[oldalum]

Simple things like requiring proper photo id (like you need to get on an airplane) should make it difficult to get in the room if you are not who you are supposed to be.

Now they require an admission "ticket" to get into the exam that has your photo printed on it. I don't remember how they validate that the photo is really you when you submit it, though.

[oldalum]

Simple things like requiring proper photo id (like you need to get on an airplane) should make it difficult to get in the room if you are not who you are supposed to be.

Now they require an admission "ticket" to get into the exam that has your photo printed on it. I don't remember how they validate that the photo is really you when you submit it, though.

[2006alum]

The problem is that in most of these alleged cases, they bribed proctors who proctor one-off "disability" tests for students who qualify for extra time. That's the way around it - the proctor "certifies" that the solo student matched the ticket/id, and then simply changes the answers for him/her.

I have long been skeptical of the "extra time for tests" accommodation, because it seems really easy to game qualifying for them, and opens the door to all kinds of cheating or unfair advantages. I'm in higher education and I have students that notify me that they need extra time for papers and exams days before these assignments are due. The university tells me it's essentially an ADA violation for me to refuse basically whatever they say the campus disability resource center tells them they are entitled to. (Notwithstanding the fact that the DRC's own website says that the professor is always supposed to be involved in developing "reasonable" accommodations.) 

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? Isn't this just giving them a longer training pole that won't, in the end, help them clear same life hurdles everyone has to face eventually in the real world?

[2006alum]

The problem is that in most of these alleged cases, they bribed proctors who proctor one-off "disability" tests for students who qualify for extra time. That's the way around it - the proctor "certifies" that the solo student matched the ticket/id, and then simply changes the answers for him/her.

I have long been skeptical of the "extra time for tests" accommodation, because it seems really easy to game qualifying for them, and opens the door to all kinds of cheating or unfair advantages. I'm in higher education and I have students that notify me that they need extra time for papers and exams days before these assignments are due. The university tells me it's essentially an ADA violation for me to refuse basically whatever they say the campus disability resource center tells them they are entitled to. (Notwithstanding the fact that the DRC's own website says that the professor is always supposed to be involved in developing "reasonable" accommodations.) 

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? Isn't this just giving them a longer training pole that won't, in the end, help them clear same life hurdles everyone has to face eventually in the real world?

[76lsjumb]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

[76lsjumb]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

[2006alum]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

My point is that reasonable accommodations for the purposes of employment settings generally do not entail providing double time to complete tasks or allowing you to break deadlines repeatedly with almost no advanced notice - they entail shifting you to different tasks you can complete, or, potentially, removing your from the position altogether if the position's essential functions include timeliness and meeting deadlines. Moreover, the employer is entitled to ask about your disability and work with you about making changes in both your actions and theirs. None of that is true in my university setting.

Here's what an ADHD-focused magazine says is likely to happen for ADHD accommodations in the workplace, quoting the New York Law Journal:

What have employers been told about ADHD and the ADA?

An article published by the New York Law Journal was not very encouraging. It says, “As more employees learn that their work-related problems may be attributable to Adult ADHD, some will likely seek protection fromdiscrimination under the Act. Employers faced with these disability discrimination claims should institute a two-pronged defense.”

“First, the employer should force the employee to meet his burden of proving that he does in fact suffer from ADHD, and that the employee’s ADHD impairs a major life activity. If the employee successfully establishes that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer should argue that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job. This argument will be aided if the employer can point to a written job description stating that general skills such as following instructions, completing tasks on time and getting along with others are essential functions of the employee’s particular position.”

“The symptoms of Adult ADHD are such that they will likely prevent the employee from performing these essential functions. Therefore, employees who are terminated because of behavior attributable to Adult ADHD will probably not be entitled to protection under the Act.”

Thus, again, my point is that I don't know how these accommodations in educational environments help students in the long run, because they will be very unlikely to succeed in workplaces that will not be required to provide them.

And in the mean time, bringing things back to the topic of the thread, they enable rich parents to help their children cheat their way into college by not being held to the same standard as most everyone else.

[2006alum]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

My point is that reasonable accommodations for the purposes of employment settings generally do not entail providing double time to complete tasks or allowing you to break deadlines repeatedly with almost no advanced notice - they entail shifting you to different tasks you can complete, or, potentially, removing your from the position altogether if the position's essential functions include timeliness and meeting deadlines. Moreover, the employer is entitled to ask about your disability and work with you about making changes in both your actions and theirs. None of that is true in my university setting.

Here's what an ADHD-focused magazine says is likely to happen for ADHD accommodations in the workplace, quoting the New York Law Journal:

What have employers been told about ADHD and the ADA?

An article published by the New York Law Journal was not very encouraging. It says, “As more employees learn that their work-related problems may be attributable to Adult ADHD, some will likely seek protection fromdiscrimination under the Act. Employers faced with these disability discrimination claims should institute a two-pronged defense.”

“First, the employer should force the employee to meet his burden of proving that he does in fact suffer from ADHD, and that the employee’s ADHD impairs a major life activity. If the employee successfully establishes that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer should argue that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job. This argument will be aided if the employer can point to a written job description stating that general skills such as following instructions, completing tasks on time and getting along with others are essential functions of the employee’s particular position.”

“The symptoms of Adult ADHD are such that they will likely prevent the employee from performing these essential functions. Therefore, employees who are terminated because of behavior attributable to Adult ADHD will probably not be entitled to protection under the Act.”

Thus, again, my point is that I don't know how these accommodations in educational environments help students in the long run, because they will be very unlikely to succeed in workplaces that will not be required to provide them.

And in the mean time, bringing things back to the topic of the thread, they enable rich parents to help their children cheat their way into college by not being held to the same standard as most everyone else.

[Goose]

Simple things like requiring proper photo id (like you need to get on an airplane) should make it difficult to get in the room if you are not who you are supposed to be.

IIRC they checked my ID when I took it way back in 2004, but two things to think about here:

1) That does no good if the proctor is on the take (which was the case here).

True, but there is no reason to have the proctor check the IDs. Use a high school security guard or a Rent-a-Cop. It would be difficult for the people trying to scam the system to identify who it would be, so who do you bribe? Not real expensive, you only need the service for maybe an hour?

2) Poor kids are less likely to have ID

I doubt that is really true. Every high school student these days has a school ID, which would be fine for this situation. If you had a poor kid who was home schooled, they would have to go get a state id. Its a PITA and will cost you $8.00 (in California).
Yes, you could forge an ID, but that is just one more place you can get caught.

FWIW, when I took the SAT in 1966, there were about 45 of us taking the test. There were three proctors. The didn't sit "next" to anybody. They mostly walked the room, making sure nobody was passing notes or any such things. Crude but effective. Simple enough to require multiple proctors, don't let them sit in close proximity to the students, and assign them at random, so that they really can't collude. If you have a big group, you probably need multiple proctors anyway. When I took the test, the "proctors" were not professional test administrators. They were local teachers who had taken a class in what they were expected to do, as I recall. I assume that is no longer true????

[Goose]

Simple things like requiring proper photo id (like you need to get on an airplane) should make it difficult to get in the room if you are not who you are supposed to be.

IIRC they checked my ID when I took it way back in 2004, but two things to think about here:

1) That does no good if the proctor is on the take (which was the case here).

True, but there is no reason to have the proctor check the IDs. Use a high school security guard or a Rent-a-Cop. It would be difficult for the people trying to scam the system to identify who it would be, so who do you bribe? Not real expensive, you only need the service for maybe an hour?

2) Poor kids are less likely to have ID

I doubt that is really true. Every high school student these days has a school ID, which would be fine for this situation. If you had a poor kid who was home schooled, they would have to go get a state id. Its a PITA and will cost you $8.00 (in California).
Yes, you could forge an ID, but that is just one more place you can get caught.

FWIW, when I took the SAT in 1966, there were about 45 of us taking the test. There were three proctors. The didn't sit "next" to anybody. They mostly walked the room, making sure nobody was passing notes or any such things. Crude but effective. Simple enough to require multiple proctors, don't let them sit in close proximity to the students, and assign them at random, so that they really can't collude. If you have a big group, you probably need multiple proctors anyway. When I took the test, the "proctors" were not professional test administrators. They were local teachers who had taken a class in what they were expected to do, as I recall. I assume that is no longer true????

[76lsjumb]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

My point is that reasonable accommodations for the purposes of employment settings generally do not entail providing double time to complete tasks or allowing you to break deadlines repeatedly with almost no advanced notice - they entail shifting you to different tasks you can complete, or, potentially, removing your from the position altogether if the position's essential functions include timeliness and meeting deadlines. Moreover, the employer is entitled to ask about your disability and work with you about making changes in both your actions and theirs. None of that is true in my university setting.

Here's what an ADHD-focused magazine says is likely to happen for ADHD accommodations in the workplace, quoting the New York Law Journal:

What have employers been told about ADHD and the ADA?

An article published by the New York Law Journal was not very encouraging. It says, “As more employees learn that their work-related problems may be attributable to Adult ADHD, some will likely seek protection fromdiscrimination under the Act. Employers faced with these disability discrimination claims should institute a two-pronged defense.”

“First, the employer should force the employee to meet his burden of proving that he does in fact suffer from ADHD, and that the employee’s ADHD impairs a major life activity. If the employee successfully establishes that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer should argue that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job. This argument will be aided if the employer can point to a written job description stating that general skills such as following instructions, completing tasks on time and getting along with others are essential functions of the employee’s particular position.”

“The symptoms of Adult ADHD are such that they will likely prevent the employee from performing these essential functions. Therefore, employees who are terminated because of behavior attributable to Adult ADHD will probably not be entitled to protection under the Act.”

Thus, again, my point is that I don't know how these accommodations in educational environments help students in the long run, because they will be very unlikely to succeed in workplaces that will not be required to provide them.

And in the mean time, bringing things back to the topic of the thread, they enable rich parents to help their children cheat their way into college by not being held to the same standard as most everyone else.

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

[76lsjumb]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

My point is that reasonable accommodations for the purposes of employment settings generally do not entail providing double time to complete tasks or allowing you to break deadlines repeatedly with almost no advanced notice - they entail shifting you to different tasks you can complete, or, potentially, removing your from the position altogether if the position's essential functions include timeliness and meeting deadlines. Moreover, the employer is entitled to ask about your disability and work with you about making changes in both your actions and theirs. None of that is true in my university setting.

Here's what an ADHD-focused magazine says is likely to happen for ADHD accommodations in the workplace, quoting the New York Law Journal:

What have employers been told about ADHD and the ADA?

An article published by the New York Law Journal was not very encouraging. It says, “As more employees learn that their work-related problems may be attributable to Adult ADHD, some will likely seek protection fromdiscrimination under the Act. Employers faced with these disability discrimination claims should institute a two-pronged defense.”

“First, the employer should force the employee to meet his burden of proving that he does in fact suffer from ADHD, and that the employee’s ADHD impairs a major life activity. If the employee successfully establishes that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the employer should argue that the employee is unable to perform the essential functions of his job. This argument will be aided if the employer can point to a written job description stating that general skills such as following instructions, completing tasks on time and getting along with others are essential functions of the employee’s particular position.”

“The symptoms of Adult ADHD are such that they will likely prevent the employee from performing these essential functions. Therefore, employees who are terminated because of behavior attributable to Adult ADHD will probably not be entitled to protection under the Act.”

Thus, again, my point is that I don't know how these accommodations in educational environments help students in the long run, because they will be very unlikely to succeed in workplaces that will not be required to provide them.

And in the mean time, bringing things back to the topic of the thread, they enable rich parents to help their children cheat their way into college by not being held to the same standard as most everyone else.

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

[muiron]

I suspect many and probably most of you just got this update from MTL & Persis:

MARCH 14, 2019

To our Stanford community:
As we wrote earlier this week, we are deeply troubled by the college admission news that broke on Tuesday, which included the revelation that Stanford’s former head sailing coach accepted financial contributions to the sailing program in exchange for agreeing to recommend certain prospective students for admission to Stanford.
We have heard concerns and questions about this case from many people in our community and beyond. We want to be as responsive to you as possible.
The university has posted a web page with answers to many of the commonly asked questions. You can find this page at https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/admission-case-info/.
Stanford has been working to examine numerous issues raised by this week’s news. One development we want to share is that we have confirmed that the total amount contributed to the sailing program by the foundation that engaged in this fraudulent activity was $770,000. Some of this funding was associated with a student who was not named in the government’s charges on Tuesday. This student received no recommendation from the head sailing coach but was admitted to Stanford and is currently enrolled. The student has no affiliation with the sailing program. We are working to better understand the circumstances around this student and will take whatever actions are appropriate based on what we learn.
These and many other issues are addressed in the questions and answers linked above. We will share more information as we learn it.
Sincerely,
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President
Persis Drell, Provost

Also, here's a link to an FAQ from Stanford on this:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/adm...case-info/

The big news - the sailing program somehow got another $500k from the scheme, though we don't know how yet (and didn't learn through the feds...I suspect by reviewing gifts to the sailing team. It somehow involved an applicant who was admitted and IS a student now, but with no recommendation from the sailing coach and no sailing team connection. The Pres sounds genuinely puzzled. 

He does support the current sailing team (every sailing team member going back to before the scam started has been checked and none were based on phony recommendations). I've got to think, though, that $770k would be a brobdingnagian chunk of the team's budget.

[muiron]

I suspect many and probably most of you just got this update from MTL & Persis:

MARCH 14, 2019

To our Stanford community:
As we wrote earlier this week, we are deeply troubled by the college admission news that broke on Tuesday, which included the revelation that Stanford’s former head sailing coach accepted financial contributions to the sailing program in exchange for agreeing to recommend certain prospective students for admission to Stanford.
We have heard concerns and questions about this case from many people in our community and beyond. We want to be as responsive to you as possible.
The university has posted a web page with answers to many of the commonly asked questions. You can find this page at https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/admission-case-info/.
Stanford has been working to examine numerous issues raised by this week’s news. One development we want to share is that we have confirmed that the total amount contributed to the sailing program by the foundation that engaged in this fraudulent activity was $770,000. Some of this funding was associated with a student who was not named in the government’s charges on Tuesday. This student received no recommendation from the head sailing coach but was admitted to Stanford and is currently enrolled. The student has no affiliation with the sailing program. We are working to better understand the circumstances around this student and will take whatever actions are appropriate based on what we learn.
These and many other issues are addressed in the questions and answers linked above. We will share more information as we learn it.
Sincerely,
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President
Persis Drell, Provost

Also, here's a link to an FAQ from Stanford on this:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/adm...case-info/

The big news - the sailing program somehow got another $500k from the scheme, though we don't know how yet (and didn't learn through the feds...I suspect by reviewing gifts to the sailing team. It somehow involved an applicant who was admitted and IS a student now, but with no recommendation from the sailing coach and no sailing team connection. The Pres sounds genuinely puzzled. 

He does support the current sailing team (every sailing team member going back to before the scam started has been checked and none were based on phony recommendations). I've got to think, though, that $770k would be a brobdingnagian chunk of the team's budget.

[Goose]

In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

Unfortunately, most employers, on advice of their attorneys, will just settle. The risk of a big judgement against is viewed as not worth it, no matter how certain the employer is that he has done nothing wrong. This is partially because juries often find for the side that is poorest, not for the side that is right. Not supposed to be true, but often is. Furthermore, attorneys get not much credit when they win, and much blame when they lose, especially when they lose big. So, especially if they are on retainer, there is little incentive to risk a big loss. Yes, I too am cynical, but I think my point here is accurate.

[Goose]

In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

Unfortunately, most employers, on advice of their attorneys, will just settle. The risk of a big judgement against is viewed as not worth it, no matter how certain the employer is that he has done nothing wrong. This is partially because juries often find for the side that is poorest, not for the side that is right. Not supposed to be true, but often is. Furthermore, attorneys get not much credit when they win, and much blame when they lose, especially when they lose big. So, especially if they are on retainer, there is little incentive to risk a big loss. Yes, I too am cynical, but I think my point here is accurate.

[BostonCard]

I suspect many and probably most of you just got this update from MTL & Persis:

MARCH 14, 2019

To our Stanford community:
As we wrote earlier this week, we are deeply troubled by the college admission news that broke on Tuesday, which included the revelation that Stanford’s former head sailing coach accepted financial contributions to the sailing program in exchange for agreeing to recommend certain prospective students for admission to Stanford.
We have heard concerns and questions about this case from many people in our community and beyond. We want to be as responsive to you as possible.
The university has posted a web page with answers to many of the commonly asked questions. You can find this page at https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/admission-case-info/.
Stanford has been working to examine numerous issues raised by this week’s news. One development we want to share is that we have confirmed that the total amount contributed to the sailing program by the foundation that engaged in this fraudulent activity was $770,000. Some of this funding was associated with a student who was not named in the government’s charges on Tuesday. This student received no recommendation from the head sailing coach but was admitted to Stanford and is currently enrolled. The student has no affiliation with the sailing program. We are working to better understand the circumstances around this student and will take whatever actions are appropriate based on what we learn.
These and many other issues are addressed in the questions and answers linked above. We will share more information as we learn it.
Sincerely,
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President
Persis Drell, Provost

Also, here's a link to an FAQ from Stanford on this:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/adm...case-info/

The big news - the sailing program somehow got another $500k from the scheme, though we don't know how yet (and didn't learn through the feds...I suspect by reviewing gifts to the sailing team. It somehow involved an applicant who was admitted and IS a student now, but with no recommendation from the sailing coach and no sailing team connection. The Pres sounds genuinely puzzled. 

He does support the current sailing team (every sailing team member going back to before the scam started has been checked and none were based on phony recommendations). I've got to think, though, that $770k would be a of immense proportions chunk of the team's budget.

Wait, what?  The sailing team got another 500k for a student that was admitted, but the sailing coach did tout in a word for that student?  That sounds... fishy.

BC

[BostonCard]

I suspect many and probably most of you just got this update from MTL & Persis:

MARCH 14, 2019

To our Stanford community:
As we wrote earlier this week, we are deeply troubled by the college admission news that broke on Tuesday, which included the revelation that Stanford’s former head sailing coach accepted financial contributions to the sailing program in exchange for agreeing to recommend certain prospective students for admission to Stanford.
We have heard concerns and questions about this case from many people in our community and beyond. We want to be as responsive to you as possible.
The university has posted a web page with answers to many of the commonly asked questions. You can find this page at https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/admission-case-info/.
Stanford has been working to examine numerous issues raised by this week’s news. One development we want to share is that we have confirmed that the total amount contributed to the sailing program by the foundation that engaged in this fraudulent activity was $770,000. Some of this funding was associated with a student who was not named in the government’s charges on Tuesday. This student received no recommendation from the head sailing coach but was admitted to Stanford and is currently enrolled. The student has no affiliation with the sailing program. We are working to better understand the circumstances around this student and will take whatever actions are appropriate based on what we learn.
These and many other issues are addressed in the questions and answers linked above. We will share more information as we learn it.
Sincerely,
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, President
Persis Drell, Provost

Also, here's a link to an FAQ from Stanford on this:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/14/adm...case-info/

The big news - the sailing program somehow got another $500k from the scheme, though we don't know how yet (and didn't learn through the feds...I suspect by reviewing gifts to the sailing team. It somehow involved an applicant who was admitted and IS a student now, but with no recommendation from the sailing coach and no sailing team connection. The Pres sounds genuinely puzzled. 

He does support the current sailing team (every sailing team member going back to before the scam started has been checked and none were based on phony recommendations). I've got to think, though, that $770k would be a of immense proportions chunk of the team's budget.

Wait, what?  The sailing team got another 500k for a student that was admitted, but the sailing coach did tout in a word for that student?  That sounds... fishy.

BC

[2006alum]

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

Ironically, I mistakenly took your first response as not cynical enough! (Ah, how easy it is to misinterpret tone on the Internet!) Yes, being in the law myself, I've come to be cynical about people exploiting every loophole they can and not acting in good faith. Which once again brings us back to the main topic of this thread... ;)

[2006alum]

My earlier response was, admittedly, a tad bit cynical, but I'm not sure the source you quote contradicts it.  As the article says, what "employers have been told is "not very encouraging," by which the writer means "not very encouraging to prospective plaintiffs," before going on to suggest how a claim might be made to get around "what employers have been told."  In California, I'd be inclined to bet against the employer more often than not...

That being said, I don't disagree at all with your main point or argument...

Ironically, I mistakenly took your first response as not cynical enough! (Ah, how easy it is to misinterpret tone on the Internet!) Yes, being in the law myself, I've come to be cynical about people exploiting every loophole they can and not acting in good faith. Which once again brings us back to the main topic of this thread... ;)

[M T]

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet.  Some big names apparently claimed by Singer to have used his services
including Steve Jobs, Joe Montana, Bill Joy, ...
https://padailypost.com/2019/03/14/big-l...fraudster/

Let me make it very clear that these individuals are not being accused of doing anything wrong.
Joe Montana's response included in
  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2825...bery-probe
"Mr. Singer's company provided nothing more than minimal consulting services to our family, like so many other families, with the college application process."

While I can imagine it would be very difficult to prove charges against any individual who may have done this in the past, if there were a large (6+ figure) payment that went to Singer or his organizations, it might be a strong sign.  I also don't know what the statute of limitations is.
As for Steve Jobs, I imagine any school would have admitted any child of his on the basis of a high school diploma, just on the hope of future contributions.

---

As for the former Stanford sailing coach, the FBI mentioned that (only) one coach received no funds personally, but didn't name him.
See 22:00 in the video previously posted:  https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid244578

---

Are there other programs at major schools in which the application process may be bypassed or passed with lower standards?   Can any Dean or other high standing official request a student get in?   Music or art programs?   I'm not saying any of those have abused the system, I'm just wondering whether those might also be audited.    Applicants allegedly from classes that get differential treatment?   The key seems to be that the school trusts a third party (individual or organization) to qualify a student for that group.

The line starts to get broader when I think about qualifying for cheaper tuition fees or other costs.  I believe many public schools charge less for {citizens, residents} of their state.  I could imagine bribes to individuals at the organizations that indicate a person is a citizen/resident.

[M T]

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet.  Some big names apparently claimed by Singer to have used his services
including Steve Jobs, Joe Montana, Bill Joy, ...
https://padailypost.com/2019/03/14/big-l...fraudster/

Let me make it very clear that these individuals are not being accused of doing anything wrong.
Joe Montana's response included in
  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2825...bery-probe
"Mr. Singer's company provided nothing more than minimal consulting services to our family, like so many other families, with the college application process."

While I can imagine it would be very difficult to prove charges against any individual who may have done this in the past, if there were a large (6+ figure) payment that went to Singer or his organizations, it might be a strong sign.  I also don't know what the statute of limitations is.
As for Steve Jobs, I imagine any school would have admitted any child of his on the basis of a high school diploma, just on the hope of future contributions.

---

As for the former Stanford sailing coach, the FBI mentioned that (only) one coach received no funds personally, but didn't name him.
See 22:00 in the video previously posted:  https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid244578

---

Are there other programs at major schools in which the application process may be bypassed or passed with lower standards?   Can any Dean or other high standing official request a student get in?   Music or art programs?   I'm not saying any of those have abused the system, I'm just wondering whether those might also be audited.    Applicants allegedly from classes that get differential treatment?   The key seems to be that the school trusts a third party (individual or organization) to qualify a student for that group.

The line starts to get broader when I think about qualifying for cheaper tuition fees or other costs.  I believe many public schools charge less for {citizens, residents} of their state.  I could imagine bribes to individuals at the organizations that indicate a person is a citizen/resident.

[2006alum]

BTW: The Daily posted a new story and it sounds like the plaintiffs' lawyer should be disbarred. He sounds like a total scuzball:

From the Daily:

Keri Fidelak, mother of Tulane undergraduate Lauren Fidelak, told The Daily she emailed lawyer John Medler on a “fact-finding mission” following the release of the initial complaint. In a later phone call that Keri said lasted approximately 10 minutes, she disclosed additional information about her daughter — some of which later appeared in the amended complaint — including her ACT scores and the colleges that rejected her. During the call, Keri said, she agreed to receive a mailed documentation on the case. 
“The whole point was that he was going to send me a packet of information and I was going to review it with my husband and my daughter and we were going to decide together what to do,” Keri said. “There has been nothing signed.”  
Lauren was unaware of her mother’s correspondence with Medler or her inclusion as a plaintiff in the case until she read The Daily’s report, at which point she notified her mother. Keri described their inclusion in the lawsuit as “a brobdingnagian invasion of privacy.” When Keri contacted Medler via email regarding the matter, he asserted in his response that she had, in fact, given him permission to include her during the phone call, but that he would remove her from the lawsuit if she wished.  
“[You] gave me the authority to file on your behalf and your daughter’s behalf,” Medler wrote in an email to Keri. “I am sorry that you have changed your mind, but it takes time to get the amendment on file.” 
Keri recalls verbally agreeing to either “move forward” or “proceed,” but did not understand this to be an agreement of her inclusion as a plaintiff in the suit.
Medler told Keri in an email that he would remove the Fidelaks from the case in a second amended complaint, but did not specify when the amended complaint would be filed.
Keri told The Daily that she may pursue legal action or file an ethics complaint for being included as a plaintiff in the lawsuit despite giving what she believes did not constitute explicit consent. 

Every lawyer worth their bar admission knows you need an engagement letter and express permission from the client before filing suit. There's no universe where a parent can verbally give consent for her (legally adult) daughter to be represented in a lawsuit.

[2006alum]

BTW: The Daily posted a new story and it sounds like the plaintiffs' lawyer should be disbarred. He sounds like a total scuzball:

From the Daily:

Keri Fidelak, mother of Tulane undergraduate Lauren Fidelak, told The Daily she emailed lawyer John Medler on a “fact-finding mission” following the release of the initial complaint. In a later phone call that Keri said lasted approximately 10 minutes, she disclosed additional information about her daughter — some of which later appeared in the amended complaint — including her ACT scores and the colleges that rejected her. During the call, Keri said, she agreed to receive a mailed documentation on the case. 
“The whole point was that he was going to send me a packet of information and I was going to review it with my husband and my daughter and we were going to decide together what to do,” Keri said. “There has been nothing signed.”  
Lauren was unaware of her mother’s correspondence with Medler or her inclusion as a plaintiff in the case until she read The Daily’s report, at which point she notified her mother. Keri described their inclusion in the lawsuit as “a brobdingnagian invasion of privacy.” When Keri contacted Medler via email regarding the matter, he asserted in his response that she had, in fact, given him permission to include her during the phone call, but that he would remove her from the lawsuit if she wished.  
“[You] gave me the authority to file on your behalf and your daughter’s behalf,” Medler wrote in an email to Keri. “I am sorry that you have changed your mind, but it takes time to get the amendment on file.” 
Keri recalls verbally agreeing to either “move forward” or “proceed,” but did not understand this to be an agreement of her inclusion as a plaintiff in the suit.
Medler told Keri in an email that he would remove the Fidelaks from the case in a second amended complaint, but did not specify when the amended complaint would be filed.
Keri told The Daily that she may pursue legal action or file an ethics complaint for being included as a plaintiff in the lawsuit despite giving what she believes did not constitute explicit consent. 

Every lawyer worth their bar admission knows you need an engagement letter and express permission from the client before filing suit. There's no universe where a parent can verbally give consent for her (legally adult) daughter to be represented in a lawsuit.

[Treebound]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

If it is a standardized test then everyone should be given the SAME time to complete the test, imho.  It needs to be a level playing field.  I've seen too many parents skirt this issue for their kids benefit and it's become a joke.   I'm not surprised that Singer (and likely a large number of other college for hire counselors) uncovered this loop hole.    If the testing company wants to put in check boxes for various disabilities to be noted (ADHD, Dyslexia, etc...) then that can be shared in confidence with schools.  I'm fine with that approach, but arbitrary extra time does not make it a standardized test or a level playing field.    

And I don't believe the families that gave to the sailing program have been named or indicted, correct?

[Treebound]

I always wonder: what employer is going to hire you when you need twice as much time as every other prospective applicant to get the job done? 

The employer that doesn't wish to end up getting sued for violation of various state and federal laws for discrimination, failing to provide reasonable accommodations, etc.

If it is a standardized test then everyone should be given the SAME time to complete the test, imho.  It needs to be a level playing field.  I've seen too many parents skirt this issue for their kids benefit and it's become a joke.   I'm not surprised that Singer (and likely a large number of other college for hire counselors) uncovered this loop hole.    If the testing company wants to put in check boxes for various disabilities to be noted (ADHD, Dyslexia, etc...) then that can be shared in confidence with schools.  I'm fine with that approach, but arbitrary extra time does not make it a standardized test or a level playing field.    

And I don't believe the families that gave to the sailing program have been named or indicted, correct?

[magnus]

The Daily has info on the $500k student. 

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/03/14...000-bribe/

Apparently,  their application did list false sailing credentials but they were not recruited as an athlete as the coach never put in a good word. 

The coach's attorney speculates that it might have been a relationship establishing action. 

Sounds like it might have been a proof of concept move.

[magnus]

The Daily has info on the $500k student. 

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/03/14...000-bribe/

Apparently,  their application did list false sailing credentials but they were not recruited as an athlete as the coach never put in a good word. 

The coach's attorney speculates that it might have been a relationship establishing action. 

Sounds like it might have been a proof of concept move.

[winflop]

According to an article in the Daily, "$770,000 in fraudulent payments was received by Stanford’s sailing program as part of Singer’s scam" and that it included on $500K donation.

That's a whole ton of money for any sailing program in total, and a single donation of $500K out of the blue should have raised all kinds of red flags.

Either people at the AD were grossly negligent or they were involved.

[winflop]

According to an article in the Daily, "$770,000 in fraudulent payments was received by Stanford’s sailing program as part of Singer’s scam" and that it included on $500K donation.

That's a whole ton of money for any sailing program in total, and a single donation of $500K out of the blue should have raised all kinds of red flags.

Either people at the AD were grossly negligent or they were involved.

[oldalum]

yes you are right, and Stanford now says it is looking into how they are verifying donations.

[oldalum]

yes you are right, and Stanford now says it is looking into how they are verifying donations.

[cardcrimson]

Either people at the AD were extremely careless or they were involved.

Fixed it for you. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Either people at the AD were extremely careless or they were involved.

Fixed it for you. . . .

[CornFed]

Either people at the AD were extremely careless or they were involved.

Fixed it for you. . . .

Careful.  .  .  .  
No politics

[CornFed]

Either people at the AD were extremely careless or they were involved.

Fixed it for you. . . .

Careful.  .  .  .  
No politics

[Robbie]

I have a plan:

I'm going to write a letter to Stanford's administrators. I'm going to threaten to donate two million dollars to the band unless they admit my child to Stanford in the class of 2023.

Of course, the chance for success of this scheme is predicated on the idea that the Stanford administration does not want to see the band with significant numbers of dollars to spend on what they like. (Which is plausible.)

But, last I checked, I don't have two million dollars just hanging around.

Nor do I have a child applying for college.

Oh well, good idea while it lasted.

[Robbie]

I have a plan:

I'm going to write a letter to Stanford's administrators. I'm going to threaten to donate two million dollars to the band unless they admit my child to Stanford in the class of 2023.

Of course, the chance for success of this scheme is predicated on the idea that the Stanford administration does not want to see the band with significant numbers of dollars to spend on what they like. (Which is plausible.)

But, last I checked, I don't have two million dollars just hanging around.

Nor do I have a child applying for college.

Oh well, good idea while it lasted.

[Snorlax94]

While I'm glad to see that Stanford's involvement seems limited so far, even before today's revelation (of a currently-enrolled student who had a fake sailing profile), I had expected that we'd eventually learn of cases where Stanford was fooled, or worse, compromised.

Weren't the parents who were charged just the *current* clients who could be caught by wiretap? Apparently, Singer warned certain clients face-to-face that their phone calls would be recorded, so presumably some big fish got away. (Which may explain why the people who were caught were small-to-medium-sized fish).

Singer has been in operation for more than a decade and has boasted he's helped thousands of clients.  I imagine there's a treasure trove of evidence in his emails, text messages, and bank records. People familiar with these processes -- will these lists ever be made public?

And beyond this case, there have got to be countless Singers out there. All the consultants may might not be laundering and bribing, but the NYTimes has reported about an SAT-taking ring in NYC, and that, in the past, consultants have helped parents orchestrate "spiritual awakening" trips resulting in sham non-profits. (though, to be clear, I'm not saying all college consultants engage in dishonest behavior, or that all their clients accepted dishonest services).

I have noticed in recent years that very few students from my old high school, a small, Catholic school in the Midwest, seem to get admitted to Top-15 universities any more, despite often producing a substantial number of National Merit Semi-Finalists, and having sport, art, and volunteer work requirements. 

I am beginning to wonder whether college consultant fraud (if you count things like re-written essays)  is so rampant that I underestimated how difficult it is to get in now for someone who tries to get admitted through the old-fashioned, honest front door, especially when they lack any "hooks" (including legacy connections).


If and when Singers's full client list becomes public, and as other Singers are caught, I would be pleasantly surprised if it turns out Stanford hasn't been fooled many times in the past. I hope this case results in more people becoming exposed (and facing consequences), and in stronger procedures to reduce future fraud (like many good suggestions already in this thread).

[Snorlax94]

While I'm glad to see that Stanford's involvement seems limited so far, even before today's revelation (of a currently-enrolled student who had a fake sailing profile), I had expected that we'd eventually learn of cases where Stanford was fooled, or worse, compromised.

Weren't the parents who were charged just the *current* clients who could be caught by wiretap? Apparently, Singer warned certain clients face-to-face that their phone calls would be recorded, so presumably some big fish got away. (Which may explain why the people who were caught were small-to-medium-sized fish).

Singer has been in operation for more than a decade and has boasted he's helped thousands of clients.  I imagine there's a treasure trove of evidence in his emails, text messages, and bank records. People familiar with these processes -- will these lists ever be made public?

And beyond this case, there have got to be countless Singers out there. All the consultants may might not be laundering and bribing, but the NYTimes has reported about an SAT-taking ring in NYC, and that, in the past, consultants have helped parents orchestrate "spiritual awakening" trips resulting in sham non-profits. (though, to be clear, I'm not saying all college consultants engage in dishonest behavior, or that all their clients accepted dishonest services).

I have noticed in recent years that very few students from my old high school, a small, Catholic school in the Midwest, seem to get admitted to Top-15 universities any more, despite often producing a substantial number of National Merit Semi-Finalists, and having sport, art, and volunteer work requirements. 

I am beginning to wonder whether college consultant fraud (if you count things like re-written essays)  is so rampant that I underestimated how difficult it is to get in now for someone who tries to get admitted through the old-fashioned, honest front door, especially when they lack any "hooks" (including legacy connections).


If and when Singers's full client list becomes public, and as other Singers are caught, I would be pleasantly surprised if it turns out Stanford hasn't been fooled many times in the past. I hope this case results in more people becoming exposed (and facing consequences), and in stronger procedures to reduce future fraud (like many good suggestions already in this thread).