and what’s not in Northern California. Smells really fishy to me.
“I’m talking about whether a coach might give a tip to a kid whose parent buys the crew team two new shells even if that kid isn’t nearly the rower (or academically successful student) that another kid whose parent didn’t purchase the shells is. There is room for a lot of perfectly legal but unethical practices and I suspect Singer didn’t get this idea out of thin air.”
"Easy to see (particularly in a low profile sport like crew or field hockey) a scenario where a wealthy parent of a meh (or worse) team member makes big donation to the team. Maybe that donation gets the kid a nudge on admissions. Or maybe the kid gets to stick on the team and maybe gets a little more playing time. Not really much different from other development situations. And it is very common in HS and in college for the team to rely fairly heavily on fund raising from the families.
What Singer seems to have done in most cases is take things that were already going on (athlete recruiting, test maximizing) and then take it to a whole other level with outright bribes, cheating and fraud."
Does anyone know in this case, in regards to NCAA rules if the “booster” in this case is giving equipment for the purpose of benefiting an individual, does that run afoul of “benefits to individuals” part of NCAA rules for boosters/parents (RAIs)?
What schools have this process? From my experience the schools interested in recruiting an athlete will have admissions do a pre read of the athletes academic transcript. If the adcom gives a positive pre read and the athlete agrees to commit to the school, then the athlete is asked to apply EA.
In my son’s sport, the potential recruit is always contacted directly by college coaches after showcases or when NCAA rules determine, so I’m trying to figure out how parents would feel comfortable contacting the coach directly to make a deal. It could easily backfire and then the player would have no chance of playing at the particular school, and since a lot of coaches know each other and talk, the player could be blacklisted and have nowhere to go. There has to be some sort of broker or someone who knows who is open to bribes, which is the role Singer filled.
“When William Macy actor guy came out on the “Finding Your Roots” program, I thought he made a good impression. It’s too bad that a single act will splash a big stain on your image.”
He may be innocent in this, or at least not an active participant. Because for most of these families both parents got indicted, but for the Macys only Felicity Huffman was indicted, suggesting that William Macy played very little or no role in the criminal activities.
“When William Macy actor guy came out on the “Finding Your Roots” program, I thought he made a good impression. It’s too bad that a single act will splash a big stain on your image.”
Or maybe this was just the first time many of these people had shady behavior exposed.
Re: recruits. In general, since recruiting starts well ahead of even an Early deadline, it’s the coaches choosing their lists. They’re scouting and culling. You can Google the recruiting regulations, the process. Easy.
If an app shows up in admissions with no indication from the coach, no one in admissions would know this is a recruit. None of this suggests separate adcom teams. Or that the app gets formally reviewed by admissions before coaches get to make their initial wish list. That’s not the timeline. Think about it.
And when a coach has pull, assuming no red flags, the recruited kid is not being reviewed same as non recruits.
Maybe that’s what the kids should file a claim against, the privilege afforded recruits. They don’t need to meet the same full holistic muster.
This thread is confusing recruiting, usual processes, acceptable support to a kid, and the trickle of info about what scammers did.
And Daily Beast is not the resource to lean on. There aren’t even many details out yet.
In my daughter’s sport the athlete reaches out to the coaches first…the coaches will quickly tell you if they are interested or maybe not respond at all which shows no interest.
[quote feature not working]
: “Because for most of these families both parents got indicted, but for the Macys only Felicity Huffman was indicted, suggesting that William Macy played very little or no role in the criminal activities.”
The Affidavit indicates that William Macy was knowingly involved with his first child, but the FBI was able to get wiretapping evidence only for their second child. Since Huffman and Macy decided not to pursue the test-taking scheme with that child, the FBI has no hard evidence against Macy.
But they do have verbal testimony from Singer against Macy. Specifically, Affidavit item 154, says that Singer met with Huffman and Macy for their first child and explained how the test-taking scheme worked, and that “HUFFMAN and her spouse agreed to the plan.” However, all of the remaining evidence regarding the first child comes from email to and from Huffman, with no emails to or from Macy.