[82lsju]

“Our first lead in this came during interviews with a target of an entirely separate investigation, who gave us a tip that this activity might be going on,” he said.

The tip led investigators to a soccer coach at Yale University, who, in turn, pointed them to William “Rick” Singer, the college admissions consultant who would confess to being the mastermind of the admissions racket. With Singer’s cooperation, FBI agents set about building cases against dozens of the wealthy parents on his client list as well as people at universities across the country Singer allegedly paid to help students cheat their way into school. Prosecutors needed less than a year from that first tip to file criminal charges, a remarkably quick turnaround for a case so large and with such high stakes.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m...story.html

[82lsju]

“Our first lead in this came during interviews with a target of an entirely separate investigation, who gave us a tip that this activity might be going on,” he said.

The tip led investigators to a soccer coach at Yale University, who, in turn, pointed them to William “Rick” Singer, the college admissions consultant who would confess to being the mastermind of the admissions racket. With Singer’s cooperation, FBI agents set about building cases against dozens of the wealthy parents on his client list as well as people at universities across the country Singer allegedly paid to help students cheat their way into school. Prosecutors needed less than a year from that first tip to file criminal charges, a remarkably quick turnaround for a case so large and with such high stakes.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m...story.html

[M T]

I wonder how many alleged crimes happened after the FBI was involved.  It is hard to imagine parents, wealthy or not, talking to some businessman and say "How can I bribe someone to get my child into the university?" or "If I give you enough money, can you get someone to alter the test results or even take it for my child?"

To me, the likelihood is that Singer, apparently the government's star witness, was the common factor & alleged mastermind in the alleged crimes.  In my mind, that makes it likely that he suggested the crimes & solicited money from the parents.  As I understand it, Singer set up the alleged charities to which money was directed.

I don't think anyone thinks it is a crime to have a consultant help your child with training for tests or advising what to do to improve chances of getting into school.   If such a consultant then suggests criminal activities, then the parents should have declined & reported him to the authorities.  I imagine most of these people have financial advisors & lawyers on retainer.   I wonder how many of those parents were somehow conned into this, by some hook or crook.   I wonder how many were told, "Put $$$ into this charity and I'll talk to a friend who will get your kid into this school."

If all the bribery and fraudulent tests were in the past, and the FBI gathered wiretap evidence from calls of the flavor "Watch out, the feds are watching me," then ok.  But if the FBI participated in even one call where Singer broached possible illegal activities to a parent or coach, then I'd be surprised & disappointed.

I am curious as to the genesis of the idea of using easier admissions for athletes as a way to get weak students in.  Did Singer come up with this, or did some coach (or admissions person) come up with this scheme?   Note that this same method could be used to get foreigners admitted as students, and so into the US on student visas.  I believe foreign students typically pay more and so are already financially more attractive to the schools, and I imagine it is difficult to evaluate foreign students as to their academic achievements & outside activities.

[M T]

I wonder how many alleged crimes happened after the FBI was involved.  It is hard to imagine parents, wealthy or not, talking to some businessman and say "How can I bribe someone to get my child into the university?" or "If I give you enough money, can you get someone to alter the test results or even take it for my child?"

To me, the likelihood is that Singer, apparently the government's star witness, was the common factor & alleged mastermind in the alleged crimes.  In my mind, that makes it likely that he suggested the crimes & solicited money from the parents.  As I understand it, Singer set up the alleged charities to which money was directed.

I don't think anyone thinks it is a crime to have a consultant help your child with training for tests or advising what to do to improve chances of getting into school.   If such a consultant then suggests criminal activities, then the parents should have declined & reported him to the authorities.  I imagine most of these people have financial advisors & lawyers on retainer.   I wonder how many of those parents were somehow conned into this, by some hook or crook.   I wonder how many were told, "Put $$$ into this charity and I'll talk to a friend who will get your kid into this school."

If all the bribery and fraudulent tests were in the past, and the FBI gathered wiretap evidence from calls of the flavor "Watch out, the feds are watching me," then ok.  But if the FBI participated in even one call where Singer broached possible illegal activities to a parent or coach, then I'd be surprised & disappointed.

I am curious as to the genesis of the idea of using easier admissions for athletes as a way to get weak students in.  Did Singer come up with this, or did some coach (or admissions person) come up with this scheme?   Note that this same method could be used to get foreigners admitted as students, and so into the US on student visas.  I believe foreign students typically pay more and so are already financially more attractive to the schools, and I imagine it is difficult to evaluate foreign students as to their academic achievements & outside activities.

[82lsju]

1st guilty plea from a parent

Gordon Caplan ’88 [Cornell] said he would plead guilty on Friday afternoon to criminal charges that emerged in the college admissions scandal that alleged Caplan of paying $75,000 to rig his daughter’s ACT score.

“I take full and sole responsibility for my conduct and I am deeply ashamed of my behavior and my actions,” Caplan said in an emailed statement distributed by his lawyer. “I apologize not only to my family, friends, colleagues and the legal Bar, but also to students everywhere who have been accepted to college through their own hard work.”

https://cornellsun.com/2019/04/05/gordon...ions-case/

---

and maybe you can just buy a coach's house for an above market price......

He bought the fencing coach’s house. Then his son got into Harvard

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/0...story.html

[82lsju]

1st guilty plea from a parent

Gordon Caplan ’88 [Cornell] said he would plead guilty on Friday afternoon to criminal charges that emerged in the college admissions scandal that alleged Caplan of paying $75,000 to rig his daughter’s ACT score.

“I take full and sole responsibility for my conduct and I am deeply ashamed of my behavior and my actions,” Caplan said in an emailed statement distributed by his lawyer. “I apologize not only to my family, friends, colleagues and the legal Bar, but also to students everywhere who have been accepted to college through their own hard work.”

https://cornellsun.com/2019/04/05/gordon...ions-case/

---

and maybe you can just buy a coach's house for an above market price......

He bought the fencing coach’s house. Then his son got into Harvard

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/0...story.html

[82lsju]

Stanford has rescinded the admission of a female student whose application was linked with the bribery scandal rocking college admissions nationwide, the University announced on Tuesday.

The former student included fabricated sailing credentials in her application, which is grounds for expulsion according to University practice. Though she was accepted through the standard process and not as a recruited athlete, her admission was followed by a $500,000 contribution to Stanford’s sailing program paid through former head coach John Vandemoer, who was fired after agreeing to plead guilty for accepting donations in exchange for recommending non-sailors as recruited athletes.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/04/07...edentials/

[82lsju]

Stanford has rescinded the admission of a female student whose application was linked with the bribery scandal rocking college admissions nationwide, the University announced on Tuesday.

The former student included fabricated sailing credentials in her application, which is grounds for expulsion according to University practice. Though she was accepted through the standard process and not as a recruited athlete, her admission was followed by a $500,000 contribution to Stanford’s sailing program paid through former head coach John Vandemoer, who was fired after agreeing to plead guilty for accepting donations in exchange for recommending non-sailors as recruited athletes.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/04/07...edentials/

[Nan3cy]

So the woman who was expelled included the sailing stuff in her application but didn't need it? (And got expelled for including it, even though she didn't need it?) The irony is delicious.

[Nan3cy]

So the woman who was expelled included the sailing stuff in her application but didn't need it? (And got expelled for including it, even though she didn't need it?) The irony is delicious.

[CTcard]

So the woman who was expelled included the sailing stuff in her application but didn't need it? (And got expelled for including it, even though she didn't need it?) The irony is delicious.

I suspect it wasn't quite as clear as "didn't need it". 

It seems quite likely that said student, while not a recruited athlete, got non-academic points in her application file for quality in sailing presumably vouched for by the coach. 
Otherwise, indeed the irony is thick and the coach a particularly talented scam artist for getting the $500,000 for not doing anything.

[CTcard]

So the woman who was expelled included the sailing stuff in her application but didn't need it? (And got expelled for including it, even though she didn't need it?) The irony is delicious.

I suspect it wasn't quite as clear as "didn't need it". 

It seems quite likely that said student, while not a recruited athlete, got non-academic points in her application file for quality in sailing presumably vouched for by the coach. 
Otherwise, indeed the irony is thick and the coach a particularly talented scam artist for getting the $500,000 for not doing anything.

[82lsju]

2nd parent to plead guilty

A Menlo Park father told a federal court in Boston Wednesday that he plans to plead guilty to an unspecified charge in a college admissions scam case revealed last month.

Peter Sartorio, 53, disclosed the plan in a filing submitted by his lawyers to U.S. Magistrate M. Page Kelley.  Sartorio had been scheduled for an initial appearance Wednesday before Kelley, but he asked for a postponement until April 30 because he “intends to plead guilty” to a charge to be filed by federal prosecutors.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/04/m...s-scandal/

---

So the woman who was expelled included the sailing stuff in her application but didn't need it? (And got expelled for including it, even though she didn't need it?) The irony is delicious.

I suspect it wasn't quite as clear as "didn't need it". 

It seems quite likely that said student, while not a recruited athlete, got non-academic points in her application file for quality in sailing presumably vouched for by the coach. 
Otherwise, indeed the irony is thick and the coach a particularly talented scam artist for getting the $500,000 for not doing anything.

reported previously

The mastermind behind this week’s massive college admissions bribery scandal gave Stanford’s sailing coach a previously-undisclosed $500,000 payment after the prestigious university admitted a student who had “fabricated sailing credentials” in her application, court documents obtained by this news organization show.

But the student was admitted through the university’s normal process, a Stanford spokesman said Thursday, and not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach John Vandemoer, who pleaded guilty earlier this week to charges that he accepted $270,000 in payments to reserve coveted admission spots for applicants with bogus sailing bonafides.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/14/c...edentials/

[82lsju]

2nd parent to plead guilty

A Menlo Park father told a federal court in Boston Wednesday that he plans to plead guilty to an unspecified charge in a college admissions scam case revealed last month.

Peter Sartorio, 53, disclosed the plan in a filing submitted by his lawyers to U.S. Magistrate M. Page Kelley.  Sartorio had been scheduled for an initial appearance Wednesday before Kelley, but he asked for a postponement until April 30 because he “intends to plead guilty” to a charge to be filed by federal prosecutors.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/04/m...s-scandal/

---

So the woman who was expelled included the sailing stuff in her application but didn't need it? (And got expelled for including it, even though she didn't need it?) The irony is delicious.

I suspect it wasn't quite as clear as "didn't need it". 

It seems quite likely that said student, while not a recruited athlete, got non-academic points in her application file for quality in sailing presumably vouched for by the coach. 
Otherwise, indeed the irony is thick and the coach a particularly talented scam artist for getting the $500,000 for not doing anything.

reported previously

The mastermind behind this week’s massive college admissions bribery scandal gave Stanford’s sailing coach a previously-undisclosed $500,000 payment after the prestigious university admitted a student who had “fabricated sailing credentials” in her application, court documents obtained by this news organization show.

But the student was admitted through the university’s normal process, a Stanford spokesman said Thursday, and not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach John Vandemoer, who pleaded guilty earlier this week to charges that he accepted $270,000 in payments to reserve coveted admission spots for applicants with bogus sailing bonafides.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/14/c...edentials/

[CTcard]

I suspect it wasn't quite as clear as "didn't need it". 

It seems quite likely that said student, while not a recruited athlete, got non-academic points in her application file for quality in sailing presumably vouched for by the coach. 
Otherwise, indeed the irony is thick and the coach a particularly talented scam artist for getting the $500,000 for not doing anything.

reported previously

But the student was admitted through the university’s normal process, a Stanford spokesman said Thursday, and not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach John Vandemoer, who pleaded guilty earlier this week to charges that he accepted $270,000 in payments to reserve coveted admission spots for applicants with bogus sailing bonafides.

Yes, but nevertheless I remain suspicious as to the details of that statement by the university, or at least the exact meaning of "not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach". 

One would generally think that a $500,000 donation to the sailing program by people connected to a student who fabricated competitive sailing credentials on her application would be linked in some manner. The university's actions tend to imply a link as well. But as I noted, it may be that the coach is a particularly talented scam artist. 
(though apparently not so talented as to avoid detection in the end).

[CTcard]

I suspect it wasn't quite as clear as "didn't need it". 

It seems quite likely that said student, while not a recruited athlete, got non-academic points in her application file for quality in sailing presumably vouched for by the coach. 
Otherwise, indeed the irony is thick and the coach a particularly talented scam artist for getting the $500,000 for not doing anything.

reported previously

But the student was admitted through the university’s normal process, a Stanford spokesman said Thursday, and not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach John Vandemoer, who pleaded guilty earlier this week to charges that he accepted $270,000 in payments to reserve coveted admission spots for applicants with bogus sailing bonafides.

Yes, but nevertheless I remain suspicious as to the details of that statement by the university, or at least the exact meaning of "not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach". 

One would generally think that a $500,000 donation to the sailing program by people connected to a student who fabricated competitive sailing credentials on her application would be linked in some manner. The university's actions tend to imply a link as well. But as I noted, it may be that the coach is a particularly talented scam artist. 
(though apparently not so talented as to avoid detection in the end).

[82lsju]

Yes, but nevertheless I remain suspicious as to the details of that statement by the university, or at least the exact meaning of "not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach". 

One would generally think that a $500,000 donation to the sailing program by people connected to a student who fabricated competitive sailing credentials on her application would be linked in some manner. The university's actions tend to imply a link as well. But as I noted, it may be that the coach is a particularly talented scam artist. 

(though apparently not so talented as to avoid detection in the end).

the donations apparently came from the KWF Charitable Foundation and not directly the parents who funded the KWF Charitable foundation, for example

- In or about May 2018, after Stanford Applicant 1 deferred his application to Stanford for one year. Singer mailed a payment of $110,000 from one of the KWF charitable accounts to the Stanford sailing program in exchange for VANDEMOER's agreement to designate Stanford Applicant 1 as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle. 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142906/dow...3ND8PJjSx4

What's unclear to me is why didn't someone from the AD at least take a quick look at the KWF charitable organization, which I assume was new to them, that sent in three large gifts in a relatively short period of time.  I would think that gifts of this size would get more than the standard charitable contribution acknowledgement letter from the University.

[82lsju]

Yes, but nevertheless I remain suspicious as to the details of that statement by the university, or at least the exact meaning of "not on the recommendation of disgraced sailing coach". 

One would generally think that a $500,000 donation to the sailing program by people connected to a student who fabricated competitive sailing credentials on her application would be linked in some manner. The university's actions tend to imply a link as well. But as I noted, it may be that the coach is a particularly talented scam artist. 

(though apparently not so talented as to avoid detection in the end).

the donations apparently came from the KWF Charitable Foundation and not directly the parents who funded the KWF Charitable foundation, for example

- In or about May 2018, after Stanford Applicant 1 deferred his application to Stanford for one year. Singer mailed a payment of $110,000 from one of the KWF charitable accounts to the Stanford sailing program in exchange for VANDEMOER's agreement to designate Stanford Applicant 1 as a sailing recruit in the following year's recruitment cycle. 

https://www.justice.gov/file/1142906/dow...3ND8PJjSx4

What's unclear to me is why didn't someone from the AD at least take a quick look at the KWF charitable organization, which I assume was new to them, that sent in three large gifts in a relatively short period of time.  I would think that gifts of this size would get more than the standard charitable contribution acknowledgement letter from the University.

[82lsju]

now 13 parents to plead guilty

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/fe...&smtyp=cur 

full list contained in this document (along with the plea agreements of some of the accused)

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

[82lsju]

now 13 parents to plead guilty

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/fe...&smtyp=cur 

full list contained in this document (along with the plea agreements of some of the accused)

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

[M T]

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.

[M T]

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.

[chrisk]

H

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.

Isn’t there a strong implication that the student included her sailing “credentials” on the application that she herself submitted? We also don’t know if there were other problems with he application.

[chrisk]

H

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.

Isn’t there a strong implication that the student included her sailing “credentials” on the application that she herself submitted? We also don’t know if there were other problems with he application.

[oldalum]

Stanford's statement says: 

"We determined that some of the material in the student’s application is false and, in accordance with our policies, have rescinded admission."

I do not believe the university determines or needs to determine whether the student "knew" that the information was false. Each applicant when submitting the application must electronically sign the application certifying that the information is correct. If information is false, the admission will be rescinded.  This is consistent with the expectation that the student should be the person completing and submitting the application.

The rescinded student's credits are erased, while I suspect an expelled student retains credits on his or her transcript (along with the fact of expulsion). 

[oldalum]

Stanford's statement says: 

"We determined that some of the material in the student’s application is false and, in accordance with our policies, have rescinded admission."

I do not believe the university determines or needs to determine whether the student "knew" that the information was false. Each applicant when submitting the application must electronically sign the application certifying that the information is correct. If information is false, the admission will be rescinded.  This is consistent with the expectation that the student should be the person completing and submitting the application.

The rescinded student's credits are erased, while I suspect an expelled student retains credits on his or her transcript (along with the fact of expulsion). 

[82lsju]

The confidential report, reviewed by The Times, shows that years before the current college admissions scandal, UCLA knew of allegations that parents were pledging donations to its athletic program in exchange for their children being admitted to the university.

The investigation determined that the timing of the pledge by the parents “together with the revelation that she was intended to be only a manager, in violation of the department recruitment and admission policy, removes any reasonable doubt that the contribution from the parents was obtained quid pro quo for the daughter’s admission.” William Cormier, then the director of UCLA’s administrative policies and compliance office, wrote the report. It is unclear who received it.

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

What has been revealed since then is that years before the current scandal, UCLA knew of parents pledging donations to the athletic department in exchange for the university admitting their children.

...

In the aftermath of one such deal that was struck in 2013, Michael Maynard, then the track and field coach, told Guerrero in a letter that he facilitated the arrangement at the request of Josh Rebholz, who is now the school’s associate athletic director.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-ucl...-hotline-n

[82lsju]

The confidential report, reviewed by The Times, shows that years before the current college admissions scandal, UCLA knew of allegations that parents were pledging donations to its athletic program in exchange for their children being admitted to the university.

The investigation determined that the timing of the pledge by the parents “together with the revelation that she was intended to be only a manager, in violation of the department recruitment and admission policy, removes any reasonable doubt that the contribution from the parents was obtained quid pro quo for the daughter’s admission.” William Cormier, then the director of UCLA’s administrative policies and compliance office, wrote the report. It is unclear who received it.

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

What has been revealed since then is that years before the current scandal, UCLA knew of parents pledging donations to the athletic department in exchange for the university admitting their children.

...

In the aftermath of one such deal that was struck in 2013, Michael Maynard, then the track and field coach, told Guerrero in a letter that he facilitated the arrangement at the request of Josh Rebholz, who is now the school’s associate athletic director.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-ucl...-hotline-n

[qwerty49]

Aunt Becky pled not guilty.  Of course.

[qwerty49]

Aunt Becky pled not guilty.  Of course.

[BostonCard]

Which of the kids knew?

https://apple.news/AB5DM-ANLQByhnlfC6c4JSA

I didn’t realize that one of the parents was a USC professor.

Bc

[BostonCard]

Which of the kids knew?

https://apple.news/AB5DM-ANLQByhnlfC6c4JSA

I didn’t realize that one of the parents was a USC professor.

Bc

[oldalum]

Which of the kids knew?
https://apple.news/AB5DM-ANLQByhnlfC6c4JSA

The statement in that article that "Stanford is the only university connected to the caper to have announced dismissal of a student associated with the scheme." is incorrect. Yale rescinded the admission of one of the students.

[oldalum]

Which of the kids knew?
https://apple.news/AB5DM-ANLQByhnlfC6c4JSA

The statement in that article that "Stanford is the only university connected to the caper to have announced dismissal of a student associated with the scheme." is incorrect. Yale rescinded the admission of one of the students.

[Embo]

Which of the kids knew?
https://apple.news/AB5DM-ANLQByhnlfC6c4JSA

The statement in that article that "Stanford is the only university connected to the caper to have announced dismissal of a student associated with the scheme." is incorrect. Yale rescinded the admission of one of the students.

Well, technically, as this applicant had yet to enroll, he or she was not a student.
This penalty is much less severe.  He or she was still in the window to accept an offer from another college and send in the deposit.  No one will ever know about Yale.  He or she could simply say a rejection happened.
The student that Stanford dismissed, on the other hand, is going to pay a price.  Her academic record from Stanford will cease to exist.  She is going to have to explain her missing year or years on her CV.

[Embo]

Which of the kids knew?
https://apple.news/AB5DM-ANLQByhnlfC6c4JSA

The statement in that article that "Stanford is the only university connected to the caper to have announced dismissal of a student associated with the scheme." is incorrect. Yale rescinded the admission of one of the students.

Well, technically, as this applicant had yet to enroll, he or she was not a student.
This penalty is much less severe.  He or she was still in the window to accept an offer from another college and send in the deposit.  No one will ever know about Yale.  He or she could simply say a rejection happened.
The student that Stanford dismissed, on the other hand, is going to pay a price.  Her academic record from Stanford will cease to exist.  She is going to have to explain her missing year or years on her CV.

[oldalum]

That's not my reading of the reported news, but YMMV. See, e.g., the following article from Wash Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/03/26/yale-rescinds-admission-student-linked-scandal-involving-soccer-coach/?utm_term=.29a9188ab15b

Addendum: I pointed out the apparent error to the journalist, who replied: "It is true that Yale rescinded the admission of one of its students, but it's not clear whether the student was actually attending the University and then was dismissed, which is what happened at Stanford. We've been seeking additional information from Yale and other universities; their statements so far have been very carefully worded, and as a result so is our story." In my opinion, his use of an unqualified "only" is not careful wording. Careful wording would have been something more like, "It appears that Stanford is the only ..." rather than "Stanford is the only"

Second Addendum: the journalist pointed out that Yale's statement changed since the Wash Post story (omitting the "current student"), so the WaPo story may have inadvertently been wrong and you may be right.

[oldalum]

That's not my reading of the reported news, but YMMV. See, e.g., the following article from Wash Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/03/26/yale-rescinds-admission-student-linked-scandal-involving-soccer-coach/?utm_term=.29a9188ab15b

Addendum: I pointed out the apparent error to the journalist, who replied: "It is true that Yale rescinded the admission of one of its students, but it's not clear whether the student was actually attending the University and then was dismissed, which is what happened at Stanford. We've been seeking additional information from Yale and other universities; their statements so far have been very carefully worded, and as a result so is our story." In my opinion, his use of an unqualified "only" is not careful wording. Careful wording would have been something more like, "It appears that Stanford is the only ..." rather than "Stanford is the only"

Second Addendum: the journalist pointed out that Yale's statement changed since the Wash Post story (omitting the "current student"), so the WaPo story may have inadvertently been wrong and you may be right.

[Embo]

That's not my reading of the reported news, but YMMV. See, e.g., the following article from Wash Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/03/26/yale-rescinds-admission-student-linked-scandal-involving-soccer-coach/?utm_term=.29a9188ab15b

Addendum: I pointed out the apparent error to the journalist, who replied: "It is true that Yale rescinded the admission of one of its students, but it's not clear whether the student was actually attending the University and then was dismissed, which is what happened at Stanford. We've been seeking additional information from Yale and other universities; their statements so far have been very carefully worded, and as a result so is our story." In my opinion, his use of an unqualified "only" is not careful wording. Careful wording would have been something more like, "It appears that Stanford is the only ..." rather than "Stanford is the only"

Second Addendum: the journalist pointed out that Yale's statement changed since the Wash Post story (omitting the "current student"), so the WaPo story may have inadvertently been wrong and you may be right.

Oldalum, I guess I owe you an apology.  Seems you were right.  Yale did dismiss a student who was indeed a freshman.

NY Times - mystery solved in family who paid $1.2 million

In reading the article, I was amused, as the attorney for the dismissed student paints a picture of naivete and victimhood.  He argues the parents do not speak English, the student was unaware of how the application process works in the US, and that she did not expect to have much choice about where to go to college.  And that donation was "made to help underprivileged youth".
IMHO, any family that has $1.2 million laying around to give as a "donation" for their daughter's application did not acquire their wealth by being suckers.  Give me a break.

[Embo]

That's not my reading of the reported news, but YMMV. See, e.g., the following article from Wash Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/03/26/yale-rescinds-admission-student-linked-scandal-involving-soccer-coach/?utm_term=.29a9188ab15b

Addendum: I pointed out the apparent error to the journalist, who replied: "It is true that Yale rescinded the admission of one of its students, but it's not clear whether the student was actually attending the University and then was dismissed, which is what happened at Stanford. We've been seeking additional information from Yale and other universities; their statements so far have been very carefully worded, and as a result so is our story." In my opinion, his use of an unqualified "only" is not careful wording. Careful wording would have been something more like, "It appears that Stanford is the only ..." rather than "Stanford is the only"

Second Addendum: the journalist pointed out that Yale's statement changed since the Wash Post story (omitting the "current student"), so the WaPo story may have inadvertently been wrong and you may be right.

Oldalum, I guess I owe you an apology.  Seems you were right.  Yale did dismiss a student who was indeed a freshman.

NY Times - mystery solved in family who paid $1.2 million

In reading the article, I was amused, as the attorney for the dismissed student paints a picture of naivete and victimhood.  He argues the parents do not speak English, the student was unaware of how the application process works in the US, and that she did not expect to have much choice about where to go to college.  And that donation was "made to help underprivileged youth".
IMHO, any family that has $1.2 million laying around to give as a "donation" for their daughter's application did not acquire their wealth by being suckers.  Give me a break.