Did anyone watch the CNN special last night? I thought the way they structured it around Varsity Blues but didn’t rehash too much of what has already been covered ad nauseam gave them room to delve into other areas, like the history of legacy and sports recruiting.
It definitely hit the favorites of wealth and income disparity. I was disappointed that there was no mention at all of public universities playing any role to bridge that gap. Of course, you can’t cover everything, but to frame it as Harvard vs Berea leaves out the experiences of the vast majority of students. How about funding better public options? Their exclusion, to me, rendered them irrelevant.
I thought it was well done from their standpoint. Can’t believe people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars legally to advisors, test prep etc. That’s crazy. Can’t believe my kids got accepted anywhere… Lol. History of legacy and why it still goes on was very interesting to me. Yes it would of been nice to mention other schools but the them against us tone was well done.
There were alot of gaps in the show. They needed more time. The first segment was really interesting with the history of college admissions… Then they got into the Jewish quotas and didn’t finish the thought. They cut all that out, so unless you know the history, you don’t know that Jewish quotas (limiting Jews) were eventually removed.
As usual they spent an inordinate amount of time talking about Harvard. Harvard Harvard Harvard… it’s always Harvard.
I liked that Fareed “fessed up” in the end that he was admitted to Ivy league schools via the “meritocracy” of high grades and test scores and international diversity - afforded to him by highly educated, semi-wealthy parents. I wonder if his kids applied to Yale (his undergrad) and Harvard (grad school) for the irresistible benefit of legacy.
The Grant-Langevin comparison was definitely not apples to apples. A kid not getting a spot on a Large state University’s tennis team vs a kid who was accepted to a private school, G-town’s team are hardly anything alike.
Athletic admissions are often made for reasons other than pure athletic prowess and are not against the rules or law.
As for why these parents did not outright donate through legal channels to colleges, the reason for that is that there is no direct quid pro quo that way. You donate your money and you takes your chances. Any whiff that you want consideration for your kids’ apps at the some of these schools would result in negative outcomes. That’s why Charles Kushner’s donations to Harvard , Cornell that likely affected his son Jared’s chances of getting into those colleges were not guaranteed.
“Athletic admissions are often made for reasons other than pure athletic prowess and are not against the rules or law.”
Well the recent basketball scandal should prove there are laws being broken in athletic admissions and recruiting. When the other reasons are money and bribes, there are going to be laws broken. There’s no doubt that big time college basketball and football is corrupt.
“That’s why Charles Kushner’s donations to Harvard , Cornell that likely affected his son Jared’s chances of getting into those colleges were not guaranteed.”
Agree that guarantee with just money is a strong word, but once Kushner Sr got Ted Kennedy to call Harvard on his son’s behalf, then it was a guarantee. From Golden’s book:
“A source close to the family told me that New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg, to whom Kushner and his family gave nearly $100,000 from 1992 to 2002, turned to Massachusetts senator Edward Kennedy to boost Jared’s Harvard prospects. Senator Kennedy, a Harvard alumnus whose family has been associated with the university for three generations, is said to have contacted admissions dean William Fitzsimmons, who then spoke with Kushner.”
Here’s the thing, it’s totally fine for Harvard to accept Kushner (or Malia Obama to show my neutrality) based on money, politics, power, connections, whatever, they just to need to be more transparent about it.
Felicity Huffman was so much smarter to fall on her sword, give what to all appearances seems to be a heartfelt apology, and do her time. Doing the crime was a stupid mistake, but I think the public will forgive her, even if we’d never have the inclination or the resources to do what she did. After all, we know what it’s like to get a little whacko when it comes to our own children. On the other hand, fighting prosecution, as Loughlin has done just seems like a mark of hubris and I imagine there’s some public schadenfreude over the additional charges.
Huffman did a very deliberate act of cheating - she paid someone to change answers. No question that that was cheating and misleading the admissions offices with false scores.
Loughlin (lof lin) paid money into a 501(c)3, which is not an illegal act. She did provide pictures that were doctored (by her? by Singer?) and a fluffed up athletic background but perhaps was told there was nothing illegal about that (that will be decided at trial). Many a parent has said their children were much better at a sport than they really were. Many a parent has paid for their less-than-talented child to attend a camp or be on a team that another qualified player was then kept off the roster. Unfair but not illegal. I know kids who were added to the roster as a favor to a parent. The school admitted them on their own applications (academically qualified) but they wouldn’t have made the team without that parental bump. Harm to others? I don’t think so unless the roster had a limit to the number of players (baseball, basketball?).
Huffman had no defense. She (not child) cheated. Loughlin has a case. She may lose, but she does have an argument that she didn’t do anything illegal.
The new California ‘NCAA’ rules are going to allow coaches and boosters to present briefcases full of money to recruits and players now, like they used to in Texas. (SMU got the death penalty, now it will be allowed.) Why shouldn’t the parents be allowed to do the reverse and just buy a spot? Make it above board, maybe even taxable.
Olivia Jade’s parents took pictures of her on an erg (rowing machine) and forwarded them to Singer, who then set up a recruiting account claiming she was a coxswain. When the school’s GC questioned the information on her application her father confronted her and insisted his daughter coxed for the LA Marina Club. From what I understand she’d never stepped foot in a crew shell.
In other words, this was not a matter of securing a spot for a relatively weak recruit; it was straight up cheating. The idea that LL didn’t know her “donation” was a bribe is IMO laughable.
ETA: @twoinanddone, I’m not calling your post laughable. It’s LL’s defense I think is not credible.
I would guess it’s because they’ve spent so many years repeating time and again that the only factor which determines whether they accept a student is whether the student is One Of The Best Of The Best, that they can’t bring themselves to admit, publicly, that the most important factor determining their admissions is, in fact, “will it help the Harvard Brand?”.
Of course, most of the public doesn’t actually believe this, and the majority response will likely be “well, duh”. However, there are enough people who are still swallow Harvard’s claims about themselves, and these are the ones who are responsible for a substantial number of the 45,000 applicants to Harvard.
Well, not only Harvard, also Yale, Princeton, and many other colleges which pour a substantial amount of their resources on their branding. There is a difference between something being “generally understood”, and it being admitted in public.
Imagine what it would be like if suddenly Harvard’s or Yale’s acceptance rates would rise to 15% because people were disillusioned and stopped applying?
Chaos In The Ivies!!
Shock!
Disbelief!!
AOs weeping!
Marketing departments wailing and gnashing their teeth!
Marketing administrators being forced to do the walk of shame to the jeers and insults of other department employees!
Harvard’s president declares a day of somber reflection, as the Harvard flags are lowered to half mast!
Yale ignoring everything except that their new acceptance rate of 15.2% is lower than Harvard.s of 16.3%…
Alumni interviewers publicly declaring their sorrow, while private celebrating.
Students of these once proud institutions hiding their college crests in shame, walking with their sweatshirt inside out, and when asked what college they attend, look down and mumble something indistinct.
College Confidential holds a Day of Schadenfreude, as the alumni, parents of students and alumni, and supporters of all the colleges which still have lower acceptance rates than Harvard or Yale write posts deriding these formerly “selective” colleges
The possible penalties in this case for Lori Laughlin & her husband are ridiculous.
This is not a crime of violence or even a theft crime. The ones who should receive the harshest punishments are those in a position to effectuate the “crime”.
Shouldn’t a drug dealer receive a more severe punishment than a drug user ?
The additional charges may induce jury nullification. Parents facing 40 years in prison for using their hard earned wealth to help their daughters. Even with minimal punishment there is little liklihood of reoccurence or of other parents attempting to do the same.
The Loughlin parents should receive a downward departure in sentencing due to their high profile stature & the effect that this will have on curtailing cheating to get into college.
In my opinion, the prosecutors need to offer a reasonable plea bargain–not a vindictive sentence.
But is it illegal? The AD at USC knew it was a lie and encouraged the behavior.
Easy to prove the behavior was morally wrong, but illegal goes to a different standard. 16 of the ~40 parents charged are fighting the charges. I have to imagine that these parents have hired pretty good lawyers and that if they had no hope of getting a better deal there wouldn’t be 16 holdouts.
I’ve always thought Loughlin has a pretty good chance of winning. Her lawyers do too.
LL et al. were charged under a federal statute that makes it illegal to commit bribery in connection with a program that receives federal funds, which USC does. If her defense is that she did not know the money she was spending was a bribe I don’t find that credible and I don’t think a jury would either.
Making a huge donation to a college in the hope it will admit your child is not a bribe as much as some people may object to the admissions advantage such a donation can confer.
