04-08-2019, 02:43 PM
I think we should be very careful in assumptions we make. The Mercury News article seems fast & loose with its statements in its leading sentence: "The mastermind ... gave Stanford’s sailing coach a previously-undisclosed $500,000 payment"
1. "gave Stanford's sailing coach" is contradicted further into the story. The money was given to Stanford, and earmarked for the sailing program. Clearly this was a benefit to the sailing program directly (and so indirectly to the coach), but it was not given to him.
2. "previously-undisclosed" What rock has that reporter been hiding under? Stanford publicly disclosed that payment 3 weeks earlier (within 2 days of the indictments being made public). I expect the law enforcement people were aware of it long before that.
As to the $500K, I've seen nothing to say that the now-terminated student or her family had anything to do with that payment. Nor have I seen that either had any knowledge of that payment. Why would they? She was admitted months before the payment, without involvement of the Stanford sailing program. It isn't clear to me that the $500K has anything to do with the student. Obviously both are related to the sport of sailing and to Singer. My guess is that they were two separate proof-of-concept demonstrations by Singer that he could falsely attribute sailing credentials on an application and that he could contribute money to the sailing program.
If you carry that reasoning a step further, I'd believe that girl was a strong candidate for admission without the sailing credentials. If less than one in 20 applicants (and, say, 1 in 5 qualifying applicants) get into Stanford, was Singer risking his demonstration on a throw of the Stanford admission's dice? No. I believe he found a pretty likely applicant and hoodwinked her into adding the unnecessary, but perhaps helpful, sailing credentials. (Either she was a strong candidate, or there are a number of other applicants using Singer with bogus sailing credentials, but I'd think Stanford would have made that public.)
As I doubt the details will come out, I have to presume that Stanford was able to determine that the student knew of the sailing credentials added to her application, and that it wasn't just a case of her signing a cover letter on a packet submitted and altered by Singer. I don't know the mechanics of the application process these days as to how the material is gathered, signed, and transmitted. (I believe Stanford has the right to "disenroll" the girl even if she didn't know about the sailing credentials added to her application, but it seems overly harsh if she were just another victim of Singer.)
I applaud that Stanford has not listed her name in any of the releases I've seen. Unless there is more culpability established of her, I hope that the Cardboard also avoids her name even if it is discovered.
Interestingly, I saw a couple of other articles about Singer's apparent character. One basically painted him as a sleazy character from when he first entered this field in Sacramento, while another (based on an interview of an early client) said he seemed very straight and narrow.
1. "gave Stanford's sailing coach" is contradicted further into the story. The money was given to Stanford, and earmarked for the sailing program. Clearly this was a benefit to the sailing program directly (and so indirectly to the coach), but it was not given to him.
2. "previously-undisclosed" What rock has that reporter been hiding under? Stanford publicly disclosed that payment 3 weeks earlier (within 2 days of the indictments being made public). I expect the law enforcement people were aware of it long before that.
As to the $500K, I've seen nothing to say that the now-terminated student or her family had anything to do with that payment. Nor have I seen that either had any knowledge of that payment. Why would they? She was admitted months before the payment, without involvement of the Stanford sailing program. It isn't clear to me that the $500K has anything to do with the student. Obviously both are related to the sport of sailing and to Singer. My guess is that they were two separate proof-of-concept demonstrations by Singer that he could falsely attribute sailing credentials on an application and that he could contribute money to the sailing program.
If you carry that reasoning a step further, I'd believe that girl was a strong candidate for admission without the sailing credentials. If less than one in 20 applicants (and, say, 1 in 5 qualifying applicants) get into Stanford, was Singer risking his demonstration on a throw of the Stanford admission's dice? No. I believe he found a pretty likely applicant and hoodwinked her into adding the unnecessary, but perhaps helpful, sailing credentials. (Either she was a strong candidate, or there are a number of other applicants using Singer with bogus sailing credentials, but I'd think Stanford would have made that public.)
As I doubt the details will come out, I have to presume that Stanford was able to determine that the student knew of the sailing credentials added to her application, and that it wasn't just a case of her signing a cover letter on a packet submitted and altered by Singer. I don't know the mechanics of the application process these days as to how the material is gathered, signed, and transmitted. (I believe Stanford has the right to "disenroll" the girl even if she didn't know about the sailing credentials added to her application, but it seems overly harsh if she were just another victim of Singer.)
I applaud that Stanford has not listed her name in any of the releases I've seen. Unless there is more culpability established of her, I hope that the Cardboard also avoids her name even if it is discovered.
Interestingly, I saw a couple of other articles about Singer's apparent character. One basically painted him as a sleazy character from when he first entered this field in Sacramento, while another (based on an interview of an early client) said he seemed very straight and narrow.