College Admission Scandals Have Been Going on Forever

[Irv]

Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools?  Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers.  I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever.  Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years.   They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever.  Just ask Hunter Biden.  

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Irv

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Nepotism...huh?  You’re right!  I didn’t think that existed before Felicity Huffman.

 

 

[LeGOATski]

Someone's always going to get caught.

 

It's best to just not be that person.

 

Like, breaking the speed limit's been going on forever. If you get pulled over, you can't blame all the speeders of the past.

[apuszczalowski]

This seems like it's gonna end up in PPP soon.....

 

But the typical response will be that the others got in because their parent was an alumni who made donations, these recent ones were not alumni...... Even though that shouldn't matter

[Marv's Neighbor]

You're right!  If they were smart, they wouldn't have had to cheat, and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.  The others were mostly "legacy."   That's Ivy League nepotism.

[ExiledInIllinois]

No. They were messing with test taking.  Even Teddy Kennedy got kicked out for cheating.

 

Yes... There is a right way and a wrong way.  Messing with the testing system is the wrong way and needs to be severely punished.  Buying your way in through legacy or donating $$$ for things like a building is still acceptable.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, apuszczalowski said:

This seems like it's gonna end up in PPP soon.....

 

But the typical response will be that the others got in because their parent was an alumni who made donations, these recent ones were not alumni...... Even though that shouldn't matter

The difference as I understand it is that Kennedy and Bush paid Harvard and Yale (private organizations who are free to use any standards they wish to accept students) to gain admittance.  The current crowd actually defrauded the universities by conspiring with test cheats and university employees.  Lori Laughlin didn’t pay USC, she paid someone to lie to USC.  That’s a crime.

 

In this case, the universities were the victims.

 

[row_33]

4 hours ago, Irv said:

Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools?  Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers.  I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever.  Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years.   They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever.  Just ask Hunter Biden.  

 

 

And again....

 

at top schools.... like a Harvard or Yale....

 

admissions are 1/3 legacies, the children and later generations of graduates, especially those who donated $$$$$$

 

1/3 placements to people who would make the school a better place such as athletes, affirmative action, artists, musicians  

 

and 1/3 to pure academic achievement, good luck with this means of admission

 

 

[Augie]

45 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

The difference as I understand it is that Kennedy and Bush paid Harvard and Yale (private organizations who are free to use any standards they wish to accept students) to gain admittance.  The current crowd actually defrauded the universities by conspiring with test cheats and university employees.  Lori Laughlin didn’t pay USC, she paid someone to lie to USC.  That’s a crime.

 

In this case, the universities were the victims.

 

 

So............she bribed the wrong people?     ?

 

This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. 

[Paulus]

2 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

This seems like it's gonna end up in PPP soon.....

 

But the typical response will be that the others got in because their parent was an alumni who made donations, these recent ones were not alumni...... Even though that shouldn't matter

And, you are correct. 

 

These guys doctored records and lied. Some of this included other testing for these kids, photoshopped images, and fake school records. That said, they should all burn. 

[row_33]

And the GI Bill after WW2 opened up the top schools in a way that would never be dreamed of again for people who never had a chance otherwise

 

 

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

And, you are correct. 

 

These guys doctored records and lied. Some of this included other testing for these kids, photoshopped images, and fake school records. That said, they should all burn. 

those are people whom the school deemed would make a positive contribution by means other than academic.

 

 

 

 

[apuszczalowski]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

The difference as I understand it is that Kennedy and Bush paid Harvard and Yale (private organizations who are free to use any standards they wish to accept students) to gain admittance.  The current crowd actually defrauded the universities by conspiring with test cheats and university employees.  Lori Laughlin didn’t pay USC, she paid someone to lie to USC.  That’s a crime.

 

In this case, the universities were the victims.

 

So if the University gets a cut of the money its cool, If they don't then its a crime? Makes sense

I wouldn't be surprised if the schools knew about this and got a cut of it

 

How is the University a victim? They got their money for having a student enrolled there, whether it was a 'Legacy' enrolment who only got in because their parent was an alum who made a donation, or someone else who made it in but didn't give the school a donation directly

[apuszczalowski]

18 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

So............she bribed the wrong people?     ?

 

This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. 

They will face the possibility of seeing more jail time then someone who committed fraud that was much worse then just getting their kid into a better school

 

its not like they committed fraud that crashed the US economy......

 

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

They will face the possibility of seeing more jail time then someone who committed fraud that was much worse then just getting their kid into a better school

 

its not like they committed fraud that crashed the US economy......

 

 

I have a nephew who got %$#& faced on St Patty’s Day, drove the wrong way up a highway and killed a guy (who as it turns out was also drunk, but at least on HIS side of the highway). He was out of prison in about 5 years. He KILLED somebody, so the 45 years to me is just a sign of what’s wrong with the system. It’s a threat. They should have just come clean, but who knows the details behind the scenes? 

[apuszczalowski]

10 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I have a nephew who got %$#& faced on St Patty’s Day, drove the wrong way up a highway and killed a guy (who as it turns out was also drunk, but at least on HIS side of the highway). He was out of prison in about 5 years. He KILLED somebody, so the 45 years to me is just a sign of what’s wrong with the system. It’s a threat. They should have just come clean, but who knows the details behind the scenes? 

Yeah, theres no way they actually see 45 years, its more of a threat so they just plead guilty instead of fighting it.

But just the fact that they potentially could see that much time for being a part of this is ridiculous.

I really don't understand why Loughlin is fighting this, just admit they paid to help get their kids into a good school and have their lawyer work on getting them out of any jail time and maybe face a fine.

[Augie]

1 minute ago, apuszczalowski said:

Yeah, theres no way they actually see 45 years, its more of a threat so they just plead guilty instead of fighting it.

But just the fact that they potentially could see that much time for being a part of this is ridiculous.

I really don't understand why Loughlin is fighting this, just admit they paid to help get their kids into a good school and have their lawyer work on getting them out of any jail time and maybe face a fine.

 

Yeah, there is a BETTER way to handle this. Instead of “hey, we messed up, we thought.....”, they are actually digging in and digging deeper, so the charges are piling up. Just END IT! Don’t make it worse! 

[stuvian]

the scandal is that people are going into 5 and 6 figure debt for school where the bribers are making a mockery of admission standards

[Augie]

9 minutes ago, stuvian said:

the scandal is that people are going into 5 and 6 figure debt for school where the bribers are making a mockery of admission standards

 

It goes to the widening gap between the “haves and have nots”. Some can pay $500k just to get kids in, then pay $500k to get them out. Others have to actually qualify, then come out owing $500k that buries them going forward. 

 

I just wish I could get those phone calls to stop about relieving me of my student loans, which I’ve never had. Between that, lowering my credit card rate and saving me from my expiring car warranty............if you can make it STOP I will vote for you! 

[Gordio]

11 hours ago, Augie said:

 

So............she bribed the wrong people?     ?

 

This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. 

 

 

Laughlin should of took the plea deal & this would of all been over.  Probably would done a couple months in prison.  But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.)

[apuszczalowski]

25 minutes ago, Gordio said:

 

 

Laughlin should of took the plea deal & this would of all been over.  Probably would done a couple months in prison.  But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.)

Huffman only did a few days after taking a plea deal, why wasn't her husband also included in this?

 

They will probably use her as an example and give her something steep because she tried to fight it instead of taking the plea. All for not paying the right people to get her kids into a top school....

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

29 minutes ago, Gordio said:

...But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.)

“How rude!”, as her TV niece would have said.

[row_33]

33 minutes ago, Gordio said:

 

 

Laughlin should of took the plea deal & this would of all been over.  Probably would done a couple months in prison.  But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.)

 

Laughlin portrayed being a thief of the $$$ in people's wallets on the Larry Sanders Show

 

 

[Augie]

41 minutes ago, Gordio said:

 

 

Laughlin should of took the plea deal & this would of all been over.  Probably would done a couple months in prison.  But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.)

Arrogance rarely works FOR you. She will probably pay dearly for hers. I don’t think it will be 5 years, but this should have gone away already. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

Laughlin portrayed being a thief of the $$$ in people's wallets on the Larry Sanders Show

 

 

Must have been enough?...?

Edited November 7, 2019 by Ridgewaycynic2013

[plenzmd1]

13 hours ago, Augie said:

 

So............she bribed the wrong people?     ?

 

This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. 

man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock!

[Augie]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock!

I don’t know how they got you in, but I bet they quietly moved right after they dropped you off to keep you from going back home! I can hear them now: ”he’s their problem now!” 

[KD in CA]

13 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

So if the University gets a cut of the money its cool, If they don't then its a crime? Makes sense

I wouldn't be surprised if the schools knew about this and got a cut of it

 

How is the University a victim? They got their money for having a student enrolled there, whether it was a 'Legacy' enrolment who only got in because their parent was an alum who made a donation, or someone else who made it in but didn't give the school a donation directly

 

Actually yes, and if you can remove the "all rich people bad" blinders for a minute, you'd see that it does.

 

 

14 hours ago, Augie said:

 

So............she bribed the wrong people?     ?

 

This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. 

 

Of course she won't get anywhere near 45 years.  I'm sure your nephew was "facing" a lot longer than 5 years at trial.   The media just looooves to play up the facing number in criminal cases for shock value!    

 

But she will almost certainly get more than she deserves for the crime itself because of her arrogance and stupidity.  Huffman got the appropriate punishment.  Had Loughlin followed that path she probably gets the same.   No different than any other case....if you plead you get the lower sentence.  If you roll the dice at trial and lose, you get a longer sentence.  Not sure why people are acting like those longstanding rules are so shocking in this case.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Actually yes, and if you can remove the "all rich people bad" blinders for a minute, you'd see that it does.

 

 

 

Of course she won't get anywhere near 45 years.  I'm sure your nephew was "facing" a lot longer than 5 years at trial.   The media just looooves to play up the facing number in criminal cases for shock value!    

 

But she will almost certainly get more than she deserves for the crime itself because of her arrogance and stupidity.  Huffman got the appropriate punishment.  Had Loughlin followed that path she probably gets the same.   No different than any other case....if you plead you get the lower sentence.  If you roll the dice at trial and lose, you get a longer sentence.  Not sure why people are acting like those longstanding rules are so shocking in this case.

 

The arrogance is amazing, and right now it appears stupidity is her defense. “But I just thought......” 

[RochesterRob]

18 hours ago, Irv said:

Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools?  Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers.  I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever.  Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years.   They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever.  Just ask Hunter Biden.  

 

 

  The difference is that the Kennedy's and the Bush's "did it right" while the actresses "did it wrong."  Meaning the Kennedy's and the Bush's made donations to the school overall with an understanding while the actresses bribed an official who was not on the top layer of administration.  Also, 400K is a little light in the bribery dept if you ask me.  We would not be hearing anything about it if each woman had offered say a couple million dollars at a lunch with a dean.

[RochesterRob]

17 hours ago, Marv's Neighbor said:

You're right!  If they were smart, they wouldn't have had to cheat, and the whole thing wouldn't have happened.  The others were mostly "legacy."   That's Ivy League nepotism.

  Being a legacy helps but certainly is not a guarantee for admission.  For the most part a legacy gives the edge if test scores are close.  But there are certainly exceptions when heavyweights are involved such as politicians, lawyers, captains of industry, etc..

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  The difference is that the Kennedy's and the Bush's "did it right" while the actresses "did it wrong."  Meaning the Kennedy's and the Bush's made donations to the school overall with an understanding while the actresses bribed an official who was not on the top layer of administration.  Also, 400K is a little light in the bribery dept if you ask me.  We would not be hearing anything about it if each woman had offered say a couple million dollars at a lunch with a dean.

 

If you donate a few million to the school, are an active alum donor, that's a benefit to the entire school and student body. And such donations are legal. 

 

Greasing a guy's pocket and doctoring transcripts, tests, and photos is bribery and fraud--and benefits only the kid that is the subject of the fraud. Pretty big difference. 

 

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Being a legacy helps but certainly is not a guarantee for admission.  For the most part a legacy gives the edge if test scores are close.  But there are certainly exceptions when heavyweights are involved such as politicians, lawyers, captains of industry, etc..

 

Test scores mean less and less, but your point is true if applicants are close. It's a plus in the column of students who are children of alum. 

[Uncle Joe]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock!

wrestle?

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by \GoBillsInDallas/

[RochesterRob]

32 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

If you donate a few million to the school, are an active alum donor, that's a benefit to the entire school and student body. And such donations are legal. 

 

Greasing a guy's pocket and doctoring transcripts, tests, and photos is bribery and fraud--and benefits only the kid that is the subject of the fraud. Pretty big difference. 

 

 

Test scores mean less and less, but your point is true if applicants are close. It's a plus in the column of students who are children of alum. 

  The ethics are highly questionable if the donation was done solely to get the kid admitted and I thought that point was coming through.  More so if a very highly ranking official does so in terms of doctoring a kid's application.  I would bet that as part of the "service" an undeserving kid's record is cleaned up so there is not all kinds of resentment by instructors, administrators, and fellow students towards that kid most of the time.  Usually the doctoring is done to make the student's background look reasonable if not top notch.  Further, I was also making a point that what the women did was plain stupid in terms of trying not to get caught.  It's like they were trying to work the bargain bin in terms of payola which does not make sense.  I am not saying the second method is not fraudulent but a majority of the time a general donation is pretty much the same thing although quite a bit less risky.  If you were the dean of a school or even the president of the university I would think that if you are bright enough to hold either post that if some big shot calls you out of the blue about a meeting it would take a split second to realize they want to place some kid there.  The minute you gain access to that kid's files and see issues it will dawn on you that a bribe of some kind is going to be pitched at you.  Again, the first approach mentioned in this regard is far less sloppy than the second but no more ethical if the donation was not happening without the admission.  After all nobody makes a donation for a million or two on the basis of "if you can."

[row_33]

can you pay the tuition?

 

you are enrolled

 

i'm about to do this without any great accomplishments on my transcripts......

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by row_33

[Irv]

3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock!

 

I was going to go there but didn't have enough money for the special shoes. 

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

The arrogance is amazing, and right now it appears stupidity is her defense. “But I just thought......” 

 

Yup.  It's hard to sympathize with her when the DA publicly announced he was gunning for anyone who refused to own up to it.  Of course they are going to use rich celebs as a warning to others....same reason Rudy insisted on doing perp walks for big shot Wall Street guys he busted in the 80s (well, that and he wanted to be Mayor).

 

Who knows, maybe she'll get some Full House fans on the jury and get off.  But I bet the stress is far more than she would have experienced if she had spent a few weeks in some cushy celeb prison cell.  As Sammy Davis Jr said, don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

[bills_fan]

These people didn't bribe the colleges in the right way.  This article about David Shaw shows how to bribe the colleges legally lol.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/david-e-shaw-college-donations.html

 

 

[RochesterRob]

41 minutes ago, bills_fan said:

These people didn't bribe the colleges in the right way.  This article about David Shaw shows how to bribe the colleges legally lol.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/david-e-shaw-college-donations.html

 

 

  Interesting read but I would say that most potential applicants do not have close to the means that Shaw has.  I would guess that in most cases the family more or less has a one time shot which means they insist on a quid pro quo.  Even then it is not a slam dunk even if the potential applicant's history is white-washed.  While admissions is no doubt prone to some leaning on by upper administration faculty often has a considerable say which I saw as a student being accepted into Cornell.  Even if the heavy hand of the dean or president prevails the student is very vulnerable once in as he will be in the crosshairs of a number of instructors and fellow students.  It would not surprise me that many students who had their family buy their way in wash out after a year.  My advisor on his best day was a miserable prick but would not screw anybody over that he though had merit.  Somebody that he thought did not deserve a "chair" would receive his undying resentment any way he could dish it out.  I give credit to my advisor for finding elective courses that enhanced my GPA.

[Sundancer]

4 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  The ethics are highly questionable if the donation was done solely to get the kid admitted and I thought that point was coming through.  More so if a very highly ranking official does so in terms of doctoring a kid's application.  I would bet that as part of the "service" an undeserving kid's record is cleaned up so there is not all kinds of resentment by instructors, administrators, and fellow students towards that kid most of the time.  Usually the doctoring is done to make the student's background look reasonable if not top notch.  Further, I was also making a point that what the women did was plain stupid in terms of trying not to get caught.  It's like they were trying to work the bargain bin in terms of payola which does not make sense.  I am not saying the second method is not fraudulent but a majority of the time a general donation is pretty much the same thing although quite a bit less risky.  If you were the dean of a school or even the president of the university I would think that if you are bright enough to hold either post that if some big shot calls you out of the blue about a meeting it would take a split second to realize they want to place some kid there.  The minute you gain access to that kid's files and see issues it will dawn on you that a bribe of some kind is going to be pitched at you.  Again, the first approach mentioned in this regard is far less sloppy than the second but no more ethical if the donation was not happening without the admission.  After all nobody makes a donation for a million or two on the basis of "if you can."

 

The difference is substantial. Money donated to the school, which money benefits all the students vs. money going to the personal pocket of some admissions person/coach. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFia7FhVmuM