Feds uncover admissions test cheating plot

We can no longer respond to “spying,” so I’m not sure that point.

“I’m not a big fan of prosecutors threatening non-violent criminals with even more charges and decades in prison because they won’t plead guilty”
Did they?

Did someone suggest that non-violent criminal cases should be pursued any less vigorously than those charges of a violent nature? Wow - maybe we should just let rich people do whatever they want with their money, regardless of which “less important” laws are crossed… (where’s that sarcasm button?)

@socaldad2002 a cursory review of current events could tell your wife and her colleagues that they are incorrect. Sadly, wrongful convictions happen.

@socaldad2002 “I’m not sure why some are so quick to exonerate these parents when it’s so obvious what they were doing was fraudulently”

Exonerating? I dunno… but I will remind you that we live in a nation whose justice system is based on the principle of innocent before PROVEN guilty.

I will also share an insight from long-term poster @Hanna, herself an attorney, on the difference between LL pleading not guilty and Felicity Huffman’s guilty plea : “When I see two defendants with outstanding legal counsel behaving differently, I assume there’s some major differences in their cases that I don’t know about.”

In other words, we can speculate, but let’s not forget we’re not privy to most of the details of these cases. Bloviating on guilt or lack of it based on what we read in the press is frankly a little silly.

If Loughlin were found not guilty, can her daughter go back to USC as if nothing had happened?

The criminal case against the parent has nothing whatsoever to do with the school’s decision as to whether to enroll or disenroll a student. The school can do whatever it wants consistent with the information it has.

@austinmshauri “if you pay a third party and hide it from the college administration and high school guidance counselor, and creatively report it to the IRS, and you arrange for photos of your kid training for a sport they don’t play all with the understanding it will “boost” admission chances, you’re on the wrong path.”

You are also on the wrong path if you donate to a newly formed fencing foundation that turns around and donates part of that money to a newly created non-profit run by the coach of the school you want your child admitted to. And you are also on the wrong path if you arrange via a private sale to purchase that same coach’s home for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than it is worth. At least I hope people here aren’t arguing that is the “right path” for parents to take. Are they?

Unfortunately, you can be on the “wrong path” but not be doing anything illegal or even anything that the university would consider a firing offense for the coach, let alone “illegal”.

As we all now know, being on the wrong path is different than breaking the law.

That’s why I don’t understand why anyone objects to Lori Loughlin and her husband exercising their right to have a trial. And I’m shocked that anyone would try to make the argument that anyone indicted is 100% guilty. If a family wants to take it to trial, they should be allowed to do so. As we know from what happened at Harvard, doing things that seem pretty corrupt on their face is not always breaking the law.

@katliamom "“When I see two defendants with outstanding legal counsel behaving differently, I assume there’s some major differences in their cases that I don’t know about.”

There is one major difference that we do know about. In one case where a defendant pleaded guilty, money was spent to hire a Harvard grad to “fix” the SAT or ACT test of the donor’s child. And so far there is no evidence that was done for Loughlin’s children. I can’t help wondering why. Were their standardized test scores already quite high? Or did Loughlin turn down Singer’s offer to “improve” her daughters’ scores that the parents who pleaded guilty took Singer up on?

An interesting read in the NY Times about this that I haven’t seen linked to before:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/business/dealbook/college-admissions-scandal.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

Stanford threw out Yusi Zhao, whose parents paid $6.5 million to get her admitted as a bogus sailing recruit.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/05/01/expelled-students-family-paid-6-5-million-in-scandal-to-secure-her-admission-to-stanford/

@observer12

“There is one major difference that we do know about” – Yea, and possibly half a dozen others we don’t.

@“Cardinal Fang” Weirdly, her picture and bio are still on the site for Princeton China Coalition in which she took part as a Stanford student.
http://www.puccuschina.org/2019-delegates

Stanford Daily’s article is interesting:

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/05/01/expelled-students-family-paid-6-5-million-in-scandal-to-secure-her-admission-to-stanford/

"So far, the second-highest known payment to scandal ringleader William Rick Singer was $1.2 million from another Chinese client, the family of Sherry Guo, who was admitted to Yale University in 2018 as a purported soccer recruit. Guo was expelled from Yale in March.

Guo’s attorney told the Wall Street Journal that Guo’s family believed the $1.2 million payment was for a legal donation. He suggests Singer exploited Chinese families’ lack of knowledge about the U.S. college admissions process…Neither Yusi nor her parents have been charged in the scandal, and it is unclear whether they were aware that Singer’s college admissions scheme was illegal. It is also unclear whether Yusi was aware of her family’s activity with Singer. "

Guo’s attorney sounds like Loughlin’s attorney. I can’t imagine why the feds haven’t already charged those parents, too and what they are waiting for.

^^ I feel bad for that girl in particular. From what I can extrapolate it looks as if she was a serious enough student that she would have gotten in somewhere prestigious on her own. I mean, it says she did get in without the “pink folder” and/or a prior donation (the 500k came in afterwards). I have a feeling those $6.5 million would have gotten her the red carpet treatment in at least a few prestigious back doors… And Singer pocketed 6 mil out of the 6.5!, that has to be a crime somewhere… it almost makes it look as if he (the Dad) was the victim, but in my book the only victim was the girl and on so many, many levels. Wow, just wow…

@notigering

I agree – Singer was a scam artist. He certainly seemed to scam many insecure or not well-educated parents who were unfamiliar with the college admissions process.

Article says that the expelled student was not designated as a recruited athlete (with a “pink envelope”) during admissions, but the falsified competitive sailing experience may have been seen as a significant extracurricular. Of course, the fact that it was falsified was enough for Stanford to rescind the student’s admission and vacate any credits earned, according to https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/admission-case-info/ .

@observer12 You might be right, but I think it’s more likely that the parents (and I mean all of them) were knowing participants in illegal and unethical acts.

I love that is says he had lack of knowledge of the process. Sorry, you don’t become a multi billionaire playing stupid… Next case…

@RandyErika

It seems almost certain that the parents knowingly participated in unethical acts. I think the jury is still out as to whether all of them are guilty of illegal acts. The parents who gave money to Singer to have their non-soccer playing daughter designated as a recruit at Yale have not even been charged with any crimes yet.

The people indicted with Loughlin are not these other cases one can dig up. So be it. That doesn’t make these defendants “innocent” or suggest the others won’t be prosecuted. The others just aren’t among those named in Varsity Blues. It should be self evident that more than one case can be brought.

In an earlier link here to an article in NYT (a few hours ago ) the fed rep says as much (despite other slant in the article.)

Not being named in VB is not definitive.

No one knows yet what LL’s defense is or will be. But we do know VB includes several purported illegalities. And that none are about H fencing.

Again, LL is charged with what she IS charged with. Not someone else’s crimes. No need to weigh which is worse, as if it gets LL off the hook. She is charged with her own misdoings.