God forbid someone matriculates at Stanford, but does not really know how to sail a yacht!
Yes, that article was not clear. The one from the Stanford Daily is better:
Apparently the student fabricated her sailing credentials so why would there be a donation to the sailing program following her admissions if the coach hadn’t done anything? And why would she go to the trouble of falsifying the credentials at all?
Also it appears the coach’s program got only $270,000 for the students who didn’t get in, but $500,000 after the student did get in.
@Observer12 - same info in that article.
Sailing accomplishments don’t do much to help a Stanford applicant in the regular process. Being recruited by the sailing team is a virtual guarantee of admission.
I don’t see that any of these schools have returned the dirty money.
^ 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. This way it was cleaner for everyone involved…
Sorry, just disagree. Fraud is fraud. One can almost as easily bribe a government admissions official. And this only affect a few thousand applicants out of the millions every year. If USC and Stanford and Yale and…want to improve their internal controls they will. No need for government interference and oversight.
@twoinanddone Stanford stated they would give out all of the dirty money on the first day this exploded.
@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?
Oh…how 'bout we take a breather from all the speculation (from which some feel they can build facts.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
any idea if the trial will be televised - might make for better day time drama then the OJ trial.
@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.
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.
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.
Isn’t the trial the place for the “successful proof” to happen?
Are there any names among Ivy alumni which popped into your mind when you read about recent college scandals?
“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.