Agree @Scipio . Bill Macy got very, very lucky.
Still, I have a Mossimo thing or two in my closet.
I agree that Macy escaped by the skin of his teeth. I never heard of Mossimo until this blew up. I have never heard of most fashion big names, and I’m sure it shows.
LOL @Scipio I only own anything of his because his big famous collection was at…Target 
Calling Mossimo a “big name” in fashion would be an overstatement.
At Target and dirt cheap. Dont let the Italian or single name label fool.
If you shop in Target, you know Mossimo!
Moving trucks were at the Laughlin house today, taking out masses of furniture etc.; IDK what that means…Yikes!
The sad thing is I think most parents at our high school would do this in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.
That’s what I said earlier, and I still mean it, unfortunately. And I don’t even have to say that I “think” they would do it. They have as much told me upfront, prior to this event, that they would.
It’s ironic that all of these parents have wealth and influence to legally buy donation seats at any college but they used money to do dumb illegal fraud. They have so much money to make donations, pay bribes and still easily afford full sticker price COA.
On other side, hard working and intelligent kids who get accepted on merit, end up going elsewhere because they don’t get financial aid and their parents can’t even afford to pay tuition for these colleges.
Such a rigged system.
Never allowed in federal court. Some courts allow audio recording.
Riversider, I think you’re mixing several issues. What these parents did is not legal. It isn’t about affordability or FA policies for other students that’s being examined in the lawsuit. I get that the legit process concerns you. But that’s a different topic. It matters insofar as these parents veered off that path. But the lawsuit isn’t a referendum on admissions policies.
We dont have a universally free post secondary system. But that’s not the lawsuit. Nor is what financial choices less wealthy families make.
I know, that was just an additional comment not related to their case but isn’t it dumb that they could’ve bought these seats with direct donations instead of committing fraud?
Actually 500k doesn’t get you any development preference. Maybe a courtesy glance.
On a side note, Massimo’s (private label) brand is no longer carried at Target. Target re-branded all Men’s, Women’s, and Children’s apparel two years ago.
http://www.dartblog.com/data/2014/09/011686.php says that (in 2014) “it now appears that 4%- 5% of incoming freshman are given special admissions consideration due to large gifts to Dartmouth by their parents.”
It seems unlikely that anywhere close to 4%-5% of Dartmouth students are kids of building-level donors. That suggests that “smaller” big donations are more common and would get a smaller admissions boost than building-level donations.
actually @ucbalumnus, it is completely plausible that 4-5% of admitted students are building-level donors. From Dartmouth’s website:
Undergraduate: 4,410
Graduate/professional: 2,099
Total enrollment head count: 6,509 (3,144 women, 3,365 men)
I think with all the global money that is out there looking for an Ivy League education, a school like Dartmouth could easily have 300 or so big donor families.
*big donor families meaning building-level donors
Again with the assumptions. You really dont have the numbers. Or even know what gets one’s name on a building and/or how legacy impacts admit decisions, if and when it does. You truly think that, in any given year, there are 250+ mega donors who gave a building? Or much less, say 20mil? In one admissions cycle?
Of course, we can find those random articles that state this or that. The challenge is in putting bits of info together, without assumptions or some inherent drag against admissions.
And that’s not this case.
“It’s ironic that all of these parents have wealth and influence to legally buy donation seats at any college but they used money to do dumb illegal fraud. They have so much money to make donations, pay bribes and still easily afford full sticker price COA.”
When this broke, npr had a podcast where the reporter made an interesting point, he said the parents wanted a guarantee of admission, not the front or back doors of development offices. Singer told them the only way to guarantee an admissions slot is to get a coach of an athletic team to tell adcoms these are the recruits for this year and adcoms would not challenge it, the side door as Singer describe it. However a lot of these athletes did not have the requisite test scores and so he set that up, pretty ingeniously. Cheaters are always of testers, whether it’s Olympics, tour de France or admissions. Singer was doing this for a while before the feds caught on, and he may not have been caught if he wasn’t ratted out ( admittedly that’s how the feds catch a lot of people).
Thats because it takes a lot of planning to donate to a school and get your kid in. Look at Jared Kushner’s story.
These parents in this scandal are not as smart, not as rich, and did not think ahead!
Read this book from 2006 about Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
There are how to books, but the people in this scandal, do not read much.
Its been very well documented, how this works at only some universities. The Barrett Rogers Society Members at MIT cannot get their children in, however. I know one who tried, did not work at MIT.
Read-
The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
By Jerome Karabel
Because of the admissions policy, we even call these universities HYP, right?
Its been this way for a long long time. Nothing new, nothing exciting in this story besides, slip sliding
towards the super wealthy like Jared Kushner.
If Jared Kushner gets in, why shouldn’t movie star children get in too?
Do you really want your child to go to school with Jared Kushners? Don’t pick Harvard then!