[82lsju]

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed all convictions against Gamal Abdelaziz and all but one conviction of another parent, John Wilson. The Boston-based appeals court upheld Wilson's conviction on a charge of filing a false tax return.

A jury in Boston's federal court found the pair guilty in 2021 of buying their kids’ ways into school as athletic recruits in the first case to go to trial in the so-called “Operation Varsity Blues” scandal that embroiled prestigious universities across the country.
Abdelaziz, of Las Vegas, was accused of paying $300,000 to get his daughter into the University of Southern California as a basketball recruit even though she didn’t even make it onto her high school’s varsity team.

Authorities alleged that Wilson, a former Staples Inc. executive, paid $220,000 to have his son designated as a USC water polo recruit and an additional $1 million to buy his twin daughters’ ways into Harvard and Stanford.

Lawyers for Wilson and Abdelaziz argued that their clients believed they were making legitimate donations and that the admissions consultant at the center of the scandal, William “Rick” Singer, pitched his so-called “side door” scheme as a lawful one. They said they were led to believe their money would go directly to colleges, saying they’re no different than other wealthy parents who make donations to get a boost in the admissions process.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-...s/3042588/

[82lsju]

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed all convictions against Gamal Abdelaziz and all but one conviction of another parent, John Wilson. The Boston-based appeals court upheld Wilson's conviction on a charge of filing a false tax return.

A jury in Boston's federal court found the pair guilty in 2021 of buying their kids’ ways into school as athletic recruits in the first case to go to trial in the so-called “Operation Varsity Blues” scandal that embroiled prestigious universities across the country.
Abdelaziz, of Las Vegas, was accused of paying $300,000 to get his daughter into the University of Southern California as a basketball recruit even though she didn’t even make it onto her high school’s varsity team.

Authorities alleged that Wilson, a former Staples Inc. executive, paid $220,000 to have his son designated as a USC water polo recruit and an additional $1 million to buy his twin daughters’ ways into Harvard and Stanford.

Lawyers for Wilson and Abdelaziz argued that their clients believed they were making legitimate donations and that the admissions consultant at the center of the scandal, William “Rick” Singer, pitched his so-called “side door” scheme as a lawful one. They said they were led to believe their money would go directly to colleges, saying they’re no different than other wealthy parents who make donations to get a boost in the admissions process.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-...s/3042588/

[dabigv13]

Rolling my eyes pretty hard

Lawyers for Wilson and Abdelaziz argued that their clients believed they were making legitimate donations and that the admissions consultant at the center of the scandal, William “Rick” Singer, pitched his so-called “side door” scheme as a lawful one. They said they were led to believe their money would go directly to colleges, saying they’re no different than other wealthy parents who make donations to get a boost in the admissions process.

At least they were publicly named and shamed.

[dabigv13]

Rolling my eyes pretty hard

Lawyers for Wilson and Abdelaziz argued that their clients believed they were making legitimate donations and that the admissions consultant at the center of the scandal, William “Rick” Singer, pitched his so-called “side door” scheme as a lawful one. They said they were led to believe their money would go directly to colleges, saying they’re no different than other wealthy parents who make donations to get a boost in the admissions process.

At least they were publicly named and shamed.

[CTcard]

Perhaps more informative is the part of the article that reports the appeals court's reasoning, 

The three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit said the trial judge was wrong in instructing the jury that admissions slot constitutes “property" of the universities under the mail and wire fraud law. The judges found that the government also failed to prove that the parents agreed to join the “overarching conspiracy among Singer and his clients."s."

Would like to understand a little more about the property argument.

[CTcard]

Perhaps more informative is the part of the article that reports the appeals court's reasoning, 

The three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit said the trial judge was wrong in instructing the jury that admissions slot constitutes “property" of the universities under the mail and wire fraud law. The judges found that the government also failed to prove that the parents agreed to join the “overarching conspiracy among Singer and his clients."s."

Would like to understand a little more about the property argument.

[akiddoc]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

[akiddoc]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

[gocard14]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

Not a lawyer, but I don’t see how lying on your application to a college consitutes criminal fraud. 

Certainly grounds for expulsion, losing a degree, or even a civil suit from the affected university if they felt the need to pursue it, but how does it become criminal?

[gocard14]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

Not a lawyer, but I don’t see how lying on your application to a college consitutes criminal fraud. 

Certainly grounds for expulsion, losing a degree, or even a civil suit from the affected university if they felt the need to pursue it, but how does it become criminal?

[oldalum]

Not a lawyer, but I don’t see how lying on your application to a college constitutes criminal fraud. 

It doesn't: none of the students admitted or applying under the Varsity Blues scheme has been charged with a crime, only their parents. Many were unaware of what their parents had done, including paying to have their college board test scores increased. However, some were expelled from college (including at least one from Stanford IIRC) or withdrew from their college, some applying had their applications rejected, and those in high school experienced various adverse consequences.

What Happened to the Students Caught Up in the College Admissions Scandal?

[oldalum]

Not a lawyer, but I don’t see how lying on your application to a college constitutes criminal fraud. 

It doesn't: none of the students admitted or applying under the Varsity Blues scheme has been charged with a crime, only their parents. Many were unaware of what their parents had done, including paying to have their college board test scores increased. However, some were expelled from college (including at least one from Stanford IIRC) or withdrew from their college, some applying had their applications rejected, and those in high school experienced various adverse consequences.

What Happened to the Students Caught Up in the College Admissions Scandal?

[Mick]

In the wake of the Varsity Blues scandal, I think with some skepticism about private college admissions consultants. Full disclosure, my cousin was not only Marquess's student manager, but he has been a full-time private college admissions consultant almost since he graduated from Stanford 30 years ago (he's also a very successful Jeopardy game show participant, but you'd expect that from a Stanford grad...).

At any rate, here's an article on 28 year old Christopher Rim (ex-Yalie), who runs a college admissions consulting empire in Manhattan. Charges $120k annually per client. Not sure if there's a Varsity Blues concern here or not, but he definitely skirts the edge with his marketing promises. Four Stanford references in the article.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...ation.html

[Mick]

In the wake of the Varsity Blues scandal, I think with some skepticism about private college admissions consultants. Full disclosure, my cousin was not only Marquess's student manager, but he has been a full-time private college admissions consultant almost since he graduated from Stanford 30 years ago (he's also a very successful Jeopardy game show participant, but you'd expect that from a Stanford grad...).

At any rate, here's an article on 28 year old Christopher Rim (ex-Yalie), who runs a college admissions consulting empire in Manhattan. Charges $120k annually per client. Not sure if there's a Varsity Blues concern here or not, but he definitely skirts the edge with his marketing promises. Four Stanford references in the article.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...ation.html

[lex24]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I kind of fail to see how that’s any better. Except of course the university gets more money.

The real “scandal” is nationwide. The cost of an education is obscene. The private public partnership in making loans available to both parents and students has helped lead to the escalating costs.

And then there is “affirmative action” for legacies. There is no legitimate reason that the mere fact that one is a member of the lucky sperm club should give one a leg up in admissions. There are other obvious advantages that one already has being a member of that club. Add the fact that the vast majority of legacies are white and male and it’s also discriminatory in practice if not in intent.

Legacy programs should end. And no university should give any applicant a leg up because mommy and daddy donates a ton of money.

By the way – let me add this. I went to a public university, and thus there was no “legacy” issue. I also am not fortunate enough financially to have been in a position to donate a lot of money to a university. But I cannot sit here and say that were the situation different that I would not have done it to help my kids. So I don’t want anyone to take what I said as a personal criticism. It’s an institutional criticism. Universities should not be doing the “legacy” thing or providing advantages to those who donate large sums of money. At least that’s my opinion.

[lex24]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I kind of fail to see how that’s any better. Except of course the university gets more money.

The real “scandal” is nationwide. The cost of an education is obscene. The private public partnership in making loans available to both parents and students has helped lead to the escalating costs.

And then there is “affirmative action” for legacies. There is no legitimate reason that the mere fact that one is a member of the lucky sperm club should give one a leg up in admissions. There are other obvious advantages that one already has being a member of that club. Add the fact that the vast majority of legacies are white and male and it’s also discriminatory in practice if not in intent.

Legacy programs should end. And no university should give any applicant a leg up because mommy and daddy donates a ton of money.

By the way – let me add this. I went to a public university, and thus there was no “legacy” issue. I also am not fortunate enough financially to have been in a position to donate a lot of money to a university. But I cannot sit here and say that were the situation different that I would not have done it to help my kids. So I don’t want anyone to take what I said as a personal criticism. It’s an institutional criticism. Universities should not be doing the “legacy” thing or providing advantages to those who donate large sums of money. At least that’s my opinion.

[GK3]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I kind of fail to see how that’s any better. Except of course the university gets more money.

The real “scandal” is nationwide. The cost of an education is obscene. The private public partnership in making loans available to both parents and students has helped lead to the escalating costs.

And  then there is “affirmative action” for legacies.  There is no legitimate reason that the mere fact that one is a member of the lucky sperm club should give one a leg up in admissions.  There are other obvious advantages that one already has being a member of that club. Add the fact that the vast majority of legacies are white and male and it’s also discriminatory in practice if not in intent. 

Legacy programs should end. And no university should give any applicant a leg up because mommy and daddy donates a ton of money.

By the way – let me add this. I went to a public university, and thus there was no “legacy” issue. I also am not fortunate enough financially to have been in a position to donate a lot of money to a  university. But I cannot sit here and say that were the situation different that I would not have done it to help my kids. So I don’t want anyone to take what I said as a personal criticism.  It’s an institutional criticism. Universities should not be doing the “legacy” thing or providing advantages to those who donate large sums of money. At least that’s my opinion.

Lex, I could not agree with you more, the cost of education is indeed obscene. However, I don't think the legacy thing is "bad" if all that you get from being a graduate, is that your offspring gain a small advantage if tied with others. It should basically be a tie breaker should one be needed. Those of us in my family tree who have gone to Stanford, or are at Stanford now, have also been accepted at other excellent schools so none of us would have suffered too badly if we didn't get accepted.
The concept of buying your way in is simply wrong and the Universities should simply not allow it.

[GK3]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I kind of fail to see how that’s any better. Except of course the university gets more money.

The real “scandal” is nationwide. The cost of an education is obscene. The private public partnership in making loans available to both parents and students has helped lead to the escalating costs.

And  then there is “affirmative action” for legacies.  There is no legitimate reason that the mere fact that one is a member of the lucky sperm club should give one a leg up in admissions.  There are other obvious advantages that one already has being a member of that club. Add the fact that the vast majority of legacies are white and male and it’s also discriminatory in practice if not in intent. 

Legacy programs should end. And no university should give any applicant a leg up because mommy and daddy donates a ton of money.

By the way – let me add this. I went to a public university, and thus there was no “legacy” issue. I also am not fortunate enough financially to have been in a position to donate a lot of money to a  university. But I cannot sit here and say that were the situation different that I would not have done it to help my kids. So I don’t want anyone to take what I said as a personal criticism.  It’s an institutional criticism. Universities should not be doing the “legacy” thing or providing advantages to those who donate large sums of money. At least that’s my opinion.

Lex, I could not agree with you more, the cost of education is indeed obscene. However, I don't think the legacy thing is "bad" if all that you get from being a graduate, is that your offspring gain a small advantage if tied with others. It should basically be a tie breaker should one be needed. Those of us in my family tree who have gone to Stanford, or are at Stanford now, have also been accepted at other excellent schools so none of us would have suffered too badly if we didn't get accepted.
The concept of buying your way in is simply wrong and the Universities should simply not allow it.

[Vandelay]

These are private institutions.  They should be able to admit whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to.  End of story.

[Vandelay]

These are private institutions.  They should be able to admit whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to.  End of story.

[BigJohn043]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I agree with you that it is different.  But who perpetuated the fraud?  The coaches for certain.  Maybe the kids lied about their athletic background on the application.  Not certain how the parents committed a fraud.

In any case this is almost a crime of paperwork.  What they did was totally legal they just did it the wrong way.  Is it really a good use of legal resources to prosecute that kind of crime?  Or is it simply the fact that this was a big splashy case that makes the prosecutor get in the media and maybe launch a political career.

Some of the same thing happened with PPP.  A really poor law and program.  Most of the people who got the money didn't really need it and what exactly need meant was totally undefined.  Prosecutors then go after people that simply got the book keeping wrong and paid the wrong types of expenses out of the wrong accounts.  But it makes for a great story...

[BigJohn043]

Philosophically, they were correct that other parents are buying their children's way into college. But representing the children as athletes when they are not seems fraudulent to me. They should have started donating large sums every year several years prior to their children's application process. That's how it's done at Stanford. Stanford doesn't really deny it either.

I agree with you that it is different.  But who perpetuated the fraud?  The coaches for certain.  Maybe the kids lied about their athletic background on the application.  Not certain how the parents committed a fraud.

In any case this is almost a crime of paperwork.  What they did was totally legal they just did it the wrong way.  Is it really a good use of legal resources to prosecute that kind of crime?  Or is it simply the fact that this was a big splashy case that makes the prosecutor get in the media and maybe launch a political career.

Some of the same thing happened with PPP.  A really poor law and program.  Most of the people who got the money didn't really need it and what exactly need meant was totally undefined.  Prosecutors then go after people that simply got the book keeping wrong and paid the wrong types of expenses out of the wrong accounts.  But it makes for a great story...

[oldalum]

  Not certain how the parents committed a fraud.

Some of them bribed (via Rick Singer) SAT test administrators to raise their students' scores. That seems at least conspiracy to commit fraud, the victims of which were the universities that received those scores, the College Board, and all test-takers who did not cheat. And all of the parents bribed (via Singer) university coaches to falsely certify to their university admissions offices that their child was a recruited athlete for the team they coached--victims of the fraud being the university and the pool of students who qualified for admission but were denied a spot, or at least athletes who would have been admitted to play on the team but whose spot was sold by the coach. I don't see how either one is "totally legal" or a "paperwork" transgression.

On buying one's kids way into elite private colleges: that requires many more dollars than what these parents paid Singer. They might still have afforded it, and the kids still have to meet minimum admission standards--at least some of them may not have had the test scores to qualify without the cheating.

[oldalum]

  Not certain how the parents committed a fraud.

Some of them bribed (via Rick Singer) SAT test administrators to raise their students' scores. That seems at least conspiracy to commit fraud, the victims of which were the universities that received those scores, the College Board, and all test-takers who did not cheat. And all of the parents bribed (via Singer) university coaches to falsely certify to their university admissions offices that their child was a recruited athlete for the team they coached--victims of the fraud being the university and the pool of students who qualified for admission but were denied a spot, or at least athletes who would have been admitted to play on the team but whose spot was sold by the coach. I don't see how either one is "totally legal" or a "paperwork" transgression.

On buying one's kids way into elite private colleges: that requires many more dollars than what these parents paid Singer. They might still have afforded it, and the kids still have to meet minimum admission standards--at least some of them may not have had the test scores to qualify without the cheating.

[lex24]

These are private institutions.  They should be able to admit whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to.  End of story.

Yes.  But it doesn’t make it right.  End of story.

[lex24]

These are private institutions.  They should be able to admit whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to.  End of story.

Yes.  But it doesn’t make it right.  End of story.