[winflop]

Per Stanford's statement, neither was admitted.

Yes, you're right. Stanford revised its original statement to add these details:

"one student was initially denied admission and intended to reapply but never did, and the second never completed an application."

Based on what we know now, the bottom line appears to be that Stanford's admissions system worked. A coach tried to subvert the system by recommending an applicant who had fraudulent qualifications, but the attempted fraud failed. The applicant was rejected. 

This reinforces what we already knew -- the admissions office exercises independent judgment and the athletic coaches can't dictate admissions decisions.

I think that is pretty encouraging.

I actually don't think any school's admissions teams did anything wrong here. They all followed their own guidelines. We can argue that those guidelines give an advantage to people with money and that may be true but those are the rules they are given.

The fraud was perpetrated upon them by these parents and the company and its agents. Sadly, one of the parents is a b-school classmate of mine. I don't wish ill upon many people, but I hope he misses our next reunion because he's in jail.

[winflop]

Per Stanford's statement, neither was admitted.

Yes, you're right. Stanford revised its original statement to add these details:

"one student was initially denied admission and intended to reapply but never did, and the second never completed an application."

Based on what we know now, the bottom line appears to be that Stanford's admissions system worked. A coach tried to subvert the system by recommending an applicant who had fraudulent qualifications, but the attempted fraud failed. The applicant was rejected. 

This reinforces what we already knew -- the admissions office exercises independent judgment and the athletic coaches can't dictate admissions decisions.

I think that is pretty encouraging.

I actually don't think any school's admissions teams did anything wrong here. They all followed their own guidelines. We can argue that those guidelines give an advantage to people with money and that may be true but those are the rules they are given.

The fraud was perpetrated upon them by these parents and the company and its agents. Sadly, one of the parents is a b-school classmate of mine. I don't wish ill upon many people, but I hope he misses our next reunion because he's in jail.

[GK3]

Agreed to a prison term of 18 months?!? WOW! 

At that rate, the water polo coach and the associate AD at SC will be in for decades.

That's somewhat misleading. Parole eligibility occurs after you've served one-third of the sentence, or six months. It might also be a maximum of 18 months. Journalists almost never get that right.

Actually, Congress eliminated parole for federal crimes effective in 1987, with a few minor exceptions. https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organization...commission

Vandemoer will not be eligible for parole. He can reduce his sentence by 15% with good behavior. So he will serve 15+ months.

Considering what Manafort got, 18 months for this is egrigious!  I don't condone it, but it appears the coach received no money.  Lesser time plus a fine would seem more fitting.  Now I think Manafort should be in jail for far longer, but he isn't at the moment.

[GK3]

Agreed to a prison term of 18 months?!? WOW! 

At that rate, the water polo coach and the associate AD at SC will be in for decades.

That's somewhat misleading. Parole eligibility occurs after you've served one-third of the sentence, or six months. It might also be a maximum of 18 months. Journalists almost never get that right.

Actually, Congress eliminated parole for federal crimes effective in 1987, with a few minor exceptions. https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organization...commission

Vandemoer will not be eligible for parole. He can reduce his sentence by 15% with good behavior. So he will serve 15+ months.

Considering what Manafort got, 18 months for this is egrigious!  I don't condone it, but it appears the coach received no money.  Lesser time plus a fine would seem more fitting.  Now I think Manafort should be in jail for far longer, but he isn't at the moment.

[BostonCard]

By the way, I notice that neither my alma mater (Pomona) nor any of the other super elite small colleges (Swarthmore, Bowdoin. Reid, Carleton, Oberlin, etc.) were involved - to date. I don't imagine that's because of superior virtue, but because it's a lot harder to hide a suspect application in a student body that small.

I was going to ask whether Pomona gave preference to athletes, but a little Googling showed that Pomona was a Division III school and had a page titled "recruit me" with a link to a form where prospective student athletes could fill out a form that would be sent to the coach.  Division III doesn't offer scholarships, but it seems like the coaches probably could put a good word in with admissions.

So I think your theory is probably right.  The other thing is that for a lot of the schools you cite, their academic quality exceeds their name recognition.  Given that a lot of this was much more about the parents' egos than it was an attempt to advance their children's educations, it would make sense that the target schools were those with a lot of name recognition.

BC

---

I actually don't think any school's admissions teams did anything wrong here. They all followed their own guidelines. We can argue that those guidelines give an advantage to people with money and that may be true but those are the rules they are given.

The fraud was perpetrated upon them by these parents and the company and its agents. Sadly, one of the parents is a b-school classmate of mine. I don't wish ill upon many people, but I hope he misses our next reunion because he's in jail.

I tend to agree with you here, though my wife raised the question as to why the admissions office didn't do at least a minimum of due diligence.  You can pick a random person on the Stanford sailing team and do a google search on them and find their times from old regattas, and sailing is probably one of the most obscure sports.  Something like tennis or soccer would have team pages and even local news articles.  My response is that presumably that is the coach's job, and that the admissions department's due diligence is to focus on the academics.

Obviously, inherent in the assumption is the now incorrect assumption that the coaches were not corruptable.  One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player. 

BC

[BostonCard]

By the way, I notice that neither my alma mater (Pomona) nor any of the other super elite small colleges (Swarthmore, Bowdoin. Reid, Carleton, Oberlin, etc.) were involved - to date. I don't imagine that's because of superior virtue, but because it's a lot harder to hide a suspect application in a student body that small.

I was going to ask whether Pomona gave preference to athletes, but a little Googling showed that Pomona was a Division III school and had a page titled "recruit me" with a link to a form where prospective student athletes could fill out a form that would be sent to the coach.  Division III doesn't offer scholarships, but it seems like the coaches probably could put a good word in with admissions.

So I think your theory is probably right.  The other thing is that for a lot of the schools you cite, their academic quality exceeds their name recognition.  Given that a lot of this was much more about the parents' egos than it was an attempt to advance their children's educations, it would make sense that the target schools were those with a lot of name recognition.

BC

---

I actually don't think any school's admissions teams did anything wrong here. They all followed their own guidelines. We can argue that those guidelines give an advantage to people with money and that may be true but those are the rules they are given.

The fraud was perpetrated upon them by these parents and the company and its agents. Sadly, one of the parents is a b-school classmate of mine. I don't wish ill upon many people, but I hope he misses our next reunion because he's in jail.

I tend to agree with you here, though my wife raised the question as to why the admissions office didn't do at least a minimum of due diligence.  You can pick a random person on the Stanford sailing team and do a google search on them and find their times from old regattas, and sailing is probably one of the most obscure sports.  Something like tennis or soccer would have team pages and even local news articles.  My response is that presumably that is the coach's job, and that the admissions department's due diligence is to focus on the academics.

Obviously, inherent in the assumption is the now incorrect assumption that the coaches were not corruptable.  One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player. 

BC

[chrisk]

message from GSB

https://gsbalumni.sites.stanford.edu/dea...-march2019

[chrisk]

message from GSB

https://gsbalumni.sites.stanford.edu/dea...-march2019

[TreesAndBirds]

“One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player.”

I assume that the coach was “maximizing the probability of winning”, and that he determined that nicer facilities or whatever all that money was destined for would help recruit the top athletes he wanted, and it was worth a “chit” to do so. 

I (and I think all of us on here) don't want a Stanford coach to maximize winning.....I want him/her to first focus on doing the right things....looking out for player health and academic success, following NCAA and other applicable rules, upholding and furthering the good name of the university....and to maximize winning only after those basic requirements are met.

I believe it may never have occurred to admissions that this type of misbehavior needed to be considered. That they could trust the coach as to an applicants athletic ability. Now they know.

[TreesAndBirds]

“One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player.”

I assume that the coach was “maximizing the probability of winning”, and that he determined that nicer facilities or whatever all that money was destined for would help recruit the top athletes he wanted, and it was worth a “chit” to do so. 

I (and I think all of us on here) don't want a Stanford coach to maximize winning.....I want him/her to first focus on doing the right things....looking out for player health and academic success, following NCAA and other applicable rules, upholding and furthering the good name of the university....and to maximize winning only after those basic requirements are met.

I believe it may never have occurred to admissions that this type of misbehavior needed to be considered. That they could trust the coach as to an applicants athletic ability. Now they know.

[BostonCard]

“One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player.”

I assume that the coach was “maximizing the probability of winning”, and that he determined that nicer facilities or whatever all that money was destined for would help recruit the top athletes he wanted, and it was worth a “chit” to do so. 

I (and I think all of us on here) don't want a Stanford coach to maximize winning.....I want him/her to first focus on doing the right things....looking out for player health and academic success, following NCAA and other applicable rules, upholding and furthering the good name of the university....and to maximize winning only after those basic requirements are met.

I believe it may never have occurred to admissions that this type of misbehavior needed to be considered. That they could trust the coach as to an applicants athletic ability. Now they know.

Thanks, you said it better than I did.

BC

---

It gets worse for SC...

https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/13/lori-loug...ck-caruso/

That must have been an awkward boating trip.

BC

[BostonCard]

“One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player.”

I assume that the coach was “maximizing the probability of winning”, and that he determined that nicer facilities or whatever all that money was destined for would help recruit the top athletes he wanted, and it was worth a “chit” to do so. 

I (and I think all of us on here) don't want a Stanford coach to maximize winning.....I want him/her to first focus on doing the right things....looking out for player health and academic success, following NCAA and other applicable rules, upholding and furthering the good name of the university....and to maximize winning only after those basic requirements are met.

I believe it may never have occurred to admissions that this type of misbehavior needed to be considered. That they could trust the coach as to an applicants athletic ability. Now they know.

Thanks, you said it better than I did.

BC

---

It gets worse for SC...

https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/13/lori-loug...ck-caruso/

That must have been an awkward boating trip.

BC

[BostonCard]

We can drop the "alleged" right?  People have pleaded guilty to it.

BC

[BostonCard]

We can drop the "alleged" right?  People have pleaded guilty to it.

BC

[82lsju]

We can drop the "alleged" right?  People have pleaded guilty to it.

BC

two so far

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investig...ery-scheme

[82lsju]

We can drop the "alleged" right?  People have pleaded guilty to it.

BC

two so far

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investig...ery-scheme

[Genuine Realist]

By the way, I notice that neither my alma mater (Pomona) nor any of the other super elite small colleges (Swarthmore, Bowdoin. Reid, Carleton, Oberlin, etc.) were involved - to date. I don't imagine that's because of superior virtue, but because it's a lot harder to hide a suspect application in a student body that small.

I was going to ask whether Pomona gave preference to athletes, but a little Googling showed that Pomona was a Division III school and had a page titled "recruit me" with a link to a form where prospective student athletes could fill out a form that would be sent to the coach.  Division III doesn't offer scholarships, but it seems like the coaches probably could put a good word in with admissions.

So I think your theory is probably right.  The other thing is that for a lot of the schools you cite, their academic quality exceeds their name recognition.  Given that a lot of this was much more about the parents' egos than it was an attempt to advance their children's educations, it would make sense that the target schools were those with a lot of name recognition.

BC

---

I actually don't think any school's admissions teams did anything wrong here. They all followed their own guidelines. We can argue that those guidelines give an advantage to people with money and that may be true but those are the rules they are given.

The fraud was perpetrated upon them by these parents and the company and its agents. Sadly, one of the parents is a b-school classmate of mine. I don't wish ill upon many people, but I hope he misses our next reunion because he's in jail.

I tend to agree with you here, though my wife raised the question as to why the admissions office didn't do at least a minimum of due diligence.  You can pick a random person on the Stanford sailing team and do a google search on them and find their times from old regattas, and sailing is probably one of the most obscure sports.  Something like tennis or soccer would have team pages and even local news articles.  My response is that presumably that is the coach's job, and that the admissions department's due diligence is to focus on the academics.

Obviously, inherent in the assumption is the now incorrect assumption that the coaches were not corruptable.  One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player. 

BC

Athletics are mildly helpful, and the coaches do have input. But they rank with many other extra-curriculars and activities. Virtuosity on a musical instrument is a big plus, I am told.

[Genuine Realist]

By the way, I notice that neither my alma mater (Pomona) nor any of the other super elite small colleges (Swarthmore, Bowdoin. Reid, Carleton, Oberlin, etc.) were involved - to date. I don't imagine that's because of superior virtue, but because it's a lot harder to hide a suspect application in a student body that small.

I was going to ask whether Pomona gave preference to athletes, but a little Googling showed that Pomona was a Division III school and had a page titled "recruit me" with a link to a form where prospective student athletes could fill out a form that would be sent to the coach.  Division III doesn't offer scholarships, but it seems like the coaches probably could put a good word in with admissions.

So I think your theory is probably right.  The other thing is that for a lot of the schools you cite, their academic quality exceeds their name recognition.  Given that a lot of this was much more about the parents' egos than it was an attempt to advance their children's educations, it would make sense that the target schools were those with a lot of name recognition.

BC

---

I actually don't think any school's admissions teams did anything wrong here. They all followed their own guidelines. We can argue that those guidelines give an advantage to people with money and that may be true but those are the rules they are given.

The fraud was perpetrated upon them by these parents and the company and its agents. Sadly, one of the parents is a b-school classmate of mine. I don't wish ill upon many people, but I hope he misses our next reunion because he's in jail.

I tend to agree with you here, though my wife raised the question as to why the admissions office didn't do at least a minimum of due diligence.  You can pick a random person on the Stanford sailing team and do a google search on them and find their times from old regattas, and sailing is probably one of the most obscure sports.  Something like tennis or soccer would have team pages and even local news articles.  My response is that presumably that is the coach's job, and that the admissions department's due diligence is to focus on the academics.

Obviously, inherent in the assumption is the now incorrect assumption that the coaches were not corruptable.  One would like to think that a coach would, above all else, try to maximize their probability of winning, and that with a limited number of scholarships (or a limited number of non-scholarship admissions "chits") they would use them on the players that they really need to recruit, not players who will never contribute.  But I guess if the dollar amount is high enough, a coach might be willing to sacrifice the marginal player. 

BC

Athletics are mildly helpful, and the coaches do have input. But they rank with many other extra-curriculars and activities. Virtuosity on a musical instrument is a big plus, I am told.

[chrisk]

We can drop the "alleged" right?  People have pleaded guilty to it.

BC

two so far

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investig...ery-scheme

Judge M. Page Kelly of Boston could have a busy afternoon on 3/29.

[chrisk]

We can drop the "alleged" right?  People have pleaded guilty to it.

BC

two so far

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investig...ery-scheme

Judge M. Page Kelly of Boston could have a busy afternoon on 3/29.

[Nan3cy]

In the late 90s I started advising freshmen at Stanford. One of my early students was a boy from Singapore — English kid whose father was a businessman there — who was pretty convinced he had only gotten in because he was a rower. Then he got to Stanford and realized he really didn’t want to be on the crew, so he quit. I think he worried after that that he really couldn’t hack it, but he wound up doing fine. I think the allowances made at Stanford for athletes are moderate enough that most of them can do fine — I just worry about some of them trying to deal with the demands of their sport at the same time that they’re trying to deal with the academic demands.

[Nan3cy]

In the late 90s I started advising freshmen at Stanford. One of my early students was a boy from Singapore — English kid whose father was a businessman there — who was pretty convinced he had only gotten in because he was a rower. Then he got to Stanford and realized he really didn’t want to be on the crew, so he quit. I think he worried after that that he really couldn’t hack it, but he wound up doing fine. I think the allowances made at Stanford for athletes are moderate enough that most of them can do fine — I just worry about some of them trying to deal with the demands of their sport at the same time that they’re trying to deal with the academic demands.

[Treebound]

So has the family or families that attempted to gain admission to Stanford through Singer and the sailing team been indicted?   I haven't seen that specifically called out in any of the descriptions of those parents that were arrested.   I have seen specific parents called out regarding Usc and Georgetown, but not for Stanford?

[Treebound]

So has the family or families that attempted to gain admission to Stanford through Singer and the sailing team been indicted?   I haven't seen that specifically called out in any of the descriptions of those parents that were arrested.   I have seen specific parents called out regarding Usc and Georgetown, but not for Stanford?

[winflop]

Considering what Manafort got, 18 months for this is egrigious!  I don't condone it, but it appears the coach received no money.  Lesser time plus a fine would seem more fitting.  Now I think Manafort should be in jail for far longer, but he isn't at the moment.

I may have read incorrectly but I believe he was paid $100K directly. Of course he's now going to have to give it back.

[winflop]

Considering what Manafort got, 18 months for this is egrigious!  I don't condone it, but it appears the coach received no money.  Lesser time plus a fine would seem more fitting.  Now I think Manafort should be in jail for far longer, but he isn't at the moment.

I may have read incorrectly but I believe he was paid $100K directly. Of course he's now going to have to give it back.

[82lsju]

in a move from the twilight zone

The University of Southern California, Yale University, the University of California Los Angeles and other colleges were sued by two Stanford University students seeking class status over the admissions-bribery scandal that broke Tuesday with charges against 50 parents, coaches, proctors and others.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ce=twitter

[82lsju]

in a move from the twilight zone

The University of Southern California, Yale University, the University of California Los Angeles and other colleges were sued by two Stanford University students seeking class status over the admissions-bribery scandal that broke Tuesday with charges against 50 parents, coaches, proctors and others.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ce=twitter

[TreesAndBirds]

Another one. Only asking for $500 billion in damages.


http://news.trust.org/item/20190314135743-dob9p

[TreesAndBirds]

Another one. Only asking for $500 billion in damages.


http://news.trust.org/item/20190314135743-dob9p

[Genuine Realist]

in a move from the twilight zone

The University of Southern California, Yale University, the University of California Los Angeles and other colleges were sued by two Stanford University students seeking class status over the admissions-bribery scandal that broke Tuesday with charges against 50 parents, coaches, proctors and others.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ce=twitter

That has lawter's opportunism written all over it.  Standing is a real issue. Beyond that, demonstrating that criminal activity on that small a scale had any affect on admissions generally seems next to impossible.

[Genuine Realist]

in a move from the twilight zone

The University of Southern California, Yale University, the University of California Los Angeles and other colleges were sued by two Stanford University students seeking class status over the admissions-bribery scandal that broke Tuesday with charges against 50 parents, coaches, proctors and others.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...ce=twitter

That has lawter's opportunism written all over it.  Standing is a real issue. Beyond that, demonstrating that criminal activity on that small a scale had any affect on admissions generally seems next to impossible.

[oldalum]

I may have read incorrectly but I believe he was paid $100K directly. Of course he's now going to have to give it back.

I do not believe that is accurate. His lawyer said he was the only coach in the group who did not receive any money himself, and everything I've read said the $270,000 went directly to the sailing program.

[oldalum]

I may have read incorrectly but I believe he was paid $100K directly. Of course he's now going to have to give it back.

I do not believe that is accurate. His lawyer said he was the only coach in the group who did not receive any money himself, and everything I've read said the $270,000 went directly to the sailing program.

[82lsju]

so 761 benefited over ~25 years so about 30 people a year.  One wonders

- how many other similar firms were/are out there
- how he recruited the coaches to participate
- if any coaches he tried to recruit were not interested and if there were any why they did not report him

I also wonder if there were similar schemes involving things like exceptional musical talent where none existed......

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/col...d_nn_fb_ma

---

I may have read incorrectly but I believe he was paid $100K directly. Of course he's now going to have to give it back.

I do not believe that is accurate. His lawyer said he was the only coach in the group who did not receive any money himself, and everything I've read said the $270,000 went directly to the sailing program.

Here's the document on just Vandemoer, it says the payments were to the Stanford Sailing Program

- In or about May 2018, after Stanford Applicant 1 deferred his application to Stanford for one year. Singer mailed a payment of $110,000 from one of the KWF charitable accounts to the Stanford sailing program in exchange for VANDEMOER's agreement to designate Stanford Applicant 1 as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle. 

-  In or about the summer of 2018, after Stanford Applicant 1 decided to attend a different university, VANDEMOER agreed with Singer to use that same recruiting spot for the child of another one of Singer's clients ("Stanford Applicant 2"), in exchange for a $500,000 payment to the Stanford sailing program.

- Although Stanford Applicant 2 ultimately did not apply to Stanford, Singer mailed a payment of $160,000 from one of the KWF charitable accounts to the Stanford sailing program.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142906/download

in the larger document that talks to all the people it says things like

- Singer also made private school tuition payments for VAVIC's children

- he [Singer] directed payments of $20,000 per month to HEINEL personally via checks

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download

[82lsju]

so 761 benefited over ~25 years so about 30 people a year.  One wonders

- how many other similar firms were/are out there
- how he recruited the coaches to participate
- if any coaches he tried to recruit were not interested and if there were any why they did not report him

I also wonder if there were similar schemes involving things like exceptional musical talent where none existed......

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/col...d_nn_fb_ma

---

I may have read incorrectly but I believe he was paid $100K directly. Of course he's now going to have to give it back.

I do not believe that is accurate. His lawyer said he was the only coach in the group who did not receive any money himself, and everything I've read said the $270,000 went directly to the sailing program.

Here's the document on just Vandemoer, it says the payments were to the Stanford Sailing Program

- In or about May 2018, after Stanford Applicant 1 deferred his application to Stanford for one year. Singer mailed a payment of $110,000 from one of the KWF charitable accounts to the Stanford sailing program in exchange for VANDEMOER's agreement to designate Stanford Applicant 1 as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle. 

-  In or about the summer of 2018, after Stanford Applicant 1 decided to attend a different university, VANDEMOER agreed with Singer to use that same recruiting spot for the child of another one of Singer's clients ("Stanford Applicant 2"), in exchange for a $500,000 payment to the Stanford sailing program.

- Although Stanford Applicant 2 ultimately did not apply to Stanford, Singer mailed a payment of $160,000 from one of the KWF charitable accounts to the Stanford sailing program.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142906/download

in the larger document that talks to all the people it says things like

- Singer also made private school tuition payments for VAVIC's children

- he [Singer] directed payments of $20,000 per month to HEINEL personally via checks

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142881/download

[2006alum]

I don't have time for a long post now (hope to do one later today), but for now I will just say that both the underlying scandal, and now the frivolous lawsuits seeking to capitalize on it, are both indicative of what has gone wrong with our contemporary society and the complete lack of moral responsibility many citizens seem to have for how they comport themselves and what they expect from themselves and from others. The scandal, the bribes, the lawsuits, are all evince a kind of unquestioned entitlement that has run amok over any sense of personal responsibility.

[2006alum]

I don't have time for a long post now (hope to do one later today), but for now I will just say that both the underlying scandal, and now the frivolous lawsuits seeking to capitalize on it, are both indicative of what has gone wrong with our contemporary society and the complete lack of moral responsibility many citizens seem to have for how they comport themselves and what they expect from themselves and from others. The scandal, the bribes, the lawsuits, are all evince a kind of unquestioned entitlement that has run amok over any sense of personal responsibility.

[76lsjumb]

According to the article about the new class action lawsuit by those Stanford students:
"Erica Olson and Kalea Woods say they were denied a fair opportunity to gain legitimate admission to elite colleges, and that their Stanford degrees were devalued, by criminal racketeering charges leveled by federal prosecutors.


The students claim they were denied a fair opportunity to apply for admission at Yale and USC, respectively, according to their March 13 complaint."

So let me get this straight:  They're alleging that the injury they suffered was their inability to get into USC, forcing them to go to Stanford?  Really?  Really?

How about a class action lawsuit against these two for devaluing MY Stanford degree... ?

[76lsjumb]

According to the article about the new class action lawsuit by those Stanford students:
"Erica Olson and Kalea Woods say they were denied a fair opportunity to gain legitimate admission to elite colleges, and that their Stanford degrees were devalued, by criminal racketeering charges leveled by federal prosecutors.


The students claim they were denied a fair opportunity to apply for admission at Yale and USC, respectively, according to their March 13 complaint."

So let me get this straight:  They're alleging that the injury they suffered was their inability to get into USC, forcing them to go to Stanford?  Really?  Really?

How about a class action lawsuit against these two for devaluing MY Stanford degree... ?