There have always been, and likely always will be, rich people who throw money at a university in order to get their kids in. But this is not that. These are parents, coaches and admissions counselors who are actively cheating and/or taking bribes.

I can believe that *some* kids may not have known that their parents paid to juice their test scores--though I'm skeptical. A mediocre student doesn't hit their test scores out of the park all of a sudden, and you don't see scores jump 400 points without significant effort.

The ones that posed as athletes were absolutely in on the scam. You have to register with the NCAA or NAIA in order to be offered any form of financial aid... even Division III schools. So the best case is that the student lied on their application when they indicated that they had registered, and the coach didn't check or knowingly accepted the fraud in order to claim they were recruiting the student as an athlete.

The SF Chronicle quoted some excerpts from the phone conversations that implied at least one of the kids didn’t even know about her fake athletic admission.

quote:

Ross residents Todd Blake, an entrepreneur and investor, and Diane Blake, an executive at a retail merchandising firm, are also accused of bribing Heinel to get their daughter admitted as a volleyball recruit.

“So very excited that my daughter ... will be attending USC next year! #FightOn #trojanfamily,” Todd Blake wrote in a March 2018 Twitter post with a picture of a certificate of admissions to the university.

According to prosecutors, when the cooperating witness told Diane Blake that USC’s athletic records had been subpoenaed, she asked, “should I be concerned,” before saying, “I mean, (our daughter) doesn’t even know, you know?”

The editorial pages are having a field day with this scandal. A lot of talk about the whole process--apart from this scandal--being unfair! Gasp. What!?

This is pretty bad, though. If they at least valued an education... (starting at :52). Why should she get to stay? Especially if her attending means that some earnest student didn't get in:

Imagine committing fraud for a kid and then she just starts vlogging anyway.

Seems like this story is becoming a flashpoint for all the mounting anger and resentment against the wealthy that has been building for some time. It's class warfare, and this story is a hand grenade. And it will be just about as useful. The wealthy will go on having unfair advantage in everything that matters to people after this blows over. They'll just find another way.

BTW, as Steve indicated, you don't have to be wealthy to play this game. My stepson decided he was going to Yale, come hell or high water. Nevermind he didn't have competitive grades or test scores. None of us encouraged him in this, but he, on his own, decided he would go to a week of summer football camp at Yale and ingratiate himself with the coach. The coach couldnt get him in during his senior year of public school, but he offered my stepson a plan--take a second senior year of high school at a prep school for wealthy kids, and play football and make connections there. He applied for and got a scholarship to attend said prep school, played football, made the right connections, got tutored, and the coach kept his end of the bargain and got him admitted. I have no idea what other kinds of strings may have been pulled or corners cut (we parents were opposed to the whole thing, and never wanted him playing football in the first place), but he never did play football there. He was injured in practice severely, so never actually played any of the conference games. I do know there was a lot of partying, secret society ****, he got into serious trouble with his fraternity over the "No means Yes" debacle, and he was voted sexiest man on campus. He did graduate, but we never saw his grades. He was adopted by his wealthy classmates' families and got to go on exotic vacations with them and won prestigious internships overseas, using their family connections. His first job after graduating was obtained the same way. Some people use charm and a manipulative personality to get themselves the advantages that others buy or were born into. I suppose that is legal, but it certainly doesn't reflect worthy attainment through scholastic merit.

What I wonder is, how long have these side doors been open? The endowment avenue has always been open to the very few, but didn't colleges used to stick to their admissions standards, once upon a time?

In ancient times, when I applied to college, my father's uncle was a university dean. My father embarrassed and insulted both his uncle and me when he asked his uncle if he could do anything to assure my admission to what is now regarded as one of the top five universities in the world. (I have no idea what it's ranking was back then, but competition was stiff for out of state students, and there was a quota). My great uncle wrote my father back to say that a) he did not believe in nepotism and b) why not simply let me apply and get in on my own merit? (I was very grateful for this rebuke of my father for his lack of faith in me--and i did get in on my own).

12 years later, I got admitted to grad school at another top-five ranked school, and the only help I got was from my editors who wrote me letters of recommendation. There was one student I remember who was in my class who seemed more interested in her modeling career than in getting down to work in our very tough program, and I do seem to remember she came from money. But hard to believe someone could have bought their way into that school. If they didn't have what it takes, they would have flunked out quickly. Or am I just being naive?

Nah, I don't think anyone would flunk out of an elite school if the only way they could get in was to cheat.

I would say that 90% or more of the people who apply to Yale or Stanford could do the work if they were admitted. After all, an SAT score was supposed to be simply a measure of whether you could do college-level work, right? To flunk you, you have to not try (either because of lack of interest or due to drug/alcohol abuse, medical issue, mental health issue).

You know what would be great fun? If college admissions were completely blind.

You submit your essays, your scores, your transcript, class rank, your other soft qualities. College knows nothing about you otherwise.

I'll bet a lot of rich kids would get left out. They would all have these carefully crafted profiles, but they wouldn't have legacy or admission based on connections or donations. Poor babies.

I think we would wind up with some really interesting, deserving people getting admitted, and diversity would take care of itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Bernard:
The editorial pages are having a field day with this scandal. A lot of talk about the whole process--apart from this scandal--being unfair! Gasp. What!?

This is pretty bad, though. If they at least valued an education... (starting at :52). Why should she get to stay? Especially if her attending means that some earnest student didn't get in:

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gZMKH4wjoZc?start=52" width="560">[/FLASH_VIDEO]

I spent some wasted time last night watching that girl’s “channel” while reading the comments on her videos. I cannot believe she hasn’t disabled them yet.

https://variety.com/2019/digit...nd-deals-1203162624/

This whole situation reminded me of my own "admissions help" story from long ago.

When I was younger, my grandfather's company worked with a mid-sized law firm in Manhattan. My grandfather was the primary point of contact, so he knew the head litigation partner quite well. When the time came for me to get a summer job, my grandfather called the litigation partner, and boom, I had a job in the mail room, every summer for five years. (Yes, privilege.)

When the time came for me to apply to college, my grandfather reminded me that this litigator had major connections at Harvard, and asked me if I wanted him to use those connections with the admissions office.

I told my grandfather no. I wanted to get in on my own.

(And, of course, I was rejected. But I never regretted not asking for help.)

Some dark humor:

quote:

Richard Dreyfuss’ son Ben also took to Twitter to crack jokes about his own college admission.

“I got into college the old fashioned way: by letting my father’s celebrity speak for itself,” he joked on Tuesday.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
You know what would be great fun? If college admissions were completely blind.

You submit your essays, your scores, your transcript, class rank, your other soft qualities. College knows nothing about you otherwise.

I'll bet a lot of rich kids would get left out. They would all have these carefully crafted profiles, but they wouldn't have legacy or admission based on connections or donations. Poor babies.

I think we would wind up with some really interesting, deserving people getting admitted, and diversity would take care of itself.

CalTech

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Some dark humor:

[QUOTE] Richard Dreyfuss’ son Ben also took to Twitter to crack jokes about his own college admission.

“I got into college the old fashioned way: by letting my father’s celebrity speak for itself,” he joked on Tuesday.

It occurred to me that these ladies had to do this because they were C-list celebrities. A-list probably wouldn’t need to.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Some dark humor:

[QUOTE] Richard Dreyfuss’ son Ben also took to Twitter to crack jokes about his own college admission.

“I got into college the old fashioned way: by letting my father’s celebrity speak for itself,” he joked on Tuesday.

It occurred to me that these ladies had to do this because they were C-list celebrities. A-list probably wouldn’t need to.

That might be true of Lori Laughlin, but Felicity Huffman has an Oscar nom, as well as an Emmy and several Screen Actor Guild awards. Her husband William H. Macy, the father of the two kids, has both an Oscar and several Emmy and Screen Actor Guild awards. I'd venture that they are both way more recognizable to anyone under age 30 than Richard Dreyfuss.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
You know what would be great fun? If college admissions were completely blind.

You submit your essays, your scores, your transcript, class rank, your other soft qualities. College knows nothing about you otherwise.

I'll bet a lot of rich kids would get left out. They would all have these carefully crafted profiles, but they wouldn't have legacy or admission based on connections or donations. Poor babies.

I think we would wind up with some really interesting, deserving people getting admitted, and diversity would take care of itself.

CalTech

But there is a certain assumption: that schools would simply pick people with the highest grades and scores. It looks like Cal Tech does that. And are we sure they don’t take a peek at the name or respond to quid pro quo offers? Do they value legacy?

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
There have always been, and likely always will be, rich people who throw money at a university in order to get their kids in. But this is not that. These are parents, coaches and admissions counselors who are actively cheating and/or taking bribes.

One way to think of this is the admission slots were effectively stolen by the coaches and sold on the black market. The rightful owner of the slots are the universities, and they can and do legally sell them in a primary market.

It’s like rogue employees of an oil company siphoning off barrels to enrich themselves on the black market. Or, to take a trivial example, like the bartender that comps drinks for tips.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
There have always been, and likely always will be, rich people who throw money at a university in order to get their kids in. But this is not that. These are parents, coaches and admissions counselors who are actively cheating and/or taking bribes.

One way to think of this is the admission slots were effectively stolen by the coaches and sold on the black market. The rightful owner of the slots are the universities, and they can and do legally sell them in a primary market.

It’s like rogue employees of an oil company siphoning off barrels to enrich themselves on the black market. Or, to take a trivial example, like the bartender that comps drinks for tips.

That's exactly how I've been thinking about it. The university is entitled to make whatever profit it wants on those slots (subject to anti-discrimination laws and such); the employees are not entitled to profit personally by selling those slots.