My local paper’s take on the scandal:
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/majoring-in-entitlement-and-pool-parties/
@Scipio “I simply don’t understand why someone would commit crimes in order to get admitted to USD. Seems so unnecessary.”
This is what makes me wonder how much of this was Singer manipulating insecure parents with too much money. Remember that Singer comes highly recommended! Phil Mickelson gave a testimonial and apparently lots of other rich and famous people used Singer. So he tells a parent of a student who isn’t particularly academic that he can - with help from a lot of money – grease the way into a school the kid wants. Or sometimes not grease the way but provide a sure fire way for their kid to have good SAT/ACT scores with help from some timely bribes funded by the parent.
Why do I suspect if some no-name college advisor offered this service, these parents would think he was a scam artist. But this is the guy that all the rich and famous parents use and say helped their kid. So when he solicits a bribe for USD they just go along. Wouldn’t any other hired college advisor just steer their client to another reasonably similar school? Or even tell them that making a legitimate donation to a school with a very high admit rate for full-pay students will lead to an admit? I doubt they said “you get my kid into USD and do everything and anything to make it happen” and Singer did. Did any of these indicted parents previously contact any college counselors who wouldn’t help their child get in illegally? Or did they just happen to hire the highly recommended guy who did?
“Seems so unnecessary.”
Especially since schools like USD typically have to give out substantial discounts. 32% of USD students get merit money.
Normally, you can get into such a school merely by offering the school a bribe in the form of full paying the $70k sticker price!! Then throw in an above-the-table (and tax deductible) endowment contribution of $100k on top? Unless the kid is a convicted felon, he’s getting in.
The dad could have gotten better (and legal) admissions advice for free by logging onto CC. SMH.
“My” idea is catching on! ?
Why don’t I have the options for emojis so I can respond to this?
???plenty of emojis ?
Well, at least one suspect allegedly paid $100,000 for someone to take the SAT for one of his sons to go to Chapman (appears similar or slightly less selective than USD, at least in GPA and test score stats). The indictment alleges that the son got an honest 1460 (on the version that had scores up to 2400), and the ringer subsequently got 1670 (allegedly asked not to improve too much to avoid suspicion when compared to the previous honest 1460).
Note that 1670 was still on the low side of Chapman’s fall 2012 new student profile (which shows an 1825 average SAT), but presumably not as glaringly low as 1460 was.
In terms of ranking USD is Nationally Ranked (#85) on 2019 US News…which is Top 100 and very respectable
Chapman is Ranked (#5) on US News under “Regional Universities West”…couldn’t find a National Ranking.
So USD has more strength rankings wise and per selectivity. However, both are very expensive PRIVATES (which is the cachet to many), with similar small student population size (around 6 thousand each). Both have small class sizes, beautiful campuses, a safe environment with a personal touch, and solid programs, so there will be wealthy people willing to “bribe” to get their offspring in there as well.
Between this and other scandals, I have very little faith in American higher education anymore.
I’m guessing that there is a segment of very wealthy people who are simply used to paying out $$$ to get whatever they want, without having the slightest clue as to the actual value of what they are paying for (as well as lacking much of a moral compass when it comes to figuring out what it is ok vs. not ok in terms of how they spend their money).
So yes, it’s utterly stupid to pay $$$$ for the schools that high stat kids on CC consider to be their safeties … but the other path requires work & expenditure of energy. Which may be an unfamiliar concept that the type of people who happily paid Singer to lie and cheat for them.
On the admit process for recruits and the “athletic board”, the experience I have had directly (D1 non-Ivy high academic) is that the coach is given a set number of “referrals” each year. The coach assembles her class and sends their applications to admissions. Admissions accepts some and may not accept others on the basis of how well they fit academically into the class.
At this point, the coach can use some of all of her referrals on the initially rejected recruits. These referrals may be sent to another committee, which sounds like it might be congruent with the UCLA example. The referrals are still pretty much 100% in, but they get compared to other recruits and possibly can be left out if other teams have higher needs and bettter recruits.
Referrals are also fungible in the sense that if the coach can fill her class using less than the total allocation of referrals, she can give them back into the general university pool for use by other sports, which get her spiffs in the athletic department and some pull in future years if she needs a referral approved.
Hope this is interesting, sorry for the length.
Of course, one student’s safety is another student’s reach. Some rich people may have kids who, despite the advantages of wealth, are low performers on the SAT and ACT (and perhaps other things), so getting them into a university respectable enough to give them a veneer of earned achievement may require (as you wrote above) either a good amount of actual work, or paying for a cheat.
Yes, the scandal does suggest that in rich social circles, having at least a veneer of earned achievement is seen as more desirable than getting everything through gift or inheritance.
@BobcatPhoenix very interesting and informative. Recruiting at the Ivies is a different process. Learned something new.
Check out the comments on Singer’s books on Amazon. “Getting In” and “Getting In: Personal Brands”
Oct 2018: “Rick Singer has singularly helped our family get into five different colleges. And helped us to define our brands and achieve our passions along the way. This book is a must - allow Rick Singer to wave his magic pixy dust all over your life. You will be changed for the better.”
March 2019: This man absolutely revolutionized college admissions. Even if your children are substandard students, that no problem for Rick. I’m proud to say, because of Rick’s help, my daughter now plays nosetackle for the men’s football team at Stanford, even though frankly, she isn’t much of an athlete. His tactics are just THAT good. Low SAT or ACT scores? That’s no problem. You can expect to boost those scores several hundred points. Basically, whatever score you want, tell Rick, and he’ll make it happen. (We aced them both…not a single wrong answer). Do yourself a favor and get this book. Highly recommended. A pillar of the educational community."
Thanks. This is now 100% speculation, but if USC has a similar system and coaches who are playing by the rules are trying to get their classes in through the academic route, i.e., if recruits meet or exceed the general class academic medians they are in, then a coach with a lot of pull (say one with multiple national championships) could pick up a slot or two for extra income purposes and no one would necessary be the wiser, especially if the AAD is in on the scheme. They could even justify it to themselves as a “use it or lose it” kind of thing.
I will definitely stipulate that every school has somewhat different admissions processes for athletes, but this sort of scenario does kind of lend itself to the available evidence. Not excusing anything of course, but it shows how every system can be gamed with nefarious intent.
Please understand, the following comments are not in response to any specific post. But more generally, the direction of many posts that seem to assign blame to categories versus individuals.
I’m sorry, 30 moms and dads do not equate to a “segment” of society. A more aptly stated label would be these specific parents and coaches are a small “element” of society.
One could further suggest that these 30 or 50 cheaters are a statistical “trace” element , The various coaches and the lone college counselor wouldn’t even register on a societal integrity assay.
The broad terms. Rich people. Poor people. Athletes. URMs. Imply a consistency across these vast populations in behaviors, backgrounds, motivations, beliefs and ethics.
Wealthy people and less wealthy, Caucasians and POC, athletes and couch potatoes are not monolithic. They all have people who represent the good, the bad and everything in between.
It’s a mistake to make sweeping indictments around groups of society vs. this one greedy college advisor and these poorly misguided and criminal parents.
It is however, perfectly ok to make those same indictments against all of those involved. Federal indictments, in fact.
Think of Landry School scandal on the opposite side of the SES scale.
It’s more about the high stakes involved.
Many people use a bank. Very few rob them.
I do wish we could have this same level of energy and engagement around the 1,299, 950 students out of the 1,300,000 students going through this process over the next 6 weeks. The ones who honestly and diligently achieved opportunities across the wide spectrum of choice in American colleges and universities.
This is an actual segment of society and one that is worth 3100 posts.
.
@privatebanker well said sir
Joe Montana too? Looks like his kids only received “consulting” from Rick Singer though?
The report says Joe Montana was one of the clients of Singer’s regular college advising program. Both of Joe’s son’s played football in college, so they’re actual athletes.
@austinmshauri – They didn’t attend IMG Academy, did they? I am waiting to hear more about that place. (I know nothing about Joe Montana or his sons, and am not attempting to slander them.)