Look, they chose to go ahead with the defendants they did. That does not mean anyone else is not equally guilty of the same.
"that the way to get their daughter into the college you want to attend is to donate to his “foundation” " In her dreams. Who gives to a 3rd party entity thinking it qualifies their kid for a highly selective college? Ignorance of the process or being dimwitted is not a legal defense.
Plus, at those $ amounts, one could presume an adult checked. These folks are just the top of a larger berg.
“Lori Loughlin and her husband were both recorded on the phone discussing with Singer how they were going to lie to the IRS.”
This is why it’s good they are fighting it. That conversation was Singer saying what he was going to call their donation in a phone call and them agreeing with whatever he wanted to call it. The real evidence would be whether they took it as a deduction, and whether all the other parents who donated to Singer’s foundation also deducted it. Singer telling them what HE was going to call it isn’t their crime, it is his.
As we’ve been saying since the start, there is no massive class action suit here, by others legitimately denied. It takes more than applying to be qualified.
These parents are frauds but those admission officers and coaches are the real white collar criminals here. For all we know, holistic is probably covering even bigger scams. Heck, high school coaches and guidance counselors may be doing similar things. Feds should look into non-profits solely focused on resume padding youth activities, awards, competitions as well.
@riversider AFAIK, zero “admission officers” have been charged. Their main crime seems to be not checking up on all the recruits coming in from the athletic department.
@OHMomof2 “So the parents made a “donation” but their daughter was never recruited to sail.”
It is clear that the daughter received some of kind admissions preference for sailing - you can be given help without being designated an official “recruit” (and maybe Stanford doesn’t have officially sailing “recruits”) . That was stated in the indictment of the coach. If the coach had never given any students any admissions help, what exactly did he do wrong? Why would he be prosecuted and plead guilty?
@lookingforward “These folks are just the top of a larger berg.”
Yes, that is why I’m glad Loughlin is fighting it. Whether she is guilty or innocent will be decided in court. But seeing more of the iceberg instead of covering it up with a few guilty pleas is what should happen.
It’s clear this is happening all over – that UCLA story was enlightening. If mediocre athletes are getting tips from coaches at selective universities because they know a big donation to the athletic department will be forthcoming, that should all be out in the open.
How is what the UCLA parents did any different than what Loughlin did? Are there degrees of lying where some is okay and some isn’t? Are there degrees of making big donations so your kid gets an athletic tip where some can be considered a legal tax deduction and others cannot?
I disagree with the premise that the cheating of some proves it’s all a sham.
That’s not logical.
As for, “For all we know,” that’s part of the problem. Most people, for all we know, know so little about admissions that they trip themselves up with assumptions.
Imo, Loughlin isn’t doing anyone a favor, observer. She’s trying to cover her own behind.
Stanford sailing does officially recruit. And the coach was apparently prepared to do this for the kid but she got in without him.
So I suppose (not a lawyer) that the bribe didn’t result in anything of value to the parents, so there wasn’t a crime, or thee was a different one. However, lying on the app was enough for Stanford to kick her out and rescind all her credits.
"Cormier’s report indicates that UCLA knew about at least two students with limited or NONEXISTENT credentials in their sports who were admitted as athletes.
The investigation was sparked by an appeal from the mother of a young woman who had been entered into the school’s admissions system in early 2014 as a water polo recruit, despite not having experience in the sport. That admission was approved, then later rejected after a determination that it violated school and department policies. When the mother appealed, she said a private educational consultant — identified by the school in a statement as Rick Singer, the Newport Beach resident at the center of the current admissions scandal — had advised her that the school’s athlete admissions process “could be influenced” by a large donation.
“She said she was told that this was a common practice,” the report said.
When interviewed during Cormier’s investigation, the school said, Singer denied linking admissions to donations.
The report also raised questions about donation-related admissions involving other sports. Families of walk-on athletes in UCLA’s tennis program — it’s unclear if this refers to men, women or both — “made substantial donations to the program under circumstances that might suggest the donations were expected at the time the student was admitted,” according to the report."
It also takes a reality check that the committee, not a student or parent, is the entity determining “qualification.” In addition, it takes an understanding that admission is a combination of qualification and desirability (for balance of majors, geography, gender, and campus activities).
It’s almost a meaningless model these days to use a standard of “qualification.” Back in the 1970’s – almost 50 years ago now – there was a film about a student headed for the Ivy League. He himself was from the East Coast (one unwritten"qualification," at that time period). In addition, he had certain grades and scores. When <<50% of the high school population applied to college, and even fewer applied to the Ivies, there was something of a “qualification” bar that did exist. If you met the numbers (and, at the time, the social/geographical component), you were called “qualified.” I believe that’s the term that was used in the film, which is why I mention it. And if you were “qualified,” you got in because there was physically room for you at the elite in question, given the absence of frenetic desire by what seems now the entire U.S. high school population to enroll there.
I am sure there are lawyers on here to correct me, but my understanding is that entrapment occurs when the authorities convince you to commit a crime that you otherwise would not have. Loughlin committed the crime on her own. The purpose of the wire was to confirm that a crime had actually already taken place.
Why are you assuming she got in without the coach’s help? Stanford said she got in “due to the fact that she had fabricated sailing credentials”. Saying the help was not “material” is not the same as saying it did not help.
(It’s like saying that Jared Kushner got in without his dad’s help, because the donation was not “material” to his admissions).
I don’t understand why the sailing coach would plead guilty if he wasn’t helping anyone get in. I don’t think you can be charged for thinking about committing a crime, can you?
@observer12 or it could be the fact that they don’t have the Stanford Parents on tape as they do Loughlin and her husband. There are other coaches who are charged Wake Forest for example but no parent charged in that case either. I think this is people who they felt they really had the goods, emails, phone calls payments etc. There is probably more to come…
I still don’t know how Loughlin committed a crime that was not committed by all the people who donated to Singer’s sham foundation.
Loughlin was directed to do this by the consultant she hired, who came highly recommended. Unlike some of the other parents, Laughlin didn’t seem to pay someone to fraudulent take a standardized test for her daughters.
Instead she made a large donation to a foundation that regularly made donations to university athletic departments in exchange for helping to get students “with limited or nonexistent credentials in their sports” admitted. (quote is from UCLA report as this was happening back in 2014 and no one tried to prosecute the parents)
I think we should all be glad that Loughlin is fighting this so we can understand exactly how many parents over the last 5 or 10 years have donated to Singer’s foundation.
I also think Loughlin should fight this too because it will show that selective private colleges cannot survive by giving millions to financially needy students without collecting millions from rich parents. As long as there are selective private colleges in American higher education there will be a need for funding less financially well off students, which will come with some string attached, be a for a student admit or for other causes.
“I don’t understand why the sailing coach would plead guilty if he wasn’t helping anyone get in. I don’t think you can be charged for thinking about committing a crime, can you?”