[2006alum]

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

I think at least a partial goal of admissions is with an eye to future donations, both from legacies and from the students themselves.  

Interesting view, although Mick, it seems like the article you linked to refutes your premise:

According to Kahlenberg, many colleges defend legacy preference by arguing that “alums are more likely to give donations if their kids are provided preferences,” though he claimed that this was untrue.

Kahlenberg referenced a study conducted for “Affirmative Action for the Rich,” in which researchers examined 75 universities with legacy preference and 25 without it. They concluded that the “existence of a legacy preference does not increase giving for universities.”

I feel like people keep making the claim that legacy preferences are necessary to ensure alumni giving, but there's never any empirical evidence to support this, and there seems to be at least some, quoted above, to refute it.

My view has always been that the university wants, and benefits from, a certain amount of continuity among generations; a freshman class with no Stanford alumni parents would, I think, be less likely to carry on Stanford specific traditions, etc. And if no alumni children went to Stanford, I suspect fewer alums would go for Parents Day, alumni weekends, etc. Some of my favorite "friends' parents" experiences from Stanford were when my legacy friends' parents would visit campus, either for Parents Weekend, or their our alumni reunion, or just to see their kids, and share their stories of "when I was here." I do think some amount of cultural and historical continuity is important, so giving some consideration for it in the admissions process isn't, I think, categorically bad. And I'm certain when an alum's competitive applicant child is denied admission, it can lead to sour feelings and a disinclination to be as involved as an alum.

But especially when that leads to differential outcomes in terms of privilege, race, and class, then it needs to be handled with care. However, I have never been convinced "fundraising" is an especially good, let alone dispositive, reason for legacy preferences, and I have yet to see concrete evidence that it's necessary to maintaining "development."

[2006alum]

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

I think at least a partial goal of admissions is with an eye to future donations, both from legacies and from the students themselves.  

Interesting view, although Mick, it seems like the article you linked to refutes your premise:

According to Kahlenberg, many colleges defend legacy preference by arguing that “alums are more likely to give donations if their kids are provided preferences,” though he claimed that this was untrue.

Kahlenberg referenced a study conducted for “Affirmative Action for the Rich,” in which researchers examined 75 universities with legacy preference and 25 without it. They concluded that the “existence of a legacy preference does not increase giving for universities.”

I feel like people keep making the claim that legacy preferences are necessary to ensure alumni giving, but there's never any empirical evidence to support this, and there seems to be at least some, quoted above, to refute it.

My view has always been that the university wants, and benefits from, a certain amount of continuity among generations; a freshman class with no Stanford alumni parents would, I think, be less likely to carry on Stanford specific traditions, etc. And if no alumni children went to Stanford, I suspect fewer alums would go for Parents Day, alumni weekends, etc. Some of my favorite "friends' parents" experiences from Stanford were when my legacy friends' parents would visit campus, either for Parents Weekend, or their our alumni reunion, or just to see their kids, and share their stories of "when I was here." I do think some amount of cultural and historical continuity is important, so giving some consideration for it in the admissions process isn't, I think, categorically bad. And I'm certain when an alum's competitive applicant child is denied admission, it can lead to sour feelings and a disinclination to be as involved as an alum.

But especially when that leads to differential outcomes in terms of privilege, race, and class, then it needs to be handled with care. However, I have never been convinced "fundraising" is an especially good, let alone dispositive, reason for legacy preferences, and I have yet to see concrete evidence that it's necessary to maintaining "development."

[TreesAndBirds]

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite never having played soccer. She listed horseback riding as her favorite sport.
 Smh


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dad-wh...o_homepage

[TreesAndBirds]

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite never having played soccer. She listed horseback riding as her favorite sport.
 Smh


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dad-wh...o_homepage

[qwerty49]

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite  never having played soccer. She listed horseback riding as her favorite sport.
 Smh


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dad-wh...o_homepage

I do feel a bit sorry for her....for about a minute.  Word gets out in the locker room about that stuff.

[qwerty49]

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite  never having played soccer. She listed horseback riding as her favorite sport.
 Smh


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dad-wh...o_homepage

I do feel a bit sorry for her....for about a minute.  Word gets out in the locker room about that stuff.

[82lsju]

Over the span of a few years, all three of those students, according to investigators, somehow breezed through the “side door” of USC’s football program sight unseen, an act that could be its own movie plot.

The alleged use of USC football’s coveted preferred walk-on slots to funnel in boys who weren’t football recruits is perhaps the best example of the ease with which former USC senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel was said to have manipulated the athletic admissions process to her own benefit.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp...hotline-nl

[82lsju]

Over the span of a few years, all three of those students, according to investigators, somehow breezed through the “side door” of USC’s football program sight unseen, an act that could be its own movie plot.

The alleged use of USC football’s coveted preferred walk-on slots to funnel in boys who weren’t football recruits is perhaps the best example of the ease with which former USC senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel was said to have manipulated the athletic admissions process to her own benefit.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp...hotline-nl

[BostonCard]

I feel like people keep making the claim that legacy preferences are necessary to ensure alumni giving, but there's never any empirical evidence to support this, and there seems to be at least some, quoted above, to refute it.

My view has always been that the university wants, and benefits from, a certain amount of continuity among generations; a freshman class with no Stanford alumni parents would, I think, be less likely to carry on Stanford specific traditions, etc. And if no alumni children went to Stanford, I suspect fewer alums would go for Parents Day, alumni weekends, etc. Some of my favorite "friends' parents" experiences from Stanford were when my legacy friends' parents would visit campus, either for Parents Weekend, or their our alumni reunion, or just to see their kids, and share their stories of "when I was here." I do think some amount of cultural and historical continuity is important, so giving some consideration for it in the admissions process isn't, I think, categorically bad. And I'm certain when an alum's competitive applicant child is denied admission, it can lead to sour feelings and a disinclination to be as involved as an alum.

But especially when that leads to differential outcomes in terms of privilege, race, and class, then it needs to be handled with care. However, I have never been convinced "fundraising" is an especially good, let alone dispositive, reason for legacy preferences, and I have yet to see concrete evidence that it's necessary to maintaining "development."

I vehemently disagree with legacy admissions (even though my kids would obviously benefit), regardless of its effect on development.  Schools, including Stanford, should get rid of it because it would be the right thing to do, and take the hit (if any) on fundraising.

BC

[BostonCard]

I feel like people keep making the claim that legacy preferences are necessary to ensure alumni giving, but there's never any empirical evidence to support this, and there seems to be at least some, quoted above, to refute it.

My view has always been that the university wants, and benefits from, a certain amount of continuity among generations; a freshman class with no Stanford alumni parents would, I think, be less likely to carry on Stanford specific traditions, etc. And if no alumni children went to Stanford, I suspect fewer alums would go for Parents Day, alumni weekends, etc. Some of my favorite "friends' parents" experiences from Stanford were when my legacy friends' parents would visit campus, either for Parents Weekend, or their our alumni reunion, or just to see their kids, and share their stories of "when I was here." I do think some amount of cultural and historical continuity is important, so giving some consideration for it in the admissions process isn't, I think, categorically bad. And I'm certain when an alum's competitive applicant child is denied admission, it can lead to sour feelings and a disinclination to be as involved as an alum.

But especially when that leads to differential outcomes in terms of privilege, race, and class, then it needs to be handled with care. However, I have never been convinced "fundraising" is an especially good, let alone dispositive, reason for legacy preferences, and I have yet to see concrete evidence that it's necessary to maintaining "development."

I vehemently disagree with legacy admissions (even though my kids would obviously benefit), regardless of its effect on development.  Schools, including Stanford, should get rid of it because it would be the right thing to do, and take the hit (if any) on fundraising.

BC

[terry]

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite  never having played soccer.

It appears that the UCLA soccer program put Lauren Isackson in an administrative role:

"For nearly two years, according to her LinkedIn, Isackson was the UCLA Women’s Soccer team manager.

"From August 2016 to April 2018, she says she handled 'team administrative duties, including coordinating travel and served as on-site support for home games and practices.'"

https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/lauren-isackson/

[terry]

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite  never having played soccer.

It appears that the UCLA soccer program put Lauren Isackson in an administrative role:

"For nearly two years, according to her LinkedIn, Isackson was the UCLA Women’s Soccer team manager.

"From August 2016 to April 2018, she says she handled 'team administrative duties, including coordinating travel and served as on-site support for home games and practices.'"

https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/lauren-isackson/

[TreesAndBirds]

K

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite  never having played soccer.

It appears that the UCLA soccer program put Lauren Isackson in an administrative role:

"For nearly two years, according to her LinkedIn, Isackson was the UCLA Women’s Soccer team manager.

"From August 2016 to April 2018, she says she handled 'team administrative duties, including coordinating travel and served as on-site support for home games and practices.'"

https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/lauren-isackson/

The UCLA soccer website has her listed as a midfielder with priot soccer accomplishments enumerated. But I think we all get the picture here and further drill down on this young woman probably not merited

. https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425

[TreesAndBirds]

K

Have to give UCLA credit. They actually required the admit to be on their title contending soccer team despite  never having played soccer.

It appears that the UCLA soccer program put Lauren Isackson in an administrative role:

"For nearly two years, according to her LinkedIn, Isackson was the UCLA Women’s Soccer team manager.

"From August 2016 to April 2018, she says she handled 'team administrative duties, including coordinating travel and served as on-site support for home games and practices.'"

https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/lauren-isackson/

The UCLA soccer website has her listed as a midfielder with priot soccer accomplishments enumerated. But I think we all get the picture here and further drill down on this young woman probably not merited

. https://uclabruins.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=5425

[82lsju]

Today we want to share two things: first, the steps we are taking with regard to our policies and protocols overall; and second, the steps we are taking specifically regarding the applicant pool for fall 2019 undergraduate admission, who will receive their decisions at the end of this month.

• We are preparing to launch a comprehensive external review of the procedures we follow in providing an Athletics Department recommendation for the admissions process, as well as the procedures around the acceptance of gifts for athletic programs, to ensure that we have strong controls and can reassure our constituents of the integrity of our processes. Should we become aware of any further improprieties in the process, this review also will ensure that we take appropriate action in those cases.
  

• Stanford Athletics has put in place a new protocol in which a member of the executive leadership of the Athletics Department responsible for each of Stanford’s 36 varsity men’s and women’s sports will review and confirm the athletic credentials of all recruits who are proposed by a coach to receive an athletic recommendation. This will provide a second, higher-level verification of the athletic credentials of recruited student-athletes before that information is shared with the admission office, to be considered as one factor in a comprehensive review of each student’s qualifications for Stanford admission.
  

https://quadblog.stanford.edu/2019/03/21...ud-scheme/

[82lsju]

Today we want to share two things: first, the steps we are taking with regard to our policies and protocols overall; and second, the steps we are taking specifically regarding the applicant pool for fall 2019 undergraduate admission, who will receive their decisions at the end of this month.

• We are preparing to launch a comprehensive external review of the procedures we follow in providing an Athletics Department recommendation for the admissions process, as well as the procedures around the acceptance of gifts for athletic programs, to ensure that we have strong controls and can reassure our constituents of the integrity of our processes. Should we become aware of any further improprieties in the process, this review also will ensure that we take appropriate action in those cases.
  

• Stanford Athletics has put in place a new protocol in which a member of the executive leadership of the Athletics Department responsible for each of Stanford’s 36 varsity men’s and women’s sports will review and confirm the athletic credentials of all recruits who are proposed by a coach to receive an athletic recommendation. This will provide a second, higher-level verification of the athletic credentials of recruited student-athletes before that information is shared with the admission office, to be considered as one factor in a comprehensive review of each student’s qualifications for Stanford admission.
  

https://quadblog.stanford.edu/2019/03/21...ud-scheme/

[martyup]

That's a good start.

[martyup]

That's a good start.

[JJJ]

SI: How a USC Water Polo Dynasty Doubled as a Perfect Entryway for the Admissions Bribery Scandal

[/url][url=https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.si.com/more-sports/2019/03/20/usc-admissions-scandal-bribery-water-polo-jovan-vavic%3Futm_source=facebook.com%26utm_medium=social%26utm_campaign=social-share-article%26utm_content=20190322]

The Golden State is the hotbed of American water polo. It’s where the best players come from, and where the top college teams reside: Stanford, Cal Berkeley, UCLA or USC. As Rosenthal went through the recruiting process, a few of his former coaches connected him with Jovan Vavic, the legendary USC water polo coach. You could call Vavic the John Wooden of water polo—and its Geno Auriemma, too. He coached both the men’s and women’s teams, and since 1995 had won 16 national titles (10 with the men, six with the women) and 15 National Coach of the Year awards.

That meant Vavic could recruit practically anyone he wanted. USC also gave him leeway to sign a large number of those recruits, especially on the men’s side. In water polo recruiting, see, there are only a few constraints. The NCAA mandates that teams can only carry 16 players in the championship tournament, and the number of scholarships is fixed, too—men’s teams have 4.5, women’s teams have eight. But the NCAA does not have a max roster limit. Teams can carry as many players as they want, as long as the school is compliant with Title IX rules requiring balance between the number of male and female athletes in the athletic program. Often, Vavic would bring in hordes of male recruits, apparently just to see who would pan out.

According to the affidavit, Singer would create an “athletic profile” for the student, complete with falsified stats, doctored pictures and even fake awards. Then Vavic or Heinel, accepting money from Singer, would present the profile, along with those of actual water polo recruits, to a USC admissions subcommittee that reviewed incoming athletes.

It appears USC took Vavic at his word. This is not that abnormal in the collegiate water polo world. One former D-I coach says that when he submitted his roster, his superiors just accepted it, apparently without vetting the names at all. Not every school has the time or resources to conduct background checks on small-sport recruits. There is no centralized database for water polo recruiting, no Rivals.com of pool sports. The top players in the country may know one another, but mid-tier players can come from anywhere. Vavic traveled the world trying to unearth new talent, so it was conceivable he would bring in some unknown recruits. According to court documents, Heinel once defended a fake recruit to the admissions office, claiming Vavic had discovered the boy at a tournament in Serbia.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2019/03/20...ovan-vavic

[JJJ]

SI: How a USC Water Polo Dynasty Doubled as a Perfect Entryway for the Admissions Bribery Scandal

[/url][url=https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.si.com/more-sports/2019/03/20/usc-admissions-scandal-bribery-water-polo-jovan-vavic%3Futm_source=facebook.com%26utm_medium=social%26utm_campaign=social-share-article%26utm_content=20190322]

The Golden State is the hotbed of American water polo. It’s where the best players come from, and where the top college teams reside: Stanford, Cal Berkeley, UCLA or USC. As Rosenthal went through the recruiting process, a few of his former coaches connected him with Jovan Vavic, the legendary USC water polo coach. You could call Vavic the John Wooden of water polo—and its Geno Auriemma, too. He coached both the men’s and women’s teams, and since 1995 had won 16 national titles (10 with the men, six with the women) and 15 National Coach of the Year awards.

That meant Vavic could recruit practically anyone he wanted. USC also gave him leeway to sign a large number of those recruits, especially on the men’s side. In water polo recruiting, see, there are only a few constraints. The NCAA mandates that teams can only carry 16 players in the championship tournament, and the number of scholarships is fixed, too—men’s teams have 4.5, women’s teams have eight. But the NCAA does not have a max roster limit. Teams can carry as many players as they want, as long as the school is compliant with Title IX rules requiring balance between the number of male and female athletes in the athletic program. Often, Vavic would bring in hordes of male recruits, apparently just to see who would pan out.

According to the affidavit, Singer would create an “athletic profile” for the student, complete with falsified stats, doctored pictures and even fake awards. Then Vavic or Heinel, accepting money from Singer, would present the profile, along with those of actual water polo recruits, to a USC admissions subcommittee that reviewed incoming athletes.

It appears USC took Vavic at his word. This is not that abnormal in the collegiate water polo world. One former D-I coach says that when he submitted his roster, his superiors just accepted it, apparently without vetting the names at all. Not every school has the time or resources to conduct background checks on small-sport recruits. There is no centralized database for water polo recruiting, no Rivals.com of pool sports. The top players in the country may know one another, but mid-tier players can come from anywhere. Vavic traveled the world trying to unearth new talent, so it was conceivable he would bring in some unknown recruits. According to court documents, Heinel once defended a fake recruit to the admissions office, claiming Vavic had discovered the boy at a tournament in Serbia.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2019/03/20...ovan-vavic

[oldalum]

The UCLA men's soccer coach resigned today (no doubt ahead of his firing). resigns

Good riddance, I didn't like him or his teams.

[oldalum]

The UCLA men's soccer coach resigned today (no doubt ahead of his firing). resigns

Good riddance, I didn't like him or his teams.

[Treebound]

Thanks for posting JJJ.  

I'm glad to see Vavic get caught and I'm just amazed at how stupid he and the AD were as more information comes out.  He was the main reason for one of the newest Usc monikers:  "University of Southern Croatia."    With yet another scandal coming out of Usc athletics, I'm starting to hear the call for an NCAA Death Penalty.   Given the long history of their "Lack of Institutional Control," I think it's time for the NCAA to pull the plug and drain that swamp.

[Treebound]

Thanks for posting JJJ.  

I'm glad to see Vavic get caught and I'm just amazed at how stupid he and the AD were as more information comes out.  He was the main reason for one of the newest Usc monikers:  "University of Southern Croatia."    With yet another scandal coming out of Usc athletics, I'm starting to hear the call for an NCAA Death Penalty.   Given the long history of their "Lack of Institutional Control," I think it's time for the NCAA to pull the plug and drain that swamp.

[rudruff]

Thanks for posting JJJ.  

I'm glad to see Vavic get caught and I'm just amazed at how stupid he and the AD were as more information comes out.  He was the main reason for one of the newest Usc monikers:  "University of Southern Croatia."    With yet another scandal coming out of Usc athletics, I'm starting to hear the call for an NCAA Death Penalty.   Given the long history of their "Lack of Institutional Control," I think it's time for the NCAA to pull the plug and drain that swamp.

     I don't see an NCAA involvement in this scandal. This is a legal issue rather than one for the NCAA to come in and throw penalties around. USC is not getting an unfair advantage by having their coaches take bribes to admit non-athletes on their teams. As a university, I think they need to be more concerned about employees committing fraud at school expense. I am more annoyed about the words "USC" and "elite universities" thrown around so much in the media.

[rudruff]

Thanks for posting JJJ.  

I'm glad to see Vavic get caught and I'm just amazed at how stupid he and the AD were as more information comes out.  He was the main reason for one of the newest Usc monikers:  "University of Southern Croatia."    With yet another scandal coming out of Usc athletics, I'm starting to hear the call for an NCAA Death Penalty.   Given the long history of their "Lack of Institutional Control," I think it's time for the NCAA to pull the plug and drain that swamp.

     I don't see an NCAA involvement in this scandal. This is a legal issue rather than one for the NCAA to come in and throw penalties around. USC is not getting an unfair advantage by having their coaches take bribes to admit non-athletes on their teams. As a university, I think they need to be more concerned about employees committing fraud at school expense. I am more annoyed about the words "USC" and "elite universities" thrown around so much in the media.

[ca245]

The only possible competitive advantage — and thus a potential NCAA issue — is that JV supposedly used some of the money to pay “volunteer” assistant coaches under the table, thus exceeding the NCAA limit on permissible paid assistants.

[ca245]

The only possible competitive advantage — and thus a potential NCAA issue — is that JV supposedly used some of the money to pay “volunteer” assistant coaches under the table, thus exceeding the NCAA limit on permissible paid assistants.

[Langdude]

I am happy to trade a stain on our sailing program for a bigger stain on the SC water polo program. Over the years, I have been frustrated to see them succeed in MWP (and in men's tennis) largely because of shady recruiting on the international stage. I seem to remember something similar with UCLA softball or women's soccer?

-m.

[Langdude]

I am happy to trade a stain on our sailing program for a bigger stain on the SC water polo program. Over the years, I have been frustrated to see them succeed in MWP (and in men's tennis) largely because of shady recruiting on the international stage. I seem to remember something similar with UCLA softball or women's soccer?

-m.

[Viking_Guy]

Langdude--

UCLA softball had the whole Tanya Harding (not the skater) thing.  She was an amazing pitcher (like, top 5 in the world) from Australia who enrolled for all of one quarter (winter 1995), helped pitch them to the NCAA Championship over Arizona, then left the school before the end of spring quarter, having completed something like two courses during her "enrollment."

UCLA later had to vacate that title for having carried three softball players on soccer scholarships, possibly including Harding.  But Arizona wasn't awarded the title, because the NCAA said it was impossible to adjudge how much influence the improper actions had on the outcome.

I often wonder if the Pac-12 includes those championships (like $C football's) in their listings.

The most amazing graf from that Vavic article, to me:

In 2008, Vavic signed 22 freshmen, bumping the USC men’s water polo roster up to 51 people, which dwarfed most other schools. Only six freshmen received playing time that year. The other 16, including Rosenthal, redshirted.

FIFTY-ONE people on the roster for a sport with 7 people in the water at any given time?  That's nuts.  I was startled by the size of some women's lacrosse squads (like 30-40 people), but that's about 4 times the number of participants.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Langdude--

UCLA softball had the whole Tanya Harding (not the skater) thing.  She was an amazing pitcher (like, top 5 in the world) from Australia who enrolled for all of one quarter (winter 1995), helped pitch them to the NCAA Championship over Arizona, then left the school before the end of spring quarter, having completed something like two courses during her "enrollment."

UCLA later had to vacate that title for having carried three softball players on soccer scholarships, possibly including Harding.  But Arizona wasn't awarded the title, because the NCAA said it was impossible to adjudge how much influence the improper actions had on the outcome.

I often wonder if the Pac-12 includes those championships (like $C football's) in their listings.

The most amazing graf from that Vavic article, to me:

In 2008, Vavic signed 22 freshmen, bumping the USC men’s water polo roster up to 51 people, which dwarfed most other schools. Only six freshmen received playing time that year. The other 16, including Rosenthal, redshirted.

FIFTY-ONE people on the roster for a sport with 7 people in the water at any given time?  That's nuts.  I was startled by the size of some women's lacrosse squads (like 30-40 people), but that's about 4 times the number of participants.

VG

[M T]

     I don't see an NCAA involvement in this scandal. This is a legal issue rather than one for the NCAA to come in and throw penalties around. USC is not getting an unfair advantage by having their coaches take bribes to admit non-athletes on their teams.

This has already been discussed.  A quoted NCAA rule that appears to be violated that (IMO) should result in NCAA penalties can be found in
  https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid244544

I feel with certainty that if the beneficiaries of these schemes were coaches, teams, players, or other members of the team (managers), then the NCAA rules about honesty appear to have been violated.

From an NCAA page:  "The NCAA defines recruiting as 'any solicitation of prospective student-athletes or their parents by an institutional staff member or by a representative of the institution’s athletics interests for the purpose of securing a prospective student-athlete’s enrollment and ultimate participation in the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program.' "  
I believe that covers any discussions between the parents and the coach involving admissions.  "prospective":  Whether the student is admitted and whether the student participates in athletics is irrelevant.

[M T]

     I don't see an NCAA involvement in this scandal. This is a legal issue rather than one for the NCAA to come in and throw penalties around. USC is not getting an unfair advantage by having their coaches take bribes to admit non-athletes on their teams.

This has already been discussed.  A quoted NCAA rule that appears to be violated that (IMO) should result in NCAA penalties can be found in
  https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid244544

I feel with certainty that if the beneficiaries of these schemes were coaches, teams, players, or other members of the team (managers), then the NCAA rules about honesty appear to have been violated.

From an NCAA page:  "The NCAA defines recruiting as 'any solicitation of prospective student-athletes or their parents by an institutional staff member or by a representative of the institution’s athletics interests for the purpose of securing a prospective student-athlete’s enrollment and ultimate participation in the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program.' "  
I believe that covers any discussions between the parents and the coach involving admissions.  "prospective":  Whether the student is admitted and whether the student participates in athletics is irrelevant.

[washingtonismoney]

Fascinating read in the NY Times about an SC administrator at the center of the scandal: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/sport...&smtyp=cur

[washingtonismoney]

Fascinating read in the NY Times about an SC administrator at the center of the scandal: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/sport...&smtyp=cur

[82lsju]

The Department of Education will probe Stanford to see if the University violated federal laws governing student financial aid programs, after it was discovered that Stanford Sailing received $770,000 in contributions in exchange for the recommendation of applicants’ acceptance to the University as purported sailing recruits. 

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/03/26...s-scandal/

[82lsju]

The Department of Education will probe Stanford to see if the University violated federal laws governing student financial aid programs, after it was discovered that Stanford Sailing received $770,000 in contributions in exchange for the recommendation of applicants’ acceptance to the University as purported sailing recruits. 

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/03/26...s-scandal/

[82lsju]

another GSB alum caught up in the scandal, Chris Schaepe MBA '91, partner at Lightspeed

https://www.recode.net/2019/3/27/1828434...tal-ouster

[82lsju]

another GSB alum caught up in the scandal, Chris Schaepe MBA '91, partner at Lightspeed

https://www.recode.net/2019/3/27/1828434...tal-ouster