Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

Applying to College
4101

Just what do the Brown emails “prove?”
She got a tour, sat in on a class or two, and, I believe, got lunch.

What does this teach you about how admissions really works? Are you satisfied you now understand, say, Brown and UCLA, from some random events a few years back? That’s enough? You’re sure?

Or are you scrambling ?

And what’s it got to do with VB?

Btw, the comment how everyone assumes LL guilty? But aren’t most of you rushing to claim the colleges guilty, as a whole? Even using that to project her innocence? She cant be wrong because some other folks did this at some other U?
Not gonna cut it.

4102

@katliamom…alas you are correct, There are so many valid points from all here. I guess the argumentative tone people take is what is I don’t love. This is a complicated issue and of course people have many opinions. Sometimes we just need to agree to disagree :slight_smile:

4103

“Michael Lynton’s assistant just called up Brown and donated $1 million over 4 years to establish a scholarship and boom, out comes the red carpet.”
Can you link to that? An elite U doesn’t generally just take a check. It runs through a formal process, legal documentation, various signoffs, etc. Takes time.

See how it sounds bada-boom, however, to suggest it’s so easy, so routine?

4104

@lookingforward not sure what it is you’re trying to say or if it is directed at my Brown comment.

4105

I’m not weighing in on the case. What the parents and the coconspirators did was wrong. And the legal system will work it all out and mete out the appropriate punishments based on the law.

I do want to point out that most people believe that financial aid to thousands of students, financial viability, student resources and support systems, top professors, top facilities and to some - endowment per student calculations as a proxy for these- are important factors.

Its naive to think that a sophisticated fundraising and development process aren’t key for schools to compete effectively over time.

You see all of these factors mentioned over and over on cc threads as reasons for choosing x or y.

So we like that schools have money to spend on these things and then also get angry that they have to be thoughtful and balanced in the process.

Yes. A qualified but perhaps not top student that can bring these resources to a school do get additional consideration. It’s a statically small group.

It’s time (sports/music/dance/arts excellence), talent (academics and ecs) or treasure. But it’s always a combination of these. It’s two out of three that’s needed to be very competitive. And none can be empty.

We can’t expect to have these expensive lists of expectations from a wealthier school and then criticize them for an occasional decision against our own self interests. We should be a bit more pragmatic about things.

I digress.

4106

I don’t think the prosecutors will have any difficulty. They have the receipts.

The prosecutors have the written statements from Singer to Loughlin falsely stating that no goods or services were exchanged for $400K of the bribes. They also have a phone record of Singer calling Loughlin, telling her the foundation was being audited, the IRS would ask about the two $200K donations, and Singer was not going to tell them about the crew scheme to get the daughters into USC through the “side door” in exchange for the two $200Ks. He told Loughlin to say, falsely, that these were donations, and she agreed.

4107

We’re not talking about tax court here (not yet), but when a couple files a joint return they are usually both held liable for any fraud. They do have a provision for one spouse to be considered an “innocent spouse” in order to not be held liable, but the standard isn’t just that you didn’t know what the other was doing, but that you had no reason to know. If you sign a tax return stating your household income is $80,000 because you neglect to report a portion of your income, and yet you live a lavish lifestyle that could be supported by $80,000 in household income, you’re not going to be designated an innocent spouse here.

I think similar concepts will apply as some of these cases go to trial. The parents who are not pleading guilty obviously believe they will be exonerated, and guilt in a criminal matter does carry a higher burden of proof than civil, but if more charges are being added, I suspect the proof exists. LL paid Singer, and exchange for a service, even if that did not include an iron-clad guarantee of admission. She paid for his influence - if she isn’t found guilty of money laundering, there’s a good chance she will be found guilty of tax fraud. And I wouldn’t be surprised if prosecutors comb through all “donations” to his foundation, to see who else comes up. The same thing happens when a tax preparer files a significant number of fraudulent returns. I feel badly for those who used his services, and didn’t break any laws, because the taint is still there.

4108

“Can you link to that? An elite U doesn’t generally just take a check. It runs through a formal process, legal documentation, various signoffs, etc. Takes time.”
’
From the Brown Daily Herald:

“Case in point: An embarrassing number of students demanded a presidential explanation last semester after Gawker published a leaked email correspondence among Paxson, Brown’s Senior Advisor for Leadership Philanthropy Ronald Margolin and Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, who generously cut a $1 million check to Brown with more strings attached than the Los Angeles Philharmonic. Anyone with a pulse can trace the probable outcome of this “philanthropy” — a prospective student connected to Lynton gets accepted to Brown!”

The article goes on to say with some mix of satire and honesty that Brown should “pimp” (their words) their university even more so more kids get FA.

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/10/21/simon-16-pimp-my-university/

4109

I don’t find it unusual at all that LL and others pleaded not guilty. ALL the defendants originally pleaded not guilty and when they came to an agreement changed their pleas (although to lesser or other charges). This case is moving extremely fast because of all the publicity. Not all the lawyers hired have the same connections with prosecutors, the same day-to-day contact.

4110

There are dozens of emails, and to get the complete picture, you’ll have to do a search. https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/?q=lynton+brown&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

It doesn’t really “prove” anything but is just some insight as to how it can work. I was replying to the lengthy post about how these relationships are cultivated over years. Which is not always true.

There’s a back and forth with his secretary about not knowing who to call, but I can’t find it now.

Oh, and there’s also later emails with a professor about trying to get his daughter into a popular Brown class that was full. (Spoiler: she gets in.)

4111

PetraMC, a school newspaper and Gawker aren’t proof of your statement, “Michael Lynton’s assistant just called up Brown and donated $1 million over 4 years to establish a scholarship and boom, out comes the red carpet.”

For legal/oversight reasons I alluded to much earlier, there is a process, specifications, clarifications, legal review by both sides, etc, before this sort of donation is considered set up. The primary party, not an assistant.

That is, when it’s run through the proper channels: Development. Not a side money transfer to a coach. And that’s what Lynton would have experienced, no matter how he oversimplified in an email.

My concern is that the feds brought a particular lawsuit against certain folks. Whether UCLA had a past issue (which they claim they took subsequent steps to prevent,) or H did something 100 years ago, or parties like Macy are not charged (yet- or ever,) sheds next to no light on admissions. Other comments like, the U turns a blind eye, are not knowledge. Yet some here are indicting the Unis, so certain.

Too convoluted, too many assumptions, not enough knowledge.

Otoh, coaches wield too much authority and here’s a case where, in part, we know they put non athletes on their recruit list- and money was forthcoming, outside Development.

Plus, unlike the Fisher case, we don’t have benefit of a long lead time for info.

4112

Fyi, I believe the class registration issue was another daughter, at Harvard. I dont know what he’s given H, but theres a record of money to at least one other Ivy and several other sorts of awards he funded.

4113

@“Cardinal Fang” you are obviously right, that is exactly what the prosecutors will say. I am pointing out that they maybe have an escape angle by pushing hard on the fact that they hired a consultant to help their daughters get into college and that giving money to a college for that purpose can both be legal and common place and argue that was their intention all along. After all that’s where the money ended up… I am not sure those phone calls carry all that weight, it sounds as if they were targeted more towards the money laundering charge which they may be able to contest by calling out entrapment or something else, after all he is not their accountant… again, I am only playing devil’s advocate here, I feel as repulsed by this dcheme as anyone else…

I am also in agreement with @privatebanker that this is very, very different from the Sony CEO case. I am in favor of that practice (development admissions) when properly done (as in that case) for the same reasons he mentioned. Singer made a mockery of it all by abusing hard to imagine loopholes which weirdly enough might serve as an exit strategy for his conspirators…

4114

Oh, I’m not arguing that it’s illegal. I do think it’s a different issue from Operation Varsity Blues. I was replying only about the “sophisticated” development process. Lynton obviously met with Ronald Margolin in development and wired money to the school, not to anyone’s pocket.

When I said “rolled out the red carpet” I was referring to some of the other emails about a welcome packet at the hotel for the girl, cocktails and a private meeting with the president, etc. Just special attention.

Although one pathway is legal and one is not, I don’t think universities are above criticism over these seemingly quid pro quo donations. I’ve donated to my alma mater for decades and I’m aware that alumni can be less generous when they think their kids won’t get a leg up (at a handful of the wealthiest schools. I think it’s less of an issue more broadly but that’s JMO.)

I do also think that if you are going to do development admissions, get more than a million for pete’s sake.

4115

If you (or your kid) are dreaming of admission to Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, or especially USC, next year and the year after may be the best time to apply. The odds may be a little bit better than they have been in the recent past:

https://theconversation.com/should-you-apply-to-a-college-that-has-had-a-recent-scandal-114892

Excerpt:
“…we find that fewer students apply to a school after a scandal, likely since scandals temporarily cause a hit to the college’s reputation. The decreased application volume may make it slightly easier to get into the school.”

4116

^ lol

4117

@notigering

Glad you chimed in. The one thing that people here keep forgetting is that the people who pleaded guilty made fake “donations” to Singer that were spent to hire a Harvard grad to take or fix their child’s SAT/ACT exam. That is clearly getting something in return.

But people are making a lot of assumptions that they have no evidence is true – they assume that Loughlin knew that her donation to Singer’s Foundation would be used as a “bribe” and go directly to the coach instead of a donation to the athletic department. So receiving a letter saying “no goods or services were exchanged” would be true because the donation could not guarantee admissions, it just gave it a big boost. In the case of the parents who pleaded guilty, the “donation” went to have their kids’ SAT grades fixed! Not to the athletic department to help other student-athletes. The parents who pled guilty could not claim that they thought the money was ever going to the university since they paid specifically to have their child’s test scores fixed. That did not happen with Loughlin.

Also, it does appear that the donations did go to athletic department funds. The fact that a AD or coach might not have used all those funds properly makes them guilty but not the people who donated to them. I’m not even clear whether those USC athletic funds that received the money were embezzled by the coaches or actually used for the athletic department. That’s all not clear.

Singer seemed to have a long history of skirting the law by donating to selective university athletic departments in exchange for favorable treatment for student-athletes or fake student-athletes. It seems as if some coaches helped his clients but didn’t personally benefit from the donations but just used them for student-athletes. Are people now arguing that all Singer’s donations that were only to athletic departments where the coaches didn’t benefit personally are also not charitable either?

Was Loughlin the only parent charged who didn’t have her child’s SAT/ACT scores fixed? Were there others who just made a donation and got charged?

4118

Does anyone know if university fundraisers are ever given bonuses if they get a particularly large donation or if they would ever get a percentage? Are all of them on flat rate salaries like admissions staff?

4119

Well @observer12 there is at least one. Giannulli, her husband, the father of the kids in question. They were both charged with the same things.

The court docs should answer your question about who was charged with what, exactly.

4120

If the donors took a tax deduction for the donation to Singer’s non-profit with the intent that they would receive special admissions treatment (aka, ‘guaranteed’), then that deduction is not allowable. (Not sure what rises to tax fraud.)