Mass College Admission Cheating Scandal

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Has nothing to do with fairness.

It has everything to do with wealthy people, not all, but many, being entitled cunts.

You engineer the student body your way.  They do it theirs.  It's as old as the human race itself.

[TwiceHorn 31686]

19 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

I don't think it's an unreasonable request. It's not entitlement it's human nature. Every person on this board would do the same, and its rationale and not reasonable for the universities to accommodate. "Morally" if you will it's no different than other non-academic factors employed in admissions.

Um, yeah, if you want to do philanthropy, your first question shouldn't be "what's in it for me and mine."

If you CONDITION your donation to your alma mater on admission of your kin, you are a bit of a cunt.

Even if you don't condition it, but expect special treatment because of your largesse, that may be a bit more subtle, but it doesn't speak particularly well of your motives.

[TKthunder2 5017]

You guys aren’t framing this discussion well at all.  There is a giant difference between
Joe Jamail/Red McCombs grandkids getting “help” and admitted as top 9% (outside the top 6% automatic admission) with above average SAT/ACT scores and them getting admitted as top 20% with shitty SAT/ACT scores.

I don't have much of an issue with the first but I do with the second.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13541]

In all fairness to Mr. Mellon, it was a really big check.

 

[F250 28945]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

LOLz.

by the same token, a shit ton of folks need to wake the fuck up to the fact that the world isn't fair.  I have enjoyed the ying and yang to a certain degree on this aspect of the discussion in this thread overall..

and before someone asks, No, I am way the fuck far off from being one of those kind of (donor) alums.

LOL I am trying to imagine a scenario where a BMD needs to use influence to get their kid into Texas Tech. I think the shame of having to admit your kid is a fucking moron would prevent this from ever happening at TTU.

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

LOL I am trying to imagine a scenario where a BMD needs to use influence to get their kid into Texas Tech. I think the shame of having to admit your kid is a fucking moron would prevent this from ever happening at TTU.

 

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's pretty much an indictment at any school, IMHO.

That doesn't mean that BMD's don't spend their way through shame, regardless of alma mater.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Um, yeah, if you want to do philanthropy, your first question shouldn't be "what's in it for me and mine."

If you CONDITION your donation to your alma mater on admission of your kin, you are a bit of a cunt.

Even if you don't condition it, but expect special treatment because of your largesse, that may be a bit more subtle, but it doesn't speak particularly well of your motives.

That's cute and makes sense in the trailer park. I'm sorry if you got the worn tires.

Again - contributing alumni make just as much sense as the other non-academic criteria.

[HornOnTheBayou 8967]

"I think I could be a philanthropist. a kick ass philanthropist! I would have all this money, and people would love me. Then they would come to me.. and beg! And if I felt like it, I would help them out. And then they would owe me big time! First thing I'm gonna need is a driver. "

[Guest Lobo]

And if you can't fraudulently access scholarship funds, you can always have your street gang pals extort the money for you.  

#8MVBB for life! 

[crash_davis 23158]

apropos this thread, as of late. will be interesting what the outcome is.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-consider-challenges-to-race-conscious-admissions-policies-at-harvard-unc-11643035684

Quote

Supreme Court to Review Race-Conscious Admissions Policies at Harvard, UNC

Justices will weigh conservative-led legal challenges seeking to eliminate race as a factor in college admissions

 

 

Harvard has said it considered race as one factor among many in building diverse classes of students. The Harvard campus in Cambridge, Mass.

PHOTO: ADAM GLANZMAN/BLOOMBERG NEWS

 

 

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said it would decide whether to prohibit the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education, agreeing to consider challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

The court in a brief written order on Monday said it would consider a pair of challenges by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, led by conservative legal activist Edward Blum, which sued both schools on the same day in 2014.

The lawsuit against Harvard alleged the school used quota-like racial-balancing tactics that artificially raised the standards of admission for Asian-American applicants, in violation of federal civil-rights law. The challengers alleged Asians were admitted at a lower rate than whites, even though their overall academic scores were better.

Harvard rejected the claims of discrimination and said it only considered race in a flexible way, as one factor among many in building diverse classes of students.

---

 

Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department supported the lawsuit, but the Biden-era department abandoned that position and offered support for Harvard in a legal brief last month that urged the Supreme Court to turn away the challenge.

A Boston-based U.S. district judge and a federal appeals court each sided with the school.

The lawsuit against UNC was similar to the Harvard allegations, though it added claims that the flagship public university in Chapel Hill violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

UNC said it has made progress on diversity but continues to face challenges in admitting underrepresented minorities.The UNC campus in Chapel Hill, N.C.

PHOTO: GERRY BROOME/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The challengers alleged the school unlawfully factored students’ race into the admissions process, favoring Black, Hispanic and Native American applicants and even caused them harm by inviting them into classrooms for which they weren’t prepared. The university, they said, didn’t fully pursue race-neutral alternatives to diversify its student body.

UNC in court papers said it has made progress on diversity but continues to face challenges in admitting underrepresented minorities. The school said it considered race as one of dozens of factors when evaluating applicants, which “may sometimes tip the balance toward admission in an individual case—but it almost always does not.”

A federal judge sided with UNC in October. The challengers then sought to bypass appellate review, asking the Supreme Court to go ahead and hear the case along with the Harvard litigation.

The Supreme Court is expected to consider the cases during its next term, which begins in October. Under that timeline, a ruling would be expected by June 2023.

Harvard President Lawrence Bacow said the court’s decision to review the cases puts at risk the ability of schools to create diverse campus communities, “which strengthens the learning environment for all.”

He said Harvard would continue to defend its admissions practices. Given the lower courts’ unanimous rulings and Supreme Court precedent on the matter, he said, “there is no persuasive, credible evidence warranting a different outcome.”

UNC spokeswoman Beth Keith said the school would defend its admissions process, which it terms holistic. “As the trial court held, our process is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent and allows for an evaluation of each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way,” she said.

“The cornerstone of our nation’s civil-rights laws is the principle that an individual’s race should not be used to help or harm them in their life’s endeavors,” Mr. Blum said, alleging that Harvard and UNC “racially gerrymandered” their classes to hit quotas. “It is our hope that the justices will end the use of race as an admissions factor at Harvard, UNC and all colleges and universities.”

While declining to comment on the litigation, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration believes “in the benefits of diversity in higher education.”

By taking the cases, the Supreme Court will be directly considering whether to reverse course on more than 40 years of precedent allowing some consideration of race in admissions. Current law permits schools to consider an applicant’s race in narrow ways, but not as a rigid set-aside for minority applicants.

The court’s 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke barred the use of racial quotas but said schools could use race in some circumstances for assembling a diverse student body. In 2003, the court in Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race in admissions. And in 2016 the court ruled the University of Texas at Austin’s process passed constitutional muster, in another case backed by Mr. Blum. Each of the decisions sparked deep divisions at the court.

 

Many selective colleges use what they call a holistic admissions review process, taking into consideration factors including academic credentials, extracurricular achievements and recommendations, as well as an applicant’s background. The goal, admissions officers say, is to ensure they enroll a mix of students whose life experiences and outlooks can enrich the educational opportunities of their classmates.

In writing for the court majority in the 2003 Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the use of racial preferences wouldn’t be necessary 25 years on. Schools, though, say other systemic inequities, including ones baked into the K-12 education system, mean alternative efforts to improve diversity without considering race aren’t yet effective enough on their own.

 

Admissions officers say that just admitting students with the best grades in the hardest classes, or only taking those with top SAT or ACT scores, would close out opportunities for students whose schools had limited course offerings or who couldn’t afford expensive test-prep programs. By admitting students based on just test scores, one Georgetown University study showed, colleges would end up with student populations that are overwhelmingly whiter, wealthier and male.

By also considering an applicant’s background—overcoming hardship, growing up with grandparents or taking care of a younger sibling, or otherwise making the most of limited resources—admissions officers say they can spot other candidates with potential and achieve the aimed-for educational benefits of a diverse class.

Dozens of higher-education leaders have backed Harvard and UNC in the legal battle, as have corporate executives who say their talent pipelines would grow more homogeneous if affirmative action were disallowed.

 

[Guest]

How is this question different than the UT case a couple of years ago? 

[crash_davis 23158]

1 minute ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

How is this question different than the UT case a couple of years ago? 

that's a good question. my thinking is the fact that this court wants to tackle this topic again doesn't bode well for race based criteria. leave well enough alone and that shit.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2119]

15 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

How is this question different than the UT case a couple of years ago? 

UT one wasn’t SCOTUS.  That just governed the 5th circuit.  A few years after, a Michigan one went up and set the nationwide rule. 
 

that meaningless aside aside, I don’t know. The fundamentals are all the same, so viewed from 30,000 feet there will be no differences.  I’m sure the litigants will zoom in on particular details where they want to differentiate.  

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

UT one wasn’t SCOTUS.  That just governed the 5th circuit.  A few years after, a Michigan one went up and set the nationwide rule. 
 

that meaningless aside aside, I don’t know. The fundamentals are all the same, so viewed from 30,000 feet there will be no differences.  I’m sure the litigants will zoom in on particular details where they want to differentiate.  

You sure? The Wiki page says it did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2016)

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2119]

32 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

You sure? The Wiki page says it did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2016)

Oh yeah.  I was thinking of hopwood. 

[Beau Vine 54878]

On 1/20/2022 at 10:40 PM, ABSR said:

scholarships and aid yes.  They do not look at this for admissions.

The hell they don't.

[TexasEd 8146]

On 1/22/2022 at 6:54 PM, TKthunder2 said:

You guys aren’t framing this discussion well at all.  There is a giant difference between
Joe Jamail/Red McCombs grandkids getting “help” and admitted as top 9% (outside the top 6% automatic admission) with above average SAT/ACT scores and them getting admitted as top 20% with shitty SAT/ACT scores.

I don't have much of an issue with the first but I do with the second.

Do any schools do admission/tuition based on qualifications?  I know you can get scholarships if your grades are good enough but what about doing the opposite and charging the marginal admissions a higher tuition that helps fund the scholarships of the better students?

One of the problems I see with that is like out of state tuition you have a financial incentive to enroll more of them for the money and would you be as tough at weeding them out?

 

[crash_davis 23158]

2 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Do any schools do admission/tuition based on qualifications?  I know you can get scholarships if your grades are good enough but what about doing the opposite and charging the marginal admissions a higher tuition that helps fund the scholarships of the better students?

One of the problems I see with that is like out of state tuition you have a financial incentive to enroll more of them for the money and would you be as tough at weeding them out?

 

i'm going to venture a guess and say that will disproportionately impact minorities (not asian) more. and as alluded to upthread, the whole admissions process is a whole lot of undefined, it depends shit. when you have fuzzy criteria like social economic status, achieving beyond an applicants social economic barriers, it becomes a judgement versus quantifiable metrics decision. i'd like for someone in admissions to explain the reasoning for choice if white/asian candidate A has better grades, course work, and scores versus a minority with lower grades, course work, and scores. if there there is one slot remaining, who gets that slot? i imagine the answer is, it depends. also if you don't have standardized and repeatable rules to answer that question, how do you qualify what is a marginal admission, because a marginal admission may be an auto admission if that person were the correct race and socioeconomic status. 

if i'm totally off base, i'd be happy for someone to correct me.

[TKthunder2 5017]

52 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Do any schools do admission/tuition based on qualifications?  I know you can get scholarships if your grades are good enough but what about doing the opposite and charging the marginal admissions a higher tuition that helps fund the scholarships of the better students?

One of the problems I see with that is like out of state tuition you have a financial incentive to enroll more of them for the money and would you be as tough at weeding them out?

No expert, but if I remember correctly concerning Texas they fill up 75% of the incoming class in the top 6-7% in state students then they admit out of state/international students (where they look at GPA/test scores, these are often top tier applicants) and what’s left over is discretionary which is where they often dig deeper and look for racial/socioeconomic diversity applicants.  The assumption/complaints are that in that discretionary allotment, they omit white/Asians with higher grades/scores that may have been top 8% in state and focus only on underrepresented minorities. 

[Samson's Wig 3195]

The answer is to properly fund our state education system so that we can educate all top quality applicants as well as those who may need a leg up for one reason of another.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.  Improving the existing universities in the state is the cleanest road to solving this issue, we just won't do it.  We don't even sink enough tax dollars in to subsidize tuition anywhere near the levels we olds enjoyed.  That would at least prevent the student debt problem for Texas kids.  That money is better spent on graft, toll roads, and suing the federal government over stupid shit I suppose.

[crash_davis 23158]

9 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

The answer is to properly fund our state education system so that we can educate all top quality applicants as well as those who may need a leg up for one reason of another.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.  Improving the existing universities in the state is the cleanest road to solving this issue, we just won't do it.  We don't even sink enough tax dollars in to subsidize tuition anywhere near the levels we olds enjoyed.  That would at least prevent the student debt problem for Texas kids.  That money is better spent on graft, toll roads, and suing the federal government over stupid shit I suppose.

UTexas System could make all the UTexas satellite schools academically comparable to what UC did with their satellite schools, many of them are listed on the Public Ivies list. That would still not make Texas kids want go to those schools. I'd argue that most of the "smarter" middle class and rich kids not getting into Texas and Aggy are going to other universities where college football is relevant: Arkansas, OU, OSU, LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, tOSU, etc. Other kids are going for scenery and legal pot with Colorado schools and Oregon as destinations. I don't think the UTexas satellite schools will ever be first choice for many of the state kids.

UC is able to drive Cali students to their satellite schools because football isn't as important there as it is here. 

[TurkeyChew 383]

44 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

UTexas System could make all the UTexas satellite schools academically comparable to what UC did with their satellite schools, many of them are listed on the Public Ivies list. That would still not make Texas kids want go to those schools. I'd argue that most of the "smarter" middle class and rich kids not getting into Texas and Aggy are going to other universities where college football is relevant: Arkansas, OU, OSU, LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, tOSU, etc. Other kids are going for scenery and legal pot with Colorado schools and Oregon as destinations. I don't think the UTexas satellite schools will ever be first choice for many of the state kids.

UC is able to drive Cali students to their satellite schools because football isn't as important there as it is here. 

This is a pretty spicy take-- is it pure opinion and anecdote or are you slow-playing a link/data/further information? Just curious, because at first blush I wouldn't agree with this.

[crash_davis 23158]

2 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

This is a pretty spicy take-- is it pure opinion and anecdote or are you slow-playing a link/data/further information? Just curious, because at first blush I wouldn't agree with this.

purely anecdotal from the people in my circle and friends of friends. i know of more houston, austin, and dallas kids going to lsu, ole miss, arkansas, ou, osu, colorado, colorado state, oregon, and bama than going to satellite UTexas schools. most of these kids wanted to go to Texas or aggy.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22030]

Well pretty soon UTSA will have the best football program in the system so maybe that will help

[TurkeyChew 383]

3 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

purely anecdotal from the people in my circle and friends of friends. i know of more houston, austin, and dallas kids going to lsu, ole miss, arkansas, ou, osu, colorado, colorado state, oregon, and bama than going to satellite UTexas schools. most of these kids wanted to go to Texas or aggy.

I see the same thing you are seeing, just didn't correlate the football as the driver, but maybe so. I thought it was more the "culture" of the schools.

[crash_davis 23158]

2 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I see the same thing you are seeing, just didn't correlate the football as the driver, but maybe so. I thought it was more the "culture" of the schools.

i think culture and big stadium football games go hand and hand. if a kid wants to go to a school with the full college experience including major sports, football being king, then the kids are probably not going to UTexas schools as 2nd choice (after Texas and aggy).

[TKthunder2 5017]

Aren’t most UC school like within a few miles of a beach?  I assume that has more impact rather than how the football team is.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

That would still not make Texas kids want go to those schools. I'd argue that most of the "smarter" middle class and rich kids not getting into Texas and Aggy are going to other universities where college football is relevant: Arkansas, OU, OSU, LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, tOSU, etc. Other kids are going for scenery and legal pot with Colorado schools and Oregon as destinations. I don't think the UTexas satellite schools will ever be first choice for many of the state kids.

I know UT-D is highly thought of and somewhat difficult to get into, but every one of those "name" schools will be viewed in a better light anywhere I've ever worked.  And I'm not talking just better, seen as an entire tier better.  The rest of the UT system schools (outside of UTMB) doesn't command any respect at all, from my experience.  I fear it will only be worse as aggy bumps up their admissions, and it will take a long time for the successes of their engineering and veterinary (and maybe business) schools to fade the reputation of the entire university.  Basically you'll have even more subpar ags running around living off the merit of their engineering and vet roots.  Anecdotal, of course.  But I've been a part of building teams for a decent amount of time now, and there's named schools that get way too much benefit of the doubt (looking at you LSU and aggy).

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i think culture and big stadium football games go hand and hand. if a kid wants to go to a school with the full college experience including major sports, football being king, then the kids are probably not going to UTexas schools as 2nd choice (after Texas and aggy).

Sports had not one gotdam thing to do with where I went to school or where my kids chose to go.

Career path/ job opportunity, followed closely by economics were the driving factors.

If people are choosing schools for the football experience, why the fuck are they going to A&M?

Edited January 25, 2022 by slorch

[Samson's Wig 3195]

I think football culture as a deciding factor for academically driven kids is dwindling, as is greek culture on college campuses.  Both of those had a major impact for a long time, and as fatty mentioned it plays out in hiring by those generations as well.  Anyone who thinks an education from LSU, Alabama, or Aggie somehow equates to bonus points on a job application has clearly been brainwashed by football.   But those types of folks won't be doing a lot of hiring for much longer.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

39 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I think football culture as a deciding factor for academically driven kids is dwindling, as is greek culture on college campuses.  Both of those had a major impact for a long time, and as fatty mentioned it plays out in hiring by those generations as well.  Anyone who thinks an education from LSU, Alabama, or Aggie somehow equates to bonus points on a job application has clearly been brainwashed by football.   But those types of folks won't be doing a lot of hiring for much longer.

Football and greek life are important to rich kids. 

It sucks the massive wealth and brain drain from Longhorn families to shitty SEC schools.  We have to make our in state public options better.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

51 minutes ago, slorch said:

Sports had not one gotdam thing to do with where I went to school or where my kids chose to go.

Career path/ job opportunity, followed closely by economics were the driving factors.

If people are choosing schools for the football experience, why the fuck are they going to A&M?

Football is branding, and schools have data that shows admissions increase after sports (especially football) do well. Now some of that may be students that want to go to a "good football school" and some just first heard of a school because they won a big bowl, etc.

I think it already is doing it to some degree, but I think the UT System does a decent job of segmenting its offerings:

• As noted UTD has done a nice job of segmenting itself as a leader in STEM
• UTA and UTSA are affordable options for kids who may not get admitted to or scholarships to others places
• The flagship is tough because it is a little bit of everything to everybody and of course has all the history

It's tough at the end of the day both to really distinguish between the "quality" of the actual education. It actually is as much promotion and branding and more importantly networking as anything else in many cases.

[Guest Lobo]

45 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Football and greek life are important to rich kids. 

It sucks the massive wealth and brain drain from Longhorn families to shitty SEC schools.  We have to make our in state public options better.

Greek life at both the UT-Austin campus, and System-wide...as you likely now, is on a downward spiral (though there are a couple of campuses that are exceptions). 

There may be the children of some well-to-do families leaving for the SEC whom are academically talented, but the fact remains...the wealth and intellectual prowess coming to UT-Austin has never been higher.  It's insane how well we're doing (obviously a blip in there for Covid-19 in terms of philanthropy).  And we're only doing better.  If we could strip away about two dozen low-performing programs, we'd comfortably be in the Top 5 of the publics.  But a number of factors keep us below that metric.  

Good news is UT-Austin is way back above where it was when the Top 10% (6%) law was dragging us down.  Third Generation Kappa Sig (not to pick on them, insert whatever name here) who had a 1380 on the SAT not getting in and having to settle for Clemson or Auburn is so far from any serious concern on our campus...you'd be surprised.  The people bitching about it have long since shut up in serious rooms.  

Now, to your last point---developing better state options.  That's a very serious discussion, perhaps for another thread.  The new THECB has serious thoughts on it and are already moving us in a new direction.  But it will further bifurcate the educational offerings in the state, IMHO.  

[TKthunder2 5017]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

If we could strip away about two dozen low-performing programs, we'd comfortably be in the Top 5 of the publics.  But a number of factors keep us below that metric.

Talking to recruiters and consultants, many of our programs in Austin are highly regarded, but the overall view of The University still seems just outside of the elite public tier (Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UNC) and we’re in the next group (Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Georgia Tech, other UC system schools).  I mean that’s nothing to be ashamed of but I’m interested on how we join the elite group that we consider our peers.

Last I heard finishing out the medical school and building the new graduate housing by the baseball fields were the two big facilities projects that could boost our rankings. I’ve been out of it for a while but was curious if there was anything else dragging us down.

[66BUFF 2577]

19 hours ago, crash_davis said:

purely anecdotal from the people in my circle and friends of friends. i know of more houston, austin, and dallas kids going to lsu, ole miss, arkansas, ou, osu, colorado, colorado state, oregon, and bama than going to satellite UTexas schools. most of these kids wanted to go to Texas or aggy.

Hope they are not choosing CU for the football team.

[TexasEd 8146]

20 hours ago, Lobo said:

If we could strip away about two dozen low-performing programs, we'd comfortably be in the Top 5 of the publics.  But a number of factors keep us below that metric.  

 

18 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Talking to recruiters and consultants, many of our programs in Austin are highly regarded, but the overall view of The University still seems just outside of the elite public tier (Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UNC) and we’re in the next group (Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Georgia Tech, other UC system schools).  I mean that’s nothing to be ashamed of but I’m interested on how we join the elite group that we consider our peers.

Last I heard finishing out the medical school and building the new graduate housing by the baseball fields were the two big facilities projects that could boost our rankings. I’ve been out of it for a while but was curious if there was anything else dragging us down.

Here are the colleges, which ones are low performing or were you talking about specific degree programs? From what I have seen I think Education and Nursing could stand to be higher.  Dell Medical may help boost Nursing. Social Work?

• Engineering (Cockrell)
• Education 
• Fine Arts
• Liberal Arts
• Natural Sciences 
• Pharmacy
• Medical (Dell)
• Geosciences (Jackson)
• Public Affairs (LBJ)
• Business (McCombs)
• Communication (Moody) 
• Architecture
• Information (Is this Data Sciences and Analytics?)
• Law
• Nursing 
• Social Work (Steve Hicks)
• Undergraduate Studies (No degrees here, right?)

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Sentenced to 3.5 years.  Closes the book on one of the more fun scandals.

 

Quote

BOSTON — The former college admissions consultant who orchestrated a breathtaking scheme to get the children of wealthy parents into highly selective colleges through bribery, cheating on the SAT and ACT, and fake athletic credentials was sentenced Wednesday to three and a half years in prison for crimes he committed in what became known as the “Varsity Blues” scandal.

 

 

William “Rick” Singer, 62, lured clients with promises to open what he called the “side door” into schools such as the University of Southern California and Yale, Stanford and Georgetown universities. They could pose as recruited athletes, he said — perhaps in water polo, soccer, pole vaulting or tennis — and secure special treatment in admissions. They could also obtain fake SAT or ACT scores through a test-cheating enterprise. The whole scheme was lubricated with bribes, prosecutors said, funneled through sham charities.

‘Three spots’: Alleged bribery of tennis coach stings Georgetown admissions

U.S. District Judge Rya W. Zobel sentenced Singer on Wednesday afternoon at the federal courthouse in Boston, nearly four years after the scandal broke. In addition to the 42-month term, Zobel sentenced Singer to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay millions of dollars in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. He is expected to report to prison on Feb. 27.

 

Advertisement

 

 

Singer, tanned and dressed in a dark suit, showed little emotion in court Wednesday as he read a statement of apology to affected families, universities, the FBI, prosecutors and his own friends and family.

After prosecutors revealed charges in the Varsity Blues case in 2019, it turned out to be the most significant admissions corruption scandal in the modern history of higher education, with revelations that embarrassed prominent universities. More than 50 parents, university athletic officials and other participants have been convicted. “Fraud on an industrial scale,” the government called it.

Two parents who pleaded guilty were actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin. Huffman was sentenced to two weeks in prison for her role in a conspiracy to inflate the SAT score of her older daughter, and Loughlin received a two-month prison sentence for her part in a conspiracy to get her daughters into USC with fake competitive-rowing credentials. Loughlin’s husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, received a five-month sentence.

 

Advertisement

 

 

Singer was at the center of it all, and his sentence was the heaviest so far in the dozens of Varsity Blues cases.

Gordon Ernst, a former tennis coach at Georgetown, was sentenced in July to two and half years in prison for taking bribes to boost the chances for admission for Singer’s clients. That is now the second-longest prison term to result from the scandal.

Ex-Georgetown tennis coach sentenced to 2½ years in admissions scandal

Singer started cooperating with federal investigators in September 2018 after they confronted him. Singer’s help was crucial, prosecutors said, in obtaining emails, recordings of conversations and other evidence that helped build cases against participants in the scam.

From ‘master coach’ to a bribery probe: A college consultant who went off the rails

In March 2019, Singer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors say he was “involved in paying dozens upon dozens of bribes totaling millions of dollars.”

 

Advertisement

 

 

Prosecutors acknowledged that his cooperation proved “hugely significant” to the investigation, but they argued in a sentencing memorandum that Singer should receive a six-year prison term. They said he had tipped off some potential targets who had participated in the conspiracy or were planning to.

“He was the architect and mastermind of a criminal enterprise that massively corrupted the integrity of the college admissions process — which already favors those with wealth and privilege — to a degree never before seen in this country,” Rachael S. Rollins, the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, wrote in the memo.

Prosecutors also recommended three years of supervised release and an order for Singer to forfeit assets traceable to the crimes — worth millions of dollars — and pay more than $10 million in restitution to the IRS.

 

Advertisement

 

 

Singer’s attorneys, Candice L. Fields and A. Neil Hartzell, argued in a memorandum to the court that he should be sentenced to three years of probation, including 12 months of home detention and 750 hours of community service. If the judge deemed incarceration necessary, they wrote, the prison term should be no more than six months.

“Whatever may be said about Rick’s crimes, his cooperation has led to important reforms at great cost to his own safety and reputation,” the attorneys wrote. They added that Singer has “boundless energy and ideas about programming for youth and the underserved. He would be an asset to society if permitted after sentencing to continue his community service efforts. As a man with little interest in wealth, he hopes to atone for his crimes through service to others.”

Bribery scandal points to the athletic factor: A major force in college admissions

Singer’s consulting business, called The Key, had been based in California, but recently he has lived in a trailer park in St. Petersburg, Fla. He has not testified in any of the Varsity Blues trials, according to the sentencing memos, and has struggled to find work. His attorneys wrote that he is willing to relocate anywhere in the United States “and is already in discussions with a Reverend from Hot Springs, Arkansas to introduce his concepts there.” The concepts, they wrote, involve “skill-advancement programs” for a “myriad of consumers.”

 

Advertisement

 

 

In a statement to the court written in November, Singer expressed sorrow “for the pain I caused the students and their families, and the universities and testing agencies.” He pledged to atone for his crimes.

“I can only hope that, once I have served whatever sentence the Court determines is appropriate, the terms of my supervised release will allow me to work/volunteer in service to others and particularly to underserved youth,” he wrote.

Anderson reported from Washington.

 

[huge 3799]

On 1/26/2022 at 10:36 AM, 66BUFF said:

Hope they are not choosing CU for the football team.

What a difference a year makes...