[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).