What’s the real difference? The beauty of the law is in the attempt to follow it, as written, subject to interpretation by those versed in it. You end up with a yes or no. You did what you’re charged with- or not. Per those who stand in judgment. It does help to follow the trail as is, not jump around to various what-ifs or examples.
And where there are multiple claims against someone, of course, some can be judged G and some NG or whatever else is an option, per the case. If L wasn’t charged with paying a test taker, then that aspect is moot. You can’t say this makes her innocent of what she was charged with.
Donating to a bogus foundation to ensure a spot (or a liklihood of a spot.) The principle that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” dates back to Roman times.
It doesn’t matter how many did x before you. No excuse. As Hanna says, there may be more we don’t yet know. But that makes it too soon to judge, in either direction.
UCLA claims to have taken steps to prevent recurrance. That “could” supercede the fact that they found a problem 5 years ago. Depends. We don’t know enough about that one and it doesn’t seem to figure in Varsity Blues.
“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.”
If Dartmouth is getting 300 building-size donations every year, where is all that money going? Certainly not into putting up 300 new buildings a year, nor even 3 new buildings a year.
If the annual number of big donors is ~300 then the term “big donor” must include a lot of donations that are substantially smaller than what it costs to get your name on a building.
The Dartmouth president has talked for years about providing a lot more housing for students along the lines of the Yale/Harvard residence college model, partly to reduce the dependence of the school on frats to provide housing and thus to reduce the Greek influence over school policy and social life. But in the very next sentence the president also usually talks about how unfeasible the required building currently is, money-wise. If 300 building-size donations really were coming in each year, they could have afforded to build the residence colleges long ago. As it is they are mostly looking to renovate existing dorms and hoping/planning to build one new dorm at some point in the future.
@lookingforward “I am distinctly saying the bar is not the same.” “You don’t know how they vet each category or not.”
Frankly, I think you are insulting every recruited athlete at Georgetown and U Penn when you insist that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump had to meet much higher standards than the recruited student athletes did because Georgetown and U Penn will let in really sub-par athletes but they won’t admit anyone else who isn’t excellent including celebrity and donor kids.
Student-athletes who are recruited are also turned down. I am sure the reason that some may get in is because admissions committee recognize that a truly superior athlete who has devoted copious amounts of time to be one of the very best in their sport may just be a little more deserving than the kid given everything from birth who just happens to have very rich or very famous parents.
In fact, it’s actually rather insulting to all the admitted students at U Penn and Georgetown that your comment implies that the “typical” student there is just as smart as Eric Trump Jr.
@observer12 I’m sorry but not following your question. I am not saying anything about athletic recruits. But athletic recruits plus wealthy family plus fake test scores are pretty compelling. Honestly you’re reading too much into it.
My one and only point is that the development process is a sophisticated and professional approach to institutional fundraising.
And if someone thinks a random call from a donor offering 500k for an admission preference at any wealthy school will work, just doesn’t understand how it works. Unless the student is fully qualified then it’s a solid yes perhaps. Which is ok.
It’s all an awful lot of money in the real world. And I can understand how it must appear.
I’m sorry if I misread. I thought your point was that recruited athletes didn’t have to meet the higher standards that the children of big donors or other “deans’ list” kids did. In both cases some are turned down, but the ones they really want get in under a much lower bar.
“Donating to a bogus foundation to ensure a spot (or a liklihood of a spot.) The principle that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” dates back to Roman times.” I agree with this, but aren’t you the one who keeps saying that the parents of the Stanford fake sailor who donated to a bogus foundation to ensure a spot for their kid get a pass?
Also, if the foundation is really bogus, then why aren’t all the parents who donated to it being looked at closely? If the reporting that Singer was allowed to “warn” some families instead of record them is true, then that is selective prosecution – especially when you and the feds are saying that the foundation was bogus. The idea that the feds would claim they don’t have enough evidence unless Singer chose or didn’t choose to wear a wire is suspect to me.
Sorry, I was just making the point that just having the coach give a student a tip or designate him or her as a recruit is not a guarantee of admissions. If it was, that would actually call into question the admissions committee involvement. As I understand it, being designated a recruit or getting a “tip” helps – much in the way that donating a building “helps”. But there is absolutely no guarantee that a recruit is admitted, correct? The parents could not “bribe” a coach for a guarantee of admissions. They could only make a donation to the foundation and hope that made the coach look very favorably on a student who (in some cases) was a substandard athlete or (in other cases) wasn’t an athlete at all. And then hope that the student met the admissions criteria enough that the committee admitted him with the help of the “recruit” advantage.
One of the reasons I think that Loughlin might have been smart not to plead guilty is because it doesn’t appear that she did something like pay a Harvard grad to take a standardized exam for her kid. Her daughter lied on her application about being an athlete, just like the Stanford student lied on her application about being an athlete. That is certainly an expulsion offense. Loughlin seems to be admitting that she knew that lying on the college application was breaking a rule, but not breaking a law. And the fact that the Stanford recruit isn’t being prosecuted suggests that the mere fact that a student lied on an application about their athletic prowess doesn’t mean they broke the law.
The lawbreaking is about making a donation to a foundation in exchange for very favorable treatment by a coach. But since we know a coach can’t absolutely guarantee admissions anymore than the guy in the Harvard fundraising office can guarantee admissions, the feds have the same problem that we do when we try to tie a big donation like Kushner’s dad to his admissions.
The snippet of conversation where Singer is trying to get Loughlin in trouble is about her saying it was a donation to his foundation to the IRS, which is exactly what it was. Loughlin confirms that she should say what actually happened, that they made a donation to his foundation. That’s true - she did make a donation to his foundation.
I also would think that the defense would be allowed to subpoena every conversation that Singer made, because small snippets in an indictment aren’t the whole story.
I don’t particularly like or dislike Loughlin and her daughter should not be at a college when she has no interest in academics. But that isn’t a federal crime and I think it could be harder to prove a crime than everyone seems to think. But time will tell and maybe she will eventually plead to some lesser charge. It’s a shame because it would be a good thing for the public to see more of the evidence in the interest of transparency.
And as I did say, more than once, they may have looked at others, (I’d bet they did,) but brought the case they wanted to bring. I know nothing about selectively being recorded. But it doesn’t change the operation they are pursuing. Or make other parties miraculously innocent.
Not sure where you get the idea “they don’t have enough evidence unless Singer chose or didn’t choose to wear a wire…” Maybe someone else said that.
The issue of whether a coach can guarantee is separate from the pull they do have. Again, something mentioned/discussed previously in this thread.
Maybe we are just talking around each other and agree on all points.
This is about two ways that a student can be very advantaged in admissions. A coach can designate the student as an athletic recruit or give that student an admissions “tip”. Or a student can be put on a “dean’s interest” list, which includes students whose parents donate enormous amounts of money beyond “mere” $500,000 donations.
We agree that the students who are on that list have a good chance of admissions IF they meet the academic bar set by the admissions committee. In both cases, the admissions committee can reject the applicant if they believe he or she is not academically qualified to attend.
We also agree that a parent can give money to the university and take a tax donation during the year his or her child applied and have their child be admitted and the donation is still considered a charitable donation because making the donation did not guarantee that the student was admitted. Whether or not it gave the student a boost or a preference is irrelevant, as you make clear. Without a direct quid pro quo, the donation is legally tax deductible.
Since no coach can guarantee admissions, a charitable donation to a foundation that is then given to a university athletic department fund so that all student-athletes can benefit, is just that – a donation so that all student-athletes can benefit. It may make a huge difference in admissions, but it can’t be considered a quid pro quo because the coach – like the fundraising official – can’t guarantee it since the admissions committee is free to reject unqualified athletes.
“We agree that the students who are on that list have a good chance of admissions IF they meet the academic bar set by the admissions committee.” If you mean a Dean’s list, it’s not just academics. Nor is the list limited to uber donors.
You should look at the IRS rules re deductions- amounts, caps, etc. And NCAA rules. Perhaps re-read the charges.
And a large backdoor donation is still backdoor, when it isn’t via the front door.
But this back and forth about misunderstandings and assumptions just takes us offtrack.
As an observer, I’m appreciating the opportunity to learn from a conversation among intelligent people. It’s interesting and quite illuminating. IMO there’s not really a track to be off or on here. Nobody is going to win or lose these cases on CC, but through this lens, we all have the opportunity to learn about athletic tips, Deans’s interests, institutional development, Title IX, fast fashion, and lots of other cool stuff.
For the case of USC one of the athletic directors was in on this and getting kids through the subcommittee for athletic admissions, then once the family was told that their kid was good the donations were made. They weren’t making donations hoping that they would make it through they made them when it was a done deal.
How do you explain that Loughlin’s daughter did not use Singer’s services to improve her test scores? Are required academic qualifications for recruited athletes very low at USC or she actually had decent scores and just played a dumb girl on the Internet?
lbf “They weren’t making donations hoping that they would make it through they made them when it was a done deal.”
I’m not sure what your point is since the Harvard fencing parents also made donations when it was a done deal (or gave gifts). Remember, it is perfectly legal for a coach to make a student an athletic recruit and for the parent of the coach to donate $100,000 to the athletic department. In fact, that is exactly what happened at UCLA and obviously the administration knew since they wrote about it. Presumably we all agree that UCLA was not covering up a crime that they knew about. That’s because donating after the fact is not a crime.
I’m not saying the system is right or fair. I’m saying that Loughlin might have a decent chance in court because coaches cannot “guarantee” admissions, period. Neither can athletic department heads. Neither can fundraising deans who give lists to admissions committees. And everyone agrees that a donation that doesn’t come with a guarantee can always be tax-deductible. And a donation that comes after admissions is always tax deductible. And apparently, even if a dad wants to buy a house for a fencing coach at hundreds of thousands over market, as long as it doesn’t come with a “guarantee”, then it is fine.