Yes, Stanford was absolutely being truthful because the student was not a “recruit”. But the way Stanford wrote the press release makes it seem as if the student was admitted entirely from the big pile of unhooked students applying and was admitted on her own merits, but since Stanford happened to find some false information about sailing in her application, she was expelled. I don’t know if the student received a “tip” because of her supposed sailing prowess, but if I just read the press release I’d think she did not.
That’s actually NOT true. There are still parents out there who have been caught who have expressed neither remorse nor any sign of accepting responsibility for their actions. Lori Loughlin and husband come to mind.
"But I’m saying that they hired a college consulting firm we now know would to do anything necessary - whether or not it was ethical, improper, and in some cases, illegal – to make sure that their clients’ children got an edge in their application to college. "
I’d like to know how you think ethical parents were supposed be able to see into the future and somehow know of the illegal side door practices that Singer offered to some unethical parents?
Many parents hire what they believe to be ethical college consulting firms, based on recommendation from other parents- some paying only a few thousand $$, others paying multiples of that- to have someone else be the ones to prod students into writing their essays, asking for LOR’s from teachers, etc, etc- so they don’t have to be the one who nags their kids during what can be a highly stressful time . I see no reason to say that ALL the ethical parents who used Singer for the legal services he offered are now “tainted”.
talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!
And btw- Joe Montana’s and Phil Mickelson’s kids already had a “tip” at many schools - they had very famous fathers.
^^ OK, more accurate to say that expressions of remorse are expressed more fulsomely by people who are caught than by people who are not caught.
Who would they report an offer to? The SAT people, saying that Singer’s firm seemed to be cheating? To every college in America, saying that Singer sort of offered them preferred testing or to connect them with a coach? I don’t think Singer came out and said “Hey, we have this cheating option, are you interested?” I think there was more grooming involved, offering to up the test scores, suggesting getting more time by getting testing (and by the way, that if COMMON, not unique to Singer) and that many people opted out long before Singer actually offered they the option of buying in.
Felicity Huffman paid $15k. Lots of people pay more than that for legitimate counseling services. People pay more than that to get into Kindergarten in NYC.
I don’t think people report every issue they encounter. How many kids have issues at their testing centers but don’t report them because they don’t want the scores cancelled for the entire testing day? If the College Board wanted to prevent this, they’d close the private testing centers.
There were 3 types of clients that worked with Singer:
1 - those who took advantage of his illegal services, some of whom have now been exposed
2 - those who hired him for legitimate purposes, to assist their children in applying to college
and the 3rd group - those who only used legal services, but were offered illegal services, didn’t use them, and didn’t report it to anybody (presumably - we don’t know if they said something to any of the schools).
This is unfortunate for those in group 2, but all of his clients should be scrutinized, because there is a pattern of abuse. Locally we have had 3 different tax preparers caught filing fraudulent returns for their clients. In each case, they were ultimately charged with tax fraud for failing to report their own income, but ALL of their clients faced audits. In some cases the clients were aware of fraud, and in others they altered the returns before filing, and funneled the excess refunds to their own accounts. Some clients actually had accurate returns filed, but they still faced audit because of who they hired.
Define “unfairly.” (Back to that same old bugaboo on CC.) Thousands of qualified, capable, honest students are denied entrance to the most elite schools every admission round, while other several thousand qualified, capable, honest students are accepted. It’s called the physical limits of the institution. Therefore, make sure you include in that lawsuit a demand that U.S. and State law require each of those institutions to expand their freshman class size to make room for all of the qualified, capable, honest students on the globe who apply because the overpopulation of capable students has been a documented reality for at least 15 years now.
Perhaps, but we don’t know that. Let’s try not to be as cynical as Singer and his college contacts were.
Call me naive for believing in the possibility of redemption for all.
Lori Laughlin and 15 other parents have just received additional charges incl money laundering (according to TMZ!)
https://www.tmz.com/2019/04/09/lori-loughlin-plea-bargain-prison-sentence-college-bribery-money/
I agree with @menloparkmom, it only makes sense that Singer was selective in offering his “side door service” and that he hid them behind a business with good word of mouth reputation. To find his conspirators/parents and providers/coaches (etc…) he probably used the same old tactic employed by criminals and predators (think pedophiles…) from time inmemorial, they find a way to surround themselves and build a comfortable relationship with a large group of possible recruits or victims (NO, I am NOT suggesting anyone criminally involved here was a victim!) which he screens and then carefully select which ones would be suitable for whatever it is he wants to accomplish.
@menloparkmom “Joe Montana’s and Phil Mickelson’s kids already had a “tip” at many schools - they had very famous fathers.”
Well, technically some of the kids had very famous mothers, too. That wasn’t enough of a tip to help, or at least Singer convinced them that it wasn’t enough of a tip to help.
@twoinanddone I think you are spot on using the word “grooming”. That is why the selective prosecution bothers me a bit. I don’t mind throwing the book at the parents, but to me, it is wrong if the people who “groomed” them and may have groomed many others in the past are getting off with a significantly lighter penalty.
@CTScoutmom “all of his clients should be scrutinized, because there is a pattern of abuse. Locally we have had 3 different tax preparers caught filing fraudulent returns for their clients. In each case, they were ultimately charged with tax fraud for failing to report their own income, but ALL of their clients faced audits.”
Yes, that is my point. There is already some indication that Singer “protected” some clients. He has been doing this years. It is possible there were unethical practices that are not “illegal” – for example, were any laws broken because the Stanford student’s sailing credentials were exaggerated? She was expelled, but I don’t think that is a crime, especially if she didn’t get a scholarship or any money from it, right? The logical thing is to carefully audit the applications of all admitted students who were Singer clients and also carefully audit any payments made to either Singer, his “foundation” or any “foundation” set up by one of the coaches or any payments to the athletic department. I agree the majority of Singer’s clients did nothing wrong, but it seems as if a close look is warranted, unless universities don’t really want to know.
Which Singer clients were given extra time on standardized tests (even if they did not “cheat” by using the Harvard grad to change answers or take the exam for them?) Which Singer clients made donations to athletic departments or coach’s foundations? Is there any desire to get to the bottom of this or just to sweep this under the rug because no laws may have been broken and the student who benefitted was a legitimate student-athlete although one who would never have been given a tip or designated a recruit without a huge benefit to the coach or his athletic program.
“Which Singer clients were given extra time on standardized tests (even if they did not “cheat” by using the Harvard grad to change answers or take the exam for them?)”
I doubt that without evidence that they cheated via proctors or proxy testers any external party can do anything about this . Medical patients, even Singer clients, have confidentiality rights… I don’t think that information (whether a student took extra time on an exam) is provided to schools and it is probably illegal for them to ask for it.
" Which Singer clients made donations to athletic departments or coach’s foundations? "
I am sure schools are looking closely into these donations, it is exactly what happened to the Stanford girl.
“Is there any desire to get to the bottom of this or just to sweep this under the rug because no laws may have been broken and the student who benefitted was a legitimate student-athlete although one who would never have been given a tip or designated a recruit without a huge benefit to the coach or his athletic program.”
If no laws were broken AND there is no evidence of impropriety I think it would be ridiculous or worse for universities to turn this into a witch hunt. I am sure there are many, many more honest athletic recruiting mistakes or injuries or burn out or kids that decide to prioritize something else or a million other things than ones involving bribery…
Imo, right that more clients should be investigated (and perhaps more now have been.) But there are many aspects to complex legal actions and at some point, diminishing returns. You collect enough stable, successfully prosecutable (you hope) info and decide at what point to proceed.
One of the fascinating things about law is trying to find and follow the direct path through the vast fog of words. (Kind of like learning the logic when following IRS code.) Some info becomes secondary, maybe supporting or elaborating, but shouldn’t get you sidetracked.
And since this thread is just discussing, we’re understandably all over the map, with our thoughts and opinions. I dont think it’s integral to the case whether or not H fired a fencing coach… yet. I don’t think their actions in the past month prove “little desire to stop this.” That’s a leap.
Until the Feds release a list of names – IFF they release a list of names – the Universities have no way of knowing how many of his supposedly 700+ clients applied to their school. At this point, Unis can only closely ‘look’ at those 30+ names that are already public.
It would be much harder for the govt to prove the cases against the ‘old’ clients. Most of the evidence in play is fairly new - cheating on tests in the last year, payments to the charities made in the last 2 tax years, applications that were for fall 2018 admissions. Singer started cooperating in the Spring of 2018. It is much easier to get wiretaps and bank records for those still working with him in 2018.
The new charges apparently could bring lots more prison time:
“The charges come with the potential for significant penalties: The charge of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison with three years of supervised release and a fine of at least $250,000, according to prosecutors. The charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison with three years of supervised release and a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved.”
These charges against the parents seem ridiculous if the Harvard grad who got paid to cheat and Singer are getting off lightly. Really? This is what it comes to?
Not necessarily. E-mail and wire transfers live forever. 
It shouldn’t take much to get a warrant to follow-up any questionable payments.
Highly likely that Singer had to open his books 100% as part of the plea, including a list every ‘donor’ to his nonprofit. (California already requires a list of every donor for nonprofits registered in the state. However, CA is rather lax in enforcement, so Singer may never have filed his full returns with the State.)
I don’t know. Have you read the HYPSM boards and seen some of the questions that admits post? It shows that intellect isn’t the same as common sense or maturity.
“Baby kids”???