[Mick]

On the issue of who tipped off investigators, the conspiracy was gigantic. Spanned from coast to coast. You have to talk with a lot of people to find school and test administrators who will go along with such blatant fraud.

Along the way you probably have to talk with a lot of people who say no to the scheme when approached by someone about participating.  I'll guess that one or more of those people who thought it was wrong went to the authorities and that's what started the investigation.

I would imagine that it raised eyebrows and red flags at the Internal Revenue Service as well.

[Mick]

On the issue of who tipped off investigators, the conspiracy was gigantic. Spanned from coast to coast. You have to talk with a lot of people to find school and test administrators who will go along with such blatant fraud.

Along the way you probably have to talk with a lot of people who say no to the scheme when approached by someone about participating.  I'll guess that one or more of those people who thought it was wrong went to the authorities and that's what started the investigation.

I would imagine that it raised eyebrows and red flags at the Internal Revenue Service as well.

[winflop]

I will take no pleasure in the involvement of schools I don't particularly like. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven and I hope every adult involved gets the book thrown at them.

Obviously not happy to see Stanford as part of this, but it appears that its involvement was minimal in that it's only one person (sailing coach) and the students he was being bribed to try to get admitted never got in. So thankfully nobody was denied admission to Stanford because of this.

The schools where AD officials were involved could be in serious trouble with the NCAA. That starts to get into "lack of institutional control" when it's beyond one or two corrupt coaches.

Wouldn't you think Bernard would be aware of a gift of $500K and want to thank the donor personally?

Of course, but does that make what he did illegal or against NCAA rules? How was he to know? I know it's a lot of money but let's see where the investigation of the entire AD goes.

[winflop]

I will take no pleasure in the involvement of schools I don't particularly like. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven and I hope every adult involved gets the book thrown at them.

Obviously not happy to see Stanford as part of this, but it appears that its involvement was minimal in that it's only one person (sailing coach) and the students he was being bribed to try to get admitted never got in. So thankfully nobody was denied admission to Stanford because of this.

The schools where AD officials were involved could be in serious trouble with the NCAA. That starts to get into "lack of institutional control" when it's beyond one or two corrupt coaches.

Wouldn't you think Bernard would be aware of a gift of $500K and want to thank the donor personally?

Of course, but does that make what he did illegal or against NCAA rules? How was he to know? I know it's a lot of money but let's see where the investigation of the entire AD goes.

[CTcard]

I realize that this wasn't the focus of the investigation, but one paragraph caught my eye:

“There is a front door which means you get in on your own,” Singer said. “The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/heres-ho...orked.html

Singer created the side door, and he (and the parents and coaches) will be punished for it.  But isn't the back door illegitimate as well?  Doesn't it give one pause that a mega-donor can get less-qualified applicants admitted?  Or is it more or less acceptable compared with the "side door options" created by Singer?

That may not have been the focus of the investigation, it certainly has been a focus of the media coverage.

How often the backdoor is used, and at what dollar level, is hard to dig out because schools don't talk about it. It's quite clear it happens at some level, and moderately clear that the more established the school the fewer are allowed in this way and at higher costs.

Whether you think it is legitimate probably tends to depend upon your outlook generally.

Arguments against include:
- it offends one's sense of fairness
- it is bad public relations for the university because of exactly this rich people get everything theme
Arguments for include:
- these are private entities allowed to choose who attends - in a general sense no university is required to choose students with the highest grades and test scores they can get to attend (though most do)
- the funds from one such admit can go along way to supporting the other ... 1599 admits (or so)
- there are many private schools (not Stanford) struggling to keep the doors open and staff paid. Perhaps keeping the place afloat is worth a fairness hit for a handful of applicants.


There seems to be scores of commentaries already published along the lines that this is no different from other advantages that wealthier students are well known to have; some going so far to state that it is the equivalent of hiring an SAT tutor.
hmmmmm.

[CTcard]

I realize that this wasn't the focus of the investigation, but one paragraph caught my eye:

“There is a front door which means you get in on your own,” Singer said. “The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/heres-ho...orked.html

Singer created the side door, and he (and the parents and coaches) will be punished for it.  But isn't the back door illegitimate as well?  Doesn't it give one pause that a mega-donor can get less-qualified applicants admitted?  Or is it more or less acceptable compared with the "side door options" created by Singer?

That may not have been the focus of the investigation, it certainly has been a focus of the media coverage.

How often the backdoor is used, and at what dollar level, is hard to dig out because schools don't talk about it. It's quite clear it happens at some level, and moderately clear that the more established the school the fewer are allowed in this way and at higher costs.

Whether you think it is legitimate probably tends to depend upon your outlook generally.

Arguments against include:
- it offends one's sense of fairness
- it is bad public relations for the university because of exactly this rich people get everything theme
Arguments for include:
- these are private entities allowed to choose who attends - in a general sense no university is required to choose students with the highest grades and test scores they can get to attend (though most do)
- the funds from one such admit can go along way to supporting the other ... 1599 admits (or so)
- there are many private schools (not Stanford) struggling to keep the doors open and staff paid. Perhaps keeping the place afloat is worth a fairness hit for a handful of applicants.


There seems to be scores of commentaries already published along the lines that this is no different from other advantages that wealthier students are well known to have; some going so far to state that it is the equivalent of hiring an SAT tutor.
hmmmmm.

[82lsju]

We will see how this all plays out.  Cooperation should buy him a more lenient sentence than what he would have otherwise gotten, but that doesn't mean he should get a more lenient sentence than everyone else.  I presume he will have a lot of counts to answer for.  I'm curious what the lawyers here think.

BC

Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/artic...682141.php

[82lsju]

We will see how this all plays out.  Cooperation should buy him a more lenient sentence than what he would have otherwise gotten, but that doesn't mean he should get a more lenient sentence than everyone else.  I presume he will have a lot of counts to answer for.  I'm curious what the lawyers here think.

BC

Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/artic...682141.php

[cardcrimson]

We will see how this all plays out.  Cooperation should buy him a more lenient sentence than what he would have otherwise gotten, but that doesn't mean he should get a more lenient sentence than everyone else.  I presume he will have a lot of counts to answer for.  I'm curious what the lawyers here think.

BC

Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/artic...682141.php

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.

[cardcrimson]

We will see how this all plays out.  Cooperation should buy him a more lenient sentence than what he would have otherwise gotten, but that doesn't mean he should get a more lenient sentence than everyone else.  I presume he will have a lot of counts to answer for.  I'm curious what the lawyers here think.

BC

Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/artic...682141.php

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.

[82lsju]

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.

unless they can afford more and better lawyers.........

so far only Singer and Vandemoer have pled guilty

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

[82lsju]

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.

unless they can afford more and better lawyers.........

so far only Singer and Vandemoer have pled guilty

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

[Bruce Wang]

USC's interim president to the university community - "USC is a victim" in this scheme.

"The government has repeatedly informed us that it views USC as a victim and that these employees purposefully deceived USC."

https://pressroom.usc.edu/letter-from-us...stigation/

Believe it or not, an $C alum sees it the way we see it.

https://reignoftroy.com/2019/03/12/usc-a...-scandals/

Here's a story of my brush with SAT cheating.  I had the highest SAT verbal in my class.  A friend with a perfect math, let's call him Kumar, suggested that we swap tests because some schools considered the highest of each.  My response "Kumar, that might work if we were the same shade of Asian (I'm ethnically East Asian).

One thing I learned from this scandal is that the College Board stopped asterisking scores for students that got extra time as an accommodation for learning disabilities, so parents/students started faking learning disabilities.

[Bruce Wang]

USC's interim president to the university community - "USC is a victim" in this scheme.

"The government has repeatedly informed us that it views USC as a victim and that these employees purposefully deceived USC."

https://pressroom.usc.edu/letter-from-us...stigation/

Believe it or not, an $C alum sees it the way we see it.

https://reignoftroy.com/2019/03/12/usc-a...-scandals/

Here's a story of my brush with SAT cheating.  I had the highest SAT verbal in my class.  A friend with a perfect math, let's call him Kumar, suggested that we swap tests because some schools considered the highest of each.  My response "Kumar, that might work if we were the same shade of Asian (I'm ethnically East Asian).

One thing I learned from this scandal is that the College Board stopped asterisking scores for students that got extra time as an accommodation for learning disabilities, so parents/students started faking learning disabilities.

[BostonCard]

On the issue of who tipped off investigators, the conspiracy was gigantic. Spanned from coast to coast. You have to talk with a lot of people to find school and test administrators who will go along with such blatant fraud.

Along the way you probably have to talk with a lot of people who say no to the scheme when approached by someone about participating.  I'll guess that one or more of those people who thought it was wrong went to the authorities and that's what started the investigation.

I would imagine that it raised eyebrows and red flags at the Internal Revenue Service as well.

That pre-supposes that there is anyone left in the IRS to audit potentially fraudulent returns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/busin...audit.html

BC

[BostonCard]

On the issue of who tipped off investigators, the conspiracy was gigantic. Spanned from coast to coast. You have to talk with a lot of people to find school and test administrators who will go along with such blatant fraud.

Along the way you probably have to talk with a lot of people who say no to the scheme when approached by someone about participating.  I'll guess that one or more of those people who thought it was wrong went to the authorities and that's what started the investigation.

I would imagine that it raised eyebrows and red flags at the Internal Revenue Service as well.

That pre-supposes that there is anyone left in the IRS to audit potentially fraudulent returns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/busin...audit.html

BC

[Genuine Realist]

We will see how this all plays out.  Cooperation should buy him a more lenient sentence than what he would have otherwise gotten, but that doesn't mean he should get a more lenient sentence than everyone else.  I presume he will have a lot of counts to answer for.  I'm curious what the lawyers here think.

BC

Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/artic...682141.php

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.

It showed up a few years ago when that Reddit founder committed suicide after being caught doing massive theft of intellectual property at MIT. His family computed up the maximum sentence he faced and did a real propaganda number that he was being punished in draconian fashion. The reality was, after sentencing guidelines and good time came into play, he figured do to about 90-120 days in stir. It doesn't seem like a reason for suicide to me.

Manafort, by the way, figures to be out in 16 months after his first Federal sentence.

---

I realize that this wasn't the focus of the investigation, but one paragraph caught my eye:

“There is a front door which means you get in on your own,” Singer said. “The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/heres-ho...orked.html

Singer created the side door, and he (and the parents and coaches) will be punished for it.  But isn't the back door illegitimate as well?  Doesn't it give one pause that a mega-donor can get less-qualified applicants admitted?  Or is it more or less acceptable compared with the "side door options" created by Singer?

That may not have been the focus of the investigation, it certainly has been a focus of the media coverage.

How often the backdoor is used, and at what dollar level, is hard to dig out because schools don't talk about it. It's quite clear it happens at some level, and moderately clear that the more established the school the fewer are allowed in this way and at higher costs.

Whether you think it is legitimate probably tends to depend upon your outlook generally.

Arguments against include:
- it offends one's sense of fairness
- it is bad public relations for the university because of exactly this rich people get everything theme
Arguments for include:
- these are private entities allowed to choose who attends - in a general sense no university is required to choose students with the highest grades and test scores they can get to attend (though most do)
- the funds from one such admit can go along way to supporting the other ... 1599 admits (or so)
- there are many private schools (not Stanford) struggling to keep the doors open and staff paid. Perhaps keeping the place afloat is worth a fairness hit for a handful of applicants.


There seems to be scores of commentaries already published along the lines that this is no different from other advantages that wealthier students are well known to have; some going so far to state that it is the equivalent of hiring an SAT tutor.
hmmmmm.

I'm not big on the existence of White privilege generally, but this is core stuff. Pretty poor.

---

I realize that this wasn't the focus of the investigation, but one paragraph caught my eye:

“There is a front door which means you get in on your own,” Singer said. “The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/heres-ho...orked.html

Singer created the side door, and he (and the parents and coaches) will be punished for it.  But isn't the back door illegitimate as well?  Doesn't it give one pause that a mega-donor can get less-qualified applicants admitted?  Or is it more or less acceptable compared with the "side door options" created by Singer?

That may not have been the focus of the investigation, it certainly has been a focus of the media coverage.

How often the backdoor is used, and at what dollar level, is hard to dig out because schools don't talk about it. It's quite clear it happens at some level, and moderately clear that the more established the school the fewer are allowed in this way and at higher costs.

Whether you think it is legitimate probably tends to depend upon your outlook generally.

Arguments against include:
- it offends one's sense of fairness
- it is bad public relations for the university because of exactly this rich people get everything theme
Arguments for include:
- these are private entities allowed to choose who attends - in a general sense no university is required to choose students with the highest grades and test scores they can get to attend (though most do)
- the funds from one such admit can go along way to supporting the other ... 1599 admits (or so)
- there are many private schools (not Stanford) struggling to keep the doors open and staff paid. Perhaps keeping the place afloat is worth a fairness hit for a handful of applicants.


There seems to be scores of commentaries already published along the lines that this is no different from other advantages that wealthier students are well known to have; some going so far to state that it is the equivalent of hiring an SAT tutor.
hmmmmm.

I'm of a different mind about that. The street wisdom up in the Hillsborough/San Mateo area is that $10,000,000 gets your child into Stanford. I don't have that sort of means, but if I did give a donation of that size, you're damn straight I'd expect my child to be fast tracked. I'm not going to give that sort of support and end up in the same queue as everyone else. Fair's fair.


HOWEVER, I'd also expect my kid was presenting a competitive application, one that can stand comparison with the rest of the candidates. Fair is fair in that sense, too. Where the prosecution takes on legs here is the phony resume and fraudulent applications - frauds in which the actual admissions offices are not involved. It's one thing to put a big red check on an application that has some merit, an open quid-pro-quo, quite another to pony up an application that has no basis in reality.

Dershowitz's article is one of his better ones. He's curious how the kids admitted fraudulently actually performed against the 'real' matriculates. That is an interesting question.

[Genuine Realist]

We will see how this all plays out.  Cooperation should buy him a more lenient sentence than what he would have otherwise gotten, but that doesn't mean he should get a more lenient sentence than everyone else.  I presume he will have a lot of counts to answer for.  I'm curious what the lawyers here think.

BC

Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/artic...682141.php

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.

It showed up a few years ago when that Reddit founder committed suicide after being caught doing massive theft of intellectual property at MIT. His family computed up the maximum sentence he faced and did a real propaganda number that he was being punished in draconian fashion. The reality was, after sentencing guidelines and good time came into play, he figured do to about 90-120 days in stir. It doesn't seem like a reason for suicide to me.

Manafort, by the way, figures to be out in 16 months after his first Federal sentence.

---

I realize that this wasn't the focus of the investigation, but one paragraph caught my eye:

“There is a front door which means you get in on your own,” Singer said. “The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/heres-ho...orked.html

Singer created the side door, and he (and the parents and coaches) will be punished for it.  But isn't the back door illegitimate as well?  Doesn't it give one pause that a mega-donor can get less-qualified applicants admitted?  Or is it more or less acceptable compared with the "side door options" created by Singer?

That may not have been the focus of the investigation, it certainly has been a focus of the media coverage.

How often the backdoor is used, and at what dollar level, is hard to dig out because schools don't talk about it. It's quite clear it happens at some level, and moderately clear that the more established the school the fewer are allowed in this way and at higher costs.

Whether you think it is legitimate probably tends to depend upon your outlook generally.

Arguments against include:
- it offends one's sense of fairness
- it is bad public relations for the university because of exactly this rich people get everything theme
Arguments for include:
- these are private entities allowed to choose who attends - in a general sense no university is required to choose students with the highest grades and test scores they can get to attend (though most do)
- the funds from one such admit can go along way to supporting the other ... 1599 admits (or so)
- there are many private schools (not Stanford) struggling to keep the doors open and staff paid. Perhaps keeping the place afloat is worth a fairness hit for a handful of applicants.


There seems to be scores of commentaries already published along the lines that this is no different from other advantages that wealthier students are well known to have; some going so far to state that it is the equivalent of hiring an SAT tutor.
hmmmmm.

I'm not big on the existence of White privilege generally, but this is core stuff. Pretty poor.

---

I realize that this wasn't the focus of the investigation, but one paragraph caught my eye:

“There is a front door which means you get in on your own,” Singer said. “The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/heres-ho...orked.html

Singer created the side door, and he (and the parents and coaches) will be punished for it.  But isn't the back door illegitimate as well?  Doesn't it give one pause that a mega-donor can get less-qualified applicants admitted?  Or is it more or less acceptable compared with the "side door options" created by Singer?

That may not have been the focus of the investigation, it certainly has been a focus of the media coverage.

How often the backdoor is used, and at what dollar level, is hard to dig out because schools don't talk about it. It's quite clear it happens at some level, and moderately clear that the more established the school the fewer are allowed in this way and at higher costs.

Whether you think it is legitimate probably tends to depend upon your outlook generally.

Arguments against include:
- it offends one's sense of fairness
- it is bad public relations for the university because of exactly this rich people get everything theme
Arguments for include:
- these are private entities allowed to choose who attends - in a general sense no university is required to choose students with the highest grades and test scores they can get to attend (though most do)
- the funds from one such admit can go along way to supporting the other ... 1599 admits (or so)
- there are many private schools (not Stanford) struggling to keep the doors open and staff paid. Perhaps keeping the place afloat is worth a fairness hit for a handful of applicants.


There seems to be scores of commentaries already published along the lines that this is no different from other advantages that wealthier students are well known to have; some going so far to state that it is the equivalent of hiring an SAT tutor.
hmmmmm.

I'm of a different mind about that. The street wisdom up in the Hillsborough/San Mateo area is that $10,000,000 gets your child into Stanford. I don't have that sort of means, but if I did give a donation of that size, you're damn straight I'd expect my child to be fast tracked. I'm not going to give that sort of support and end up in the same queue as everyone else. Fair's fair.


HOWEVER, I'd also expect my kid was presenting a competitive application, one that can stand comparison with the rest of the candidates. Fair is fair in that sense, too. Where the prosecution takes on legs here is the phony resume and fraudulent applications - frauds in which the actual admissions offices are not involved. It's one thing to put a big red check on an application that has some merit, an open quid-pro-quo, quite another to pony up an application that has no basis in reality.

Dershowitz's article is one of his better ones. He's curious how the kids admitted fraudulently actually performed against the 'real' matriculates. That is an interesting question.

[Hank 91]

I remember reading someplace that almost all private universities put applications in two piles -- those from families who will likely donate $10M+ and everyone else. That's what this is really about, I think. You've got families of means who live on Wisteria Lane, but aren't in position to write eight-figure checks. So what are they to do? Sadly, this became an option for some. And if we're talking about families who CAN write checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems clear they aren't doing this for the betterment of their children, who already have tons of advantages. This is about prestige and bragging rights. Aunt Becky's daughters could go to Cal State Northridge and live happily ever after, but how would that play on TMZ? How would that look on the family Christmas card? Much better if they go to USC, right?

None of this is going to go away very soon. Like Winflop said above, I won't take any pleasure from any scandal that touches another school, but I truly hope we see no evidence of deeper involvement at Stanford.

---

Dershowitz's article is one of his better ones. He's curious how the kids admitted fraudulently actually performed against the 'real' matriculates. That is an interesting question.

This is an interesting question. If we're just talking about Stanford, and if I'm only talking about my own experience, I remember being very aware that there were students from my high school who hadn't been admitted but would have done at least as well as I did at Stanford. They had also done well in high school, but for whatever reason I had been admitted over them. Thirty years later, that's certainly still the case. My guess is that that's how people rationalize what they've done. If I pay half a million bucks to get my child in, and then my child does well, what's the harm? (I don't agree with that line of logic, but when you're breaking the law, I'd guess you only need a sliver of moral ground to help you sleep at night.)

[Hank 91]

I remember reading someplace that almost all private universities put applications in two piles -- those from families who will likely donate $10M+ and everyone else. That's what this is really about, I think. You've got families of means who live on Wisteria Lane, but aren't in position to write eight-figure checks. So what are they to do? Sadly, this became an option for some. And if we're talking about families who CAN write checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems clear they aren't doing this for the betterment of their children, who already have tons of advantages. This is about prestige and bragging rights. Aunt Becky's daughters could go to Cal State Northridge and live happily ever after, but how would that play on TMZ? How would that look on the family Christmas card? Much better if they go to USC, right?

None of this is going to go away very soon. Like Winflop said above, I won't take any pleasure from any scandal that touches another school, but I truly hope we see no evidence of deeper involvement at Stanford.

---

Dershowitz's article is one of his better ones. He's curious how the kids admitted fraudulently actually performed against the 'real' matriculates. That is an interesting question.

This is an interesting question. If we're just talking about Stanford, and if I'm only talking about my own experience, I remember being very aware that there were students from my high school who hadn't been admitted but would have done at least as well as I did at Stanford. They had also done well in high school, but for whatever reason I had been admitted over them. Thirty years later, that's certainly still the case. My guess is that that's how people rationalize what they've done. If I pay half a million bucks to get my child in, and then my child does well, what's the harm? (I don't agree with that line of logic, but when you're breaking the law, I'd guess you only need a sliver of moral ground to help you sleep at night.)

[terry]

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.

[terry]

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.

[Bruce Wang]

Supposedly the ringleader helped 750+ families.

[Bruce Wang]

Supposedly the ringleader helped 750+ families.

[terry]

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.

[terry]

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.

[Genuine Realist]

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.

Thanks for the correction.

---

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.

Thanks for the correction. I'm 11 years away from practice now, and it was entirely Californian then.

[Genuine Realist]

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.

Thanks for the correction.

---

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.

Thanks for the correction. I'm 11 years away from practice now, and it was entirely Californian then.

[cardcrimson]

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 am stunned, stunned that the full weight of our sailing coach's power and influence couldn't get a kid through the admissions process successfully.

[cardcrimson]

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 am stunned, stunned that the full weight of our sailing coach's power and influence couldn't get a kid through the admissions process successfully.

[82lsju]

One was the mastermind, organizing the scheme's many parts and funneling millions of dollars.

One was the brains, acing standardized tests on behalf of wealthy parents' children.

And one was the coach, selling a spot at an Ivy League university for a hefty price.

...

But those three names [William Rick Singer, Mark Riddell and Rudolph Meredith] do not appear anywhere in the complaint, though the document gives enough clues to make clear who is who. Instead, they are named as Cooperating Witness 1, 2 and 3, and each agreed to plead guilty and to cooperate with the government in the hope of obtaining leniency when they are sentenced, the complaint says.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/cooper...index.html

[82lsju]

One was the mastermind, organizing the scheme's many parts and funneling millions of dollars.

One was the brains, acing standardized tests on behalf of wealthy parents' children.

And one was the coach, selling a spot at an Ivy League university for a hefty price.

...

But those three names [William Rick Singer, Mark Riddell and Rudolph Meredith] do not appear anywhere in the complaint, though the document gives enough clues to make clear who is who. Instead, they are named as Cooperating Witness 1, 2 and 3, and each agreed to plead guilty and to cooperate with the government in the hope of obtaining leniency when they are sentenced, the complaint says.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/us/cooper...index.html

[Genuine Realist]

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 am stunned, stunned that the full weight of our sailing coach's power and influence couldn't get a kid through the admissions process successfully.

There's a lot of conflicting information. Evidently the dad wanted either Harvard or Stanford. The notation was that she 'intended to reapply', which presumably means the rejection wasn't final. Maybe she found a different school that suited her better and didn't bother. The dad was sufficiently happy with the results to leave the gift in place for his second daughter.

[Genuine Realist]

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 am stunned, stunned that the full weight of our sailing coach's power and influence couldn't get a kid through the admissions process successfully.

There's a lot of conflicting information. Evidently the dad wanted either Harvard or Stanford. The notation was that she 'intended to reapply', which presumably means the rejection wasn't final. Maybe she found a different school that suited her better and didn't bother. The dad was sufficiently happy with the results to leave the gift in place for his second daughter.

[terry]

There's a lot of conflicting information. Evidently the dad wanted either Harvard or Stanford. The notation was that she 'intended to reapply', which presumably means the rejection wasn't final. Maybe she found a different school that suited her better and didn't bother. The dad was sufficiently happy with the results to leave the gift in place for his second daughter.

The charging allegations against Vandermoer indicated that the first applicant intended to reapply "as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle." Apparently the applicant ended up deciding not to apply again the following year.

[terry]

There's a lot of conflicting information. Evidently the dad wanted either Harvard or Stanford. The notation was that she 'intended to reapply', which presumably means the rejection wasn't final. Maybe she found a different school that suited her better and didn't bother. The dad was sufficiently happy with the results to leave the gift in place for his second daughter.

The charging allegations against Vandermoer indicated that the first applicant intended to reapply "as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle." Apparently the applicant ended up deciding not to apply again the following year.

[Genuine Realist]

There's a lot of conflicting information. Evidently the dad wanted either Harvard or Stanford. The notation was that she 'intended to reapply', which presumably means the rejection wasn't final. Maybe she found a different school that suited her better and didn't bother. The dad was sufficiently happy with the results to leave the gift in place for his second daughter.

The charging allegations against Vandermoer indicated that the first applicant intended to reapply "as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle." Apparently the applicant ended up deciding not to apply again the following year.

I would imagine she matriculated elsewhere to a satisfactory school.

Getting back to what I do know, pleading at arraignment to a stiffish sentence is a little unusual. I wonder if there is greater exposure.

Admissions to these ultra-schools have become precious stuff. My instinct is that Dershowitz is right, that there is a lot more bad news coming. Every school in the country will be taking a hard look at admissions staff.

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.

[Genuine Realist]

There's a lot of conflicting information. Evidently the dad wanted either Harvard or Stanford. The notation was that she 'intended to reapply', which presumably means the rejection wasn't final. Maybe she found a different school that suited her better and didn't bother. The dad was sufficiently happy with the results to leave the gift in place for his second daughter.

The charging allegations against Vandermoer indicated that the first applicant intended to reapply "as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle." Apparently the applicant ended up deciding not to apply again the following year.

I would imagine she matriculated elsewhere to a satisfactory school.

Getting back to what I do know, pleading at arraignment to a stiffish sentence is a little unusual. I wonder if there is greater exposure.

Admissions to these ultra-schools have become precious stuff. My instinct is that Dershowitz is right, that there is a lot more bad news coming. Every school in the country will be taking a hard look at admissions staff.

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.

[CornFed]

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 am stunned, stunned that the full weight of our sailing coach's power and influence couldn't get a kid through the admissions process successfully.

I, for one, am happy to know that we're not one of those sleazy sailing factories.

[CornFed]

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 am stunned, stunned that the full weight of our sailing coach's power and influence couldn't get a kid through the admissions process successfully.

I, for one, am happy to know that we're not one of those sleazy sailing factories.