[cardcrimson]

UCLA women's soccer lists a freshman daughter of two of the indicted parents. That could prove interesting.

[cardcrimson]

UCLA women's soccer lists a freshman daughter of two of the indicted parents. That could prove interesting.

[Lorcan]

Statement from Stanford. 

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/12/sta...statement/

[Lorcan]

Statement from Stanford. 

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/12/sta...statement/

[BostonCard]

I wonder if some NCAA penalty might be assessed.  If so, $C may lose men's & women's WP NCs.  Would they then be awarded to the runner up, which I expect includes Stanford?  Would Stanford lose any in sailing?

It's still a developing story, but from what I can see, probably not since it doesn't seem to have violated the NCAA rules on amateurism.  The NCAA only cares about players who don't qualify playing; in this case it looks like it was mostly about people who probably qualified (unless their academics were so bad that they wouldn't have been NCAA qualifiers) who didn't play.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wonder if some NCAA penalty might be assessed.  If so, $C may lose men's & women's WP NCs.  Would they then be awarded to the runner up, which I expect includes Stanford?  Would Stanford lose any in sailing?

It's still a developing story, but from what I can see, probably not since it doesn't seem to have violated the NCAA rules on amateurism.  The NCAA only cares about players who don't qualify playing; in this case it looks like it was mostly about people who probably qualified (unless their academics were so bad that they wouldn't have been NCAA qualifiers) who didn't play.

BC

[Embo]

The allegation against Stanford's sailing coach, John Vandemoer, is that he accepted donations to the sailing program in exchange for designating certain applicants as sailing recruits for admissions purposes. It is alleged that the applicants weren't actually competitive sailors, but submitted fake profiles fabricating sailing credentials. The allegations describe two cases in which this happened. One of the applicants was admitted but did not enroll. Another student didn't end up applying. So none of the phony sailors actually enrolled. Nevertheless, the sailing program apparently kept donations in the amount of $270,000.

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

Terry, is that true?  The way I interpreted it, he deferred his "application", not admission, which I read on line #11:

11. 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. 

-------
The other reason I doubt he was admitted is that "he decided to attend another university".  This brings me back to my high school days.  There was a guy in the class ahead of me who won a small award, and our HS newspaper said he was aiming for Stanford or UCLA.  I knew him - he had neither the test scores or the grades for Stanford.  My buddy in HS (who ended up at MIT) asked his parents, and they replied, "Oh, he got into Stanford, but he wanted to go to UCLA instead."  I knew that was bull.

[Embo]

The allegation against Stanford's sailing coach, John Vandemoer, is that he accepted donations to the sailing program in exchange for designating certain applicants as sailing recruits for admissions purposes. It is alleged that the applicants weren't actually competitive sailors, but submitted fake profiles fabricating sailing credentials. The allegations describe two cases in which this happened. One of the applicants was admitted but did not enroll. Another student didn't end up applying. So none of the phony sailors actually enrolled. Nevertheless, the sailing program apparently kept donations in the amount of $270,000.

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

Terry, is that true?  The way I interpreted it, he deferred his "application", not admission, which I read on line #11:

11. 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. 

-------
The other reason I doubt he was admitted is that "he decided to attend another university".  This brings me back to my high school days.  There was a guy in the class ahead of me who won a small award, and our HS newspaper said he was aiming for Stanford or UCLA.  I knew him - he had neither the test scores or the grades for Stanford.  My buddy in HS (who ended up at MIT) asked his parents, and they replied, "Oh, he got into Stanford, but he wanted to go to UCLA instead."  I knew that was bull.

[76lsjumb]

As far as I know, the Band had nothing to do with any of this, so that's good... :-)

[76lsjumb]

As far as I know, the Band had nothing to do with any of this, so that's good... :-)

[CTcard]

BUT, let me ask you, if you had a friend you play golf with, or a business associate that knows you went to a big-name school that his child was trying to get into, and he said,

"Listen, I know you went to --------.  My kid's trying to get in there and I thought you could maybe write a recommendation.  I know you don't really know him/her but maybe you could get to know each other at a [pro sports team] game next week.  Would that work for you?"

Haggling over the price?

While I am not about to make guesses as to what fraction of folks would behave ethically in this situation, this particular case is mostly irrelevant to an applicant. Stanford requires two letters of recommendation from "teachers". I have a vague memory (which means I am not so sure) that Stanford explicitly does not allow further recommendation letters. Even if it does, a letter from a random alum saying this is a great kid isn't going to do much for an applicant. Now if an unsolicited letter came in from … say John Arillaga, Phil Knight, or another very large donor it would likely get a look even if not formally allowed - but that is a pretty small subset of people. 

Would you be in favor of Stanford removing any admissions advantage for athletics, except as it was an extracurricular activity (like debate team, etc.) that the student excelled in?    I had thought only a few money-making sports would be where fraud would be involved.  I didn't think about how the other sports would be susceptible to it.

If Stanford were to do so, it would completely remove our ability to field a competitive team in the higher profile sports. It would have an impact on pretty much all sports, though the degree of admissions break for other sports is much smaller. 

I am not entirely sure what I believe overall, but I would certainly be against changing admissions policy based on this scandal in particular, at least based upon what I have learned so far. There is basically nothing one can do that provides a concrete barrier to individuals intent upon committing fraud. Even if one were to adopt a strictly numbers-based admissions formula (grades and test scores), note that this scandal included bribing the testing people to allow for cheating on the tests. No matter what one decides upon as policy, you have to remain vigilant against those with venal intent. 

I wonder if some NCAA penalty might be assessed.  If so, $C may lose men's & women's WP NCs.  Would they then be awarded to the runner up, which I expect includes Stanford?  Would Stanford lose any in sailing?

Whether it might be assessed is hard to gauge.  

NCAA rules are at their heart supposed to be about ensuring level playing fields for competition. They are not supposed to be some kind of substitute for state or federal laws. In this case, the primary result is problems with something other than athletic competitiveness, and to some extent might hurt the guilty party's team [i.e. if a spot is offered to a non-athlete for money instead of an actual athlete who could help the team]. The exception seems to be for things like the Stanford sailing case. These donations to the program would presumably give a competitive edge to the sailors. However, as far as I know there are no NCAA restrictions on anyone donating to sports programs/athletic departments. 

In the real world, none of these thoughts may matter. It seems that the NCAA tends to swing in the wind of public opinion. When there is an outcry saying "why isn't the NCAA doing anything about this horrible breach of ethics/law", the NCAA seems to then wade in. When these are not level playing field issues, the NCAA often then gets their penalties overthrown in the courts (e.g. see Penn State University).

[CTcard]

BUT, let me ask you, if you had a friend you play golf with, or a business associate that knows you went to a big-name school that his child was trying to get into, and he said,

"Listen, I know you went to --------.  My kid's trying to get in there and I thought you could maybe write a recommendation.  I know you don't really know him/her but maybe you could get to know each other at a [pro sports team] game next week.  Would that work for you?"

Haggling over the price?

While I am not about to make guesses as to what fraction of folks would behave ethically in this situation, this particular case is mostly irrelevant to an applicant. Stanford requires two letters of recommendation from "teachers". I have a vague memory (which means I am not so sure) that Stanford explicitly does not allow further recommendation letters. Even if it does, a letter from a random alum saying this is a great kid isn't going to do much for an applicant. Now if an unsolicited letter came in from … say John Arillaga, Phil Knight, or another very large donor it would likely get a look even if not formally allowed - but that is a pretty small subset of people. 

Would you be in favor of Stanford removing any admissions advantage for athletics, except as it was an extracurricular activity (like debate team, etc.) that the student excelled in?    I had thought only a few money-making sports would be where fraud would be involved.  I didn't think about how the other sports would be susceptible to it.

If Stanford were to do so, it would completely remove our ability to field a competitive team in the higher profile sports. It would have an impact on pretty much all sports, though the degree of admissions break for other sports is much smaller. 

I am not entirely sure what I believe overall, but I would certainly be against changing admissions policy based on this scandal in particular, at least based upon what I have learned so far. There is basically nothing one can do that provides a concrete barrier to individuals intent upon committing fraud. Even if one were to adopt a strictly numbers-based admissions formula (grades and test scores), note that this scandal included bribing the testing people to allow for cheating on the tests. No matter what one decides upon as policy, you have to remain vigilant against those with venal intent. 

I wonder if some NCAA penalty might be assessed.  If so, $C may lose men's & women's WP NCs.  Would they then be awarded to the runner up, which I expect includes Stanford?  Would Stanford lose any in sailing?

Whether it might be assessed is hard to gauge.  

NCAA rules are at their heart supposed to be about ensuring level playing fields for competition. They are not supposed to be some kind of substitute for state or federal laws. In this case, the primary result is problems with something other than athletic competitiveness, and to some extent might hurt the guilty party's team [i.e. if a spot is offered to a non-athlete for money instead of an actual athlete who could help the team]. The exception seems to be for things like the Stanford sailing case. These donations to the program would presumably give a competitive edge to the sailors. However, as far as I know there are no NCAA restrictions on anyone donating to sports programs/athletic departments. 

In the real world, none of these thoughts may matter. It seems that the NCAA tends to swing in the wind of public opinion. When there is an outcry saying "why isn't the NCAA doing anything about this horrible breach of ethics/law", the NCAA seems to then wade in. When these are not level playing field issues, the NCAA often then gets their penalties overthrown in the courts (e.g. see Penn State University).

[oldalum]

 The NCAA only cares about players who don't qualify playing; 

The NCAA also cares about recruiting violations, but I suspect these circumstances do not break any recruiting rules except possibly coincidentally. But I'm sure they are combing through their rulebook today.

[oldalum]

 The NCAA only cares about players who don't qualify playing; 

The NCAA also cares about recruiting violations, but I suspect these circumstances do not break any recruiting rules except possibly coincidentally. But I'm sure they are combing through their rulebook today.

[terry]

Terry, is that true?  The way I interpreted it, he deferred his "application", not admission, which I read on line #11:

11. 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. 

-------
The other reason I doubt he was admitted is that "he decided to attend another university".  This brings me back to my high school days.  There was a guy in the class ahead of me who won a small award, and our HS newspaper said he was aiming for Stanford or UCLA.  I knew him - he had neither the test scores or the grades for Stanford.  My buddy in HS (who ended up at MIT) asked his parents, and they replied, "Oh, he got into Stanford, but he wanted to go to UCLA instead."  I knew that was bull.

Embo, I think you're right. I read it too quickly and assumed something that wasn't there. The allegations don't say that the first applicant was admitted. So it appears that neither of the two students was admitted to Stanford, despite the payments to the sailing program. That would make me feel better about it.

[terry]

Terry, is that true?  The way I interpreted it, he deferred his "application", not admission, which I read on line #11:

11. 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. 

-------
The other reason I doubt he was admitted is that "he decided to attend another university".  This brings me back to my high school days.  There was a guy in the class ahead of me who won a small award, and our HS newspaper said he was aiming for Stanford or UCLA.  I knew him - he had neither the test scores or the grades for Stanford.  My buddy in HS (who ended up at MIT) asked his parents, and they replied, "Oh, he got into Stanford, but he wanted to go to UCLA instead."  I knew that was bull.

Embo, I think you're right. I read it too quickly and assumed something that wasn't there. The allegations don't say that the first applicant was admitted. So it appears that neither of the two students was admitted to Stanford, despite the payments to the sailing program. That would make me feel better about it.

[TreesAndBirds]

Bay Area parents who participated in the scam

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/w...-colleges/

[TreesAndBirds]

Bay Area parents who participated in the scam

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/12/w...-colleges/

[Spiny_Norman]

The biggest sports story to come out of this scandal is the involvement of Jovan Vavic, USC's women's and men's water polo coach. He was the most successful coach on that campus with 14 (!) national championships. His venality has now permanently sullied his legacy and cost him his job.

USC's women are the defending national champs, currently undefeated and #1 in the country. We'll see if this disruption has an effect on them. I can say with some confidence that there will be fewer histrionics at USC water polo matches without Vavic on the sidelines.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp...story.html

[Spiny_Norman]

The biggest sports story to come out of this scandal is the involvement of Jovan Vavic, USC's women's and men's water polo coach. He was the most successful coach on that campus with 14 (!) national championships. His venality has now permanently sullied his legacy and cost him his job.

USC's women are the defending national champs, currently undefeated and #1 in the country. We'll see if this disruption has an effect on them. I can say with some confidence that there will be fewer histrionics at USC water polo matches without Vavic on the sidelines.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp...story.html

[terry]

NCAA rules are at their heart supposed to be about ensuring level playing fields for competition. They are not supposed to be some kind of substitute for state or federal laws. In this case, the primary result is problems with something other than athletic competitiveness, and to some extent might hurt the guilty party's team [i.e. if a spot is offered to a non-athlete for money instead of an actual athlete who could help the team]. The exception seems to be for things like the Stanford sailing case. These donations to the program would presumably give a competitive edge to the sailors. However, as far as I know there are no NCAA restrictions on anyone donating to sports programs/athletic departments. 

In the real world, none of these thoughts may matter. It seems that the NCAA tends to swing in the wind of public opinion. When there is an outcry saying "why isn't the NCAA doing anything about this horrible breach of ethics/law", the NCAA seems to then wade in. When these are not level playing field issues, the NCAA often then gets their penalties overthrown in the courts (e.g. see Penn State University).

If the NCAA wants to take action against the schools that were involved, there are some general NCAA rules about honesty and integrity that might be applied to this situation. For example, Bylaw 10.01.1 says:

"Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times. . . ."

That's probably broad enough to apply, even if the offending school did not gain any competitive advantage. There are some other rules that might apply as well.

In Stanford's case, as I mentioned above, the dishonest conduct occurred in sailing, which is not an NCAA sport. The NCAA cannot punish the sailing program. But of course, Stanford is an NCAA member. I don't know whether the NCAA has the ability to punish a member school for conduct that occurred in a non-NCAA sport.

[terry]

NCAA rules are at their heart supposed to be about ensuring level playing fields for competition. They are not supposed to be some kind of substitute for state or federal laws. In this case, the primary result is problems with something other than athletic competitiveness, and to some extent might hurt the guilty party's team [i.e. if a spot is offered to a non-athlete for money instead of an actual athlete who could help the team]. The exception seems to be for things like the Stanford sailing case. These donations to the program would presumably give a competitive edge to the sailors. However, as far as I know there are no NCAA restrictions on anyone donating to sports programs/athletic departments. 

In the real world, none of these thoughts may matter. It seems that the NCAA tends to swing in the wind of public opinion. When there is an outcry saying "why isn't the NCAA doing anything about this horrible breach of ethics/law", the NCAA seems to then wade in. When these are not level playing field issues, the NCAA often then gets their penalties overthrown in the courts (e.g. see Penn State University).

If the NCAA wants to take action against the schools that were involved, there are some general NCAA rules about honesty and integrity that might be applied to this situation. For example, Bylaw 10.01.1 says:

"Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times. . . ."

That's probably broad enough to apply, even if the offending school did not gain any competitive advantage. There are some other rules that might apply as well.

In Stanford's case, as I mentioned above, the dishonest conduct occurred in sailing, which is not an NCAA sport. The NCAA cannot punish the sailing program. But of course, Stanford is an NCAA member. I don't know whether the NCAA has the ability to punish a member school for conduct that occurred in a non-NCAA sport.

[needle]

What do you do about the kids involved?

The Daily Bruin identified the (now former) soccer player who supposedly is now a team manager. Does UCLA kick her out of school? I don't think they will, but she will have some enduring infamy.

https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/12/mens-s...ry-scheme/

[needle]

What do you do about the kids involved?

The Daily Bruin identified the (now former) soccer player who supposedly is now a team manager. Does UCLA kick her out of school? I don't think they will, but she will have some enduring infamy.

https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/12/mens-s...ry-scheme/

[BostonCard]

Add to that the fact that many of the kids allegedly didn't know that their parents were committing fraud on their behalf.  On the flip side, I don't know how you allow kids who otherwise wouldn't have qualified to stay in the school.

BC

[BostonCard]

Add to that the fact that many of the kids allegedly didn't know that their parents were committing fraud on their behalf.  On the flip side, I don't know how you allow kids who otherwise wouldn't have qualified to stay in the school.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Add to that the fact that many of the kids allegedly didn't know that their parents were committing fraud on their behalf.  On the flip side, I don't know how you allow kids who otherwise wouldn't have qualified to stay in the school.

If truly unknowing, there's an argument that they should be allowed to stay in. Remember from time to time there have been mistaken-admission incidents (e.g. Joe Schmoe getting another Joe Schmoe's acceptance), and generally, iirc, both Joe Schmoes get acceptance. You might feel there's a difference between a mix-up and intentional fraud, but I don't think it's a philosophically tenable one.

[washingtonismoney]

Add to that the fact that many of the kids allegedly didn't know that their parents were committing fraud on their behalf.  On the flip side, I don't know how you allow kids who otherwise wouldn't have qualified to stay in the school.

If truly unknowing, there's an argument that they should be allowed to stay in. Remember from time to time there have been mistaken-admission incidents (e.g. Joe Schmoe getting another Joe Schmoe's acceptance), and generally, iirc, both Joe Schmoes get acceptance. You might feel there's a difference between a mix-up and intentional fraud, but I don't think it's a philosophically tenable one.

[M T]

I wonder who blew the whistle and I wonder who has cooperated with the investigation.   I don't know about these things, but that seemed like a very quick guilty plea from Vandemoer. 

I expect the approaches to coaches were made subtly.  The first approach might not sound fraudulent but maybe just out of line.
I'd guess someone initially started to participate, but then got wiser, and was in position to blow the whistle.  Or maybe a parent blew the whistle after being asked if they wanted to be part of this.

The stuff about people taking tests for others reminded me of something I hadn't thought of for ages.  While I was in maybe 10th grade and had good test scores, I had another athlete (not from my school) throw out something like "I don't suppose you'd take my SATs for me?".  I took that as an off-the-cuff what-if thought that had no thought behind it.  I could believe that person may have wanted it and may have needed it, but it was a totally not-in-this-universe idea to me which was immediately dismissed.  The whole conversation was done in under a minute.  But I never reported it to any adult.


It is a bit interesting that all the charges that I've seen involve US parents.  I can't imagine that this form of fraud would be limited to parents in the US.   Some sports have teams that have high percentages of foreign student-athletes.  What's another potential candidate from a foreign country?   The other country may not care too much about chasing a US fraud investigation, but the money transfers would be well tracked.

[M T]

I wonder who blew the whistle and I wonder who has cooperated with the investigation.   I don't know about these things, but that seemed like a very quick guilty plea from Vandemoer. 

I expect the approaches to coaches were made subtly.  The first approach might not sound fraudulent but maybe just out of line.
I'd guess someone initially started to participate, but then got wiser, and was in position to blow the whistle.  Or maybe a parent blew the whistle after being asked if they wanted to be part of this.

The stuff about people taking tests for others reminded me of something I hadn't thought of for ages.  While I was in maybe 10th grade and had good test scores, I had another athlete (not from my school) throw out something like "I don't suppose you'd take my SATs for me?".  I took that as an off-the-cuff what-if thought that had no thought behind it.  I could believe that person may have wanted it and may have needed it, but it was a totally not-in-this-universe idea to me which was immediately dismissed.  The whole conversation was done in under a minute.  But I never reported it to any adult.


It is a bit interesting that all the charges that I've seen involve US parents.  I can't imagine that this form of fraud would be limited to parents in the US.   Some sports have teams that have high percentages of foreign student-athletes.  What's another potential candidate from a foreign country?   The other country may not care too much about chasing a US fraud investigation, but the money transfers would be well tracked.

[BostonCard]

Add to that the fact that many of the kids allegedly didn't know that their parents were committing fraud on their behalf.  On the flip side, I don't know how you allow kids who otherwise wouldn't have qualified to stay in the school.

If truly unknowing, there's an argument that they should be allowed to stay in. Remember from time to time there have been mistaken-admission incidents (e.g. Joe Schmoe getting another Joe Schmoe's acceptance), and generally, iirc, both Joe Schmoes get acceptance. You might feel there's a difference between a mix-up and intentional fraud, but I don't think it's a philosophically tenable one.

I don't know, lots of cases of mistaken acceptances being rescinded:

http://time.com/3637980/college-admissio...nshopkins/

In those cases, of course, a lot of people hadn't yet matriculated so the downstream consequences are not as significant.  It's horribly embarrassing, but presumably all those people mistakenly offered admissions and then had it withdrawn were still able to accept an offer somewhere else.

So I get the distinction at least for those students who spent the last few years thinking they got in on their own merits.  And of course, for those who already graduated, what are you going to do, rescind their diplomas?  But I still think that someone who got in fraudulently (who is still in good standing) ought to transfer to another school.

BC

[BostonCard]

Add to that the fact that many of the kids allegedly didn't know that their parents were committing fraud on their behalf.  On the flip side, I don't know how you allow kids who otherwise wouldn't have qualified to stay in the school.

If truly unknowing, there's an argument that they should be allowed to stay in. Remember from time to time there have been mistaken-admission incidents (e.g. Joe Schmoe getting another Joe Schmoe's acceptance), and generally, iirc, both Joe Schmoes get acceptance. You might feel there's a difference between a mix-up and intentional fraud, but I don't think it's a philosophically tenable one.

I don't know, lots of cases of mistaken acceptances being rescinded:

http://time.com/3637980/college-admissio...nshopkins/

In those cases, of course, a lot of people hadn't yet matriculated so the downstream consequences are not as significant.  It's horribly embarrassing, but presumably all those people mistakenly offered admissions and then had it withdrawn were still able to accept an offer somewhere else.

So I get the distinction at least for those students who spent the last few years thinking they got in on their own merits.  And of course, for those who already graduated, what are you going to do, rescind their diplomas?  But I still think that someone who got in fraudulently (who is still in good standing) ought to transfer to another school.

BC

[ca245]

Most of the news reports portray the student-applicants as unaware of the cheating engaged in by their parents. I can see this being the case if a parent bribed someone to change test answers. But if the student-applicant has never played a certain sport competitively and the parent tells him/her, "Say you were a varsity player in your application and Mr. Smith here will take some pictures of you in this uniform to send in to the school," shouldn't a student smart enough to aspire to entry into an elite university know something is fishy?

[ca245]

Most of the news reports portray the student-applicants as unaware of the cheating engaged in by their parents. I can see this being the case if a parent bribed someone to change test answers. But if the student-applicant has never played a certain sport competitively and the parent tells him/her, "Say you were a varsity player in your application and Mr. Smith here will take some pictures of you in this uniform to send in to the school," shouldn't a student smart enough to aspire to entry into an elite university know something is fishy?

[stupac2]

The stuff about people taking tests for others reminded me of something I hadn't thought of for ages.  While I was in maybe 10th grade and had good test scores, I had another athlete (not from my school) throw out something like "I don't suppose you'd take my SATs for me?".  I took that as an off-the-cuff what-if thought that had no thought behind it.  I could believe that person may have wanted it and may have needed it, but it was a totally not-in-this-universe idea to me which was immediately dismissed.  The whole conversation was done in under a minute.  But I never reported it to any adult.

I had that happen as well, but it was pretty overt, closer to "what would it take for you to take it for me?" Like you I immediately said no. I wonder how often that happens...

[stupac2]

The stuff about people taking tests for others reminded me of something I hadn't thought of for ages.  While I was in maybe 10th grade and had good test scores, I had another athlete (not from my school) throw out something like "I don't suppose you'd take my SATs for me?".  I took that as an off-the-cuff what-if thought that had no thought behind it.  I could believe that person may have wanted it and may have needed it, but it was a totally not-in-this-universe idea to me which was immediately dismissed.  The whole conversation was done in under a minute.  But I never reported it to any adult.

I had that happen as well, but it was pretty overt, closer to "what would it take for you to take it for me?" Like you I immediately said no. I wonder how often that happens...

[oldalum]

According to the Mercury-News story, the Henriquez daughter knowingly participated in cheating on the SAT exam (she sat next to the proctor who was giving her the answers). It seems to me that any student who knowingly participated in cheating on an admission exam, or in falsifying the application to a university, should probably be expelled on that basis. The tougher question is a student who was truly an innocent unknowing lamb in this process, if such a student exists.

[oldalum]

According to the Mercury-News story, the Henriquez daughter knowingly participated in cheating on the SAT exam (she sat next to the proctor who was giving her the answers). It seems to me that any student who knowingly participated in cheating on an admission exam, or in falsifying the application to a university, should probably be expelled on that basis. The tougher question is a student who was truly an innocent unknowing lamb in this process, if such a student exists.

[TreesAndBirds]

From the Chron


Vandemoer could not immediately be reached for comment, but his Boston-based attorney, Robert Fisher, said his client agreed to plead guilty on Tuesday because it was the “best course for him and his family, but also for Stanford.” He was not a cooperating witness in the case, Fisher said.
“He feels horrible about what happened,” Fisher said. “He’s very remorseful. At no point did he attempt to harm Stanford or the students at Stanford.”
The attorney, who spoke on the telephone while awaiting the afternoon plea hearing, said he wanted to make clear that Vandemoer did not pocket any of the money, which all went to the Stanford sailing program.

[TreesAndBirds]

From the Chron


Vandemoer could not immediately be reached for comment, but his Boston-based attorney, Robert Fisher, said his client agreed to plead guilty on Tuesday because it was the “best course for him and his family, but also for Stanford.” He was not a cooperating witness in the case, Fisher said.
“He feels horrible about what happened,” Fisher said. “He’s very remorseful. At no point did he attempt to harm Stanford or the students at Stanford.”
The attorney, who spoke on the telephone while awaiting the afternoon plea hearing, said he wanted to make clear that Vandemoer did not pocket any of the money, which all went to the Stanford sailing program.