College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach

I know a handful of people that are fairly wealthy. They all have pretty f’ed up family lives. They tend to just “throw money” at problems.
 
"Son defends parents caught in college admissions scandal while smoking blunt" ...this guy also gets style points...even took the opportunity to promote his Rap CD...


https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/son-d...llege-admissions-scandal-while-smoking-blunt/
Omg.....smh.
What is striking to me is that many of these parents have Ivy league educations themselves so they should have some idea of the work it takes to get there and once there, then graduate. You would think they would value the hard work - meaning, they should have known if their kid was on track to get into one these top schools on their own. If Olivia Jade or whoever, is not pulling the grades in high school, maybe get a tutor? Maybe tell her to get off social media? You know, maybe be a parent?!!
One of our main jobs as parents is to make sure our kids grow up to be happy, well adjusted and hopefully be contributing members of our society. All of those parents failed big time and in the process, cheated not only their own kids, but those who truly should have been accepted into those schools. I hope all of them receive the maximum sentence.
 
I know a handful of people that are fairly wealthy. They all have pretty f’ed up family lives. They tend to just “throw money” at problems.
Yep, I know several too. When I was younger, after I had just graduated from a Cal State school, I became friends with a girl who had just graduated USC. Her family was extremely wealthy and she had everything that I basically didn't - a sports car, designer clothes and jewelry, a townhouse, and a paycheck every two weeks that came from her father's company, even though she never worked there. Girlfriend was SO unhappy--she had no direction or purpose. I could never understand it--she had it all and she was actually very smart. She was also so spoiled and she behaved like a brat at times. I remember one birthday party in which her Mom took about 20 of her friends to brunch. She opened one of her gifts which happened to be a designer watch (at least 2k) but she threw a fit there because it was the wrong color or style...I can't remember.
I swear, I'm happy I knew her because she did influence me as what NOT to do with my own kids! But I never want to say that this makes me better than these people --although, I'd be lying if I didn't feel a tiny bit better about my own parenting right now. I would say that, we as parents, always want what is best for our kids and sometimes, in this crazy world, our judgment and thinking gets warped and we don't always make the best decisions.
 
I know a handful of people that are fairly wealthy. They all have pretty f’ed up family lives. They tend to just “throw money” at problems.
SMH - I know a handful of middle class families. They all have pretty f'ed up lives. They spend more money that they can afford on club soccer, soccer trainers, $200 cleats, futsal, gas, travel, etc.... maybe they are the exception, not the rule.
 
This whole thing makes me sad for the kids that worked their ass off and got into these institutions by their own hard work. Now they have to deal with people giving them sh*t over their coach's ethics or people questioning how they actually made it in (although many girls I know at Ivys are by no means "rich")
 

I absolutely think this is the right direction and if allowed, will send a strong enough message to end the corruption and perhaps even establish more transparency and oversight into the admissions process. Most of these schools have large enough endowments that a class action suit won't impact student fees, etc... Too many kids worked so hard to earn their degrees and things like this definitely undermine and unfairly raise questions to their achievements.
 
One of my biggest pet peeves about this is the implication getting an undergraduate degree from a fancy college is all that it takes to be successful in life. I happen to have one of those degrees and I can confirm it takes a helluva lot more than that. Nor is it a prerequisite. None of the senior executives in the US multinational I work for have such degrees. A fake Yale soccer player isn't going to be given a spot on the US National Team and a software company isn't going to hire someone to be a software engineer who doesn't know how to code.
 
I absolutely think this is the right direction and if allowed, will send a strong enough message to end the corruption and perhaps even establish more transparency and oversight into the admissions process. Most of these schools have large enough endowments that a class action suit won't impact student fees, etc... Too many kids worked so hard to earn their degrees and things like this definitely undermine and unfairly raise questions to their achievements.

Relax. This class action lawsuit will be rightfully dismissed in short order. Universities do not break the law when one of their employees takes a bribe, and when they say they're the victim, they are. You do know this lawsuit was filed by two Stanford students who claim that they were harmed because "I would have gone to Yale instead" and "my Stanford degree is now worth less." This is utter b.s., and they are forcing universities to take money that could be used to provide services and spend it on attorneys, just so they and their bottom-feeding attorneys can line their own pockets. And with respect to UCLA, that's your taxpayer dollars at work.

You are also completely over-reacting. There are 700,000 students in the UC and CSU systems. Of them, a grand total of one that we know about got into a CA public school based on this fraudulent scheme, yet you want to punish UCLA for the actions of a rogue employee? Even the private schools did not receive a penny as a result of the scheme, and none are ok with what happened. This scheme has nothing to do with "corruption" by institutions of higher learning. Rather, it seems like you're just pissed and jealous that rich people get their children into schools like Yale by donating $10 million to the endowment. But they deserve to get into Yale, because that money is very useful for those who aren't rich but who get in based on grades, test scores and real athletic merit.
 
One of my biggest pet peeves about this is the implication getting an undergraduate degree from a fancy college is all that it takes to be successful in life. I happen to have one of those degrees and I can confirm it takes a helluva lot more than that. Nor is it a prerequisite. None of the senior executives in the US multinational I work for have such degrees. A fake Yale soccer player isn't going to be given a spot on the US National Team and a software company isn't going to hire someone to be a software engineer who doesn't know how to code.


Yeah, there have never been graduating students from top schools hired without being fully qualified, lol.
 

Great, two kids and some lawyers trying to find a way to make some money or gain attention from this serious issue. They are worried that when they graduate from STANFORD that some one might not given them the job they want or pay them less because of this scandal or they wasted $85 on their USC application? Talk about first world problems. This entire story is stunning but this latest twist is just plain ridiculous.
 
Great, two kids and some lawyers trying to find a way to make some money or gain attention from this serious issue. They are worried that when they graduate from STANFORD that some one might not given them the job they want or pay them less because of this scandal or they wasted $85 on their USC application? Talk about first world problems. This entire story is stunning but this latest twist is just plain ridiculous.

Holy s**t. Good advice from simisoccerfan. Apparently hell is freezing over just like what will happen in CO in late April.
 
Relax. This class action lawsuit will be rightfully dismissed in short order. Universities do not break the law when one of their employees takes a bribe, and when they say they're the victim, they are. You do know this lawsuit was filed by two Stanford students who claim that they were harmed because "I would have gone to Yale instead" and "my Stanford degree is now worth less." This is utter b.s., and they are forcing universities to take money that could be used to provide services and spend it on attorneys, just so they and their bottom-feeding attorneys can line their own pockets. And with respect to UCLA, that's your taxpayer dollars at work.

You are also completely over-reacting. There are 700,000 students in the UC and CSU systems. Of them, a grand total of one that we know about got into a CA public school based on this fraudulent scheme, yet you want to punish UCLA for the actions of a rogue employee? Even the private schools did not receive a penny as a result of the scheme, and none are ok with what happened. This scheme has nothing to do with "corruption" by institutions of higher learning. Rather, it seems like you're just pissed and jealous that rich people get their children into schools like Yale by donating $10 million to the endowment. But they deserve to get into Yale, because that money is very useful for those who aren't rich but who get in based on grades, test scores and real athletic merit.
A agree with you, the lawsuit is weak mainly because it will be hard to prove any actual real damages.

I also agree the corruption wasn't with the schools, but with a few individuals.

But I don't buy the schools saying they are the victims. Admission to these schools, particularly the public ones, have been highly fought over for years. Within this, these schools have set up a preferred admission track for kids who have other areas where they will contribute to the school (like athletics). I think most of us agree this is great.

In setting that up though, the schools are responsible to make sure that their process provides the proper oversight so that scandals like this don't happen. And in these cases, it doesn't seem that they have done this. That is their responsibility to run an honest process. And it's not like it would be too strenuous of a process to administer properly.
 
What a joke to sue the Universities and thereby causing those students rightfully there more money.

I called it about a class action lawsuit but I think they should figure out a way to go after the wealthy parents that did the bribing and have money.

So interesting about the class action law suit. So with 65,000 applicants to USC this last year, one students family cheated to get their daughter in, so which of the approximately 60,000 students who did not get in can prove they were the "one" who didn't make it because of that student. If you are that good of a student/athlete etc. you probably applied to 8 or 9 schools and got in one of your school choices. A bigger problem that needs to be addressed is the number of international students, in the THOUSANDS, who inter US universities thus taking spots of US students. Universities love international students because in most cases they pay all cash at a higher tuition rate than in state students. How verified are their classes, transcripts, and schools?? The current charges are bad but the problem with international students is potentially far worse . Certainly there are many qualified international students but with the large numbers I would imagine there are many, many who are not as qualified as US applicants.
 
A agree with you, the lawsuit is weak mainly because it will be hard to prove any actual real damages.

I also agree the corruption wasn't with the schools, but with a few individuals.

But I don't buy the schools saying they are the victims. Admission to these schools, particularly the public ones, have been highly fought over for years. Within this, these schools have set up a preferred admission track for kids who have other areas where they will contribute to the school (like athletics). I think most of us agree this is great.

In setting that up though, the schools are responsible to make sure that their process provides the proper oversight so that scandals like this don't happen. And in these cases, it doesn't seem that they have done this. That is their responsibility to run an honest process. And it's not like it would be too strenuous of a process to administer properly.

OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never happened? How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance? Should they have been paying someone $50,000 a year to make sure that one person in history didn't slip through based on this particular kind of fraud? Should it hire someone else to make sure this doesn't happen with the music or film departments? And then multiply that number by every UC plus and at least Cal Poly. That's just a waste of money. Seriously, if you'd known that UCLA had been paying someone $50K a year to prevent this kind of fraud a year ago, when it could have been using that money on student services or a scholarship instead, you'd probably also be saying it was wasting money.

The fact is that UCLA and other schools put a lot of money and effort into compliance and they can't catch everything, and that should not be the standard. What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.
 
It
OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never happened? How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance? Should they have been paying someone $50,000 a year to make sure that one person in history didn't slip through based on this particular kind of fraud? Should it hire someone else to make sure this doesn't happen with the music or film departments? And then multiply that number by every UC plus and at least Cal Poly. That's just a waste of money. Seriously, if you'd known that UCLA had been paying someone $50K a year to prevent this kind of fraud a year ago, when it could have been using that money on student services or a scholarship instead, you'd probably also be saying it was wasting money.

The fact is that UCLA and other schools put a lot of money and effort into compliance and they can't catch everything, and that should not be the standard. What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.
It's a fair argument - and one that is often made when these things happen. I don't know the answer.

But, I do know that this is the big reason that side doors get shut down - it happens in business all the time. Too hard to regulate and control.

And I don't think any of us think that is a good idea. So the bottom line is these schools need to do better and be less focused on claiming they are victims.
 
Relax. This class action lawsuit will be rightfully dismissed in short order. Universities do not break the law when one of their employees takes a bribe, and when they say they're the victim, they are. You do know this lawsuit was filed by two Stanford students who claim that they were harmed because "I would have gone to Yale instead" and "my Stanford degree is now worth less." This is utter b.s., and they are forcing universities to take money that could be used to provide services and spend it on attorneys, just so they and their bottom-feeding attorneys can line their own pockets. And with respect to UCLA, that's your taxpayer dollars at work.

You are also completely over-reacting. There are 700,000 students in the UC and CSU systems. Of them, a grand total of one that we know about got into a CA public school based on this fraudulent scheme, yet you want to punish UCLA for the actions of a rogue employee? Even the private schools did not receive a penny as a result of the scheme, and none are ok with what happened. This scheme has nothing to do with "corruption" by institutions of higher learning. Rather, it seems like you're just pissed and jealous that rich people get their children into schools like Yale by donating $10 million to the endowment. But they deserve to get into Yale, because that money is very useful for those who aren't rich but who get in based on grades, test scores and real athletic merit.

First off, we’re an Ivy household, we’re not among the super rich but we’ve got enough and have nothing to be jealous of, so get over yourself.

Second, you’re assuming this is the only case. this case is just one of likely many... the fact that it’s gotten so much attention has implications - and you don’t need millions to bribe someone - so unless they actually start putting some oversight into this, it’s going to get worse.

On the one hand, what’s the big deal right? The wealthy kids will always have an advantage - it’s the same reason we work hard, so we can provide better opportunities for our kids.

However, if this doesn’t get nipped in the bud, it will explode. There needs to be integrity in the system and the rules of the game should be open to all. Otherwise, it will become THE WAY to get into college - bribe someone. As an example you will soon see clubs getting involved - using club funds to give kickbacks to college coaches so they can claim - look! Our entire graduating class through C teams is fully committed! Come play for Slammers, Surf, Beach, whatever...

at some point, a DOC’s employment will depend on their ability to get players recruited and how far they’re willing to go.

Am I against the wealthy donating a building to get their kid in? No. In fact, as a strong believer in free markets, one could even argue that spots at schools should go to not only the academically qualified, but the highest bidders among them - you’re paying for the education and supporting the school why should you subsidize some other kids education? Start with those willing to pay the most and then go down from there.

But how is this case different? It brings into question who got in how. The benefit of a school name currently is twofold - one the network, but two it checks a figurative box that you’re somewhat intelligent, have a certain work ethic to get to where you were, etc... You had to do something that stands above the rest to get in. This undermines the credibility of the institution as well as the degree - there are damages that can be quantified.

The question is were the universities negligent by not setting up oversight? Was this type of behavior encouraged, did they look the other way? How prevalent was this?
 
OK, how much more should UCLA have paid in salary and taxpayer dollars to hire additional auditors to have ensured in advance that this never happened? How much should UCLA pay in salary to additional staff to audit every other esoteric type of potential fraud to ensure it doesn't happen in advance?

...What you expect is perfect oversight, not appropriate oversight.

Can I answer, please? I would pay ZERO, nothing, zilch additional $ for additional oversight. The people that were already there (coaches, admissions staff, athletic department) failed to provide appropriate oversight, in many cases. Yes, mistakes are made, no one is perfect, but they did not do their job. For example ...

At USC, a non-kicker made the admit/walk-on list/roster for football. I know several people who have played football at USC, including ones that were "walk-ons." This list is a very closely controlled and monitored list by the coaching staff. You do not accidentally end up there, or go unnoticed once on.

At UCLA, a non-recruited "soccer" player (I am being generous) received an athletic admit and was included in the women's soccer roster and media guide. Those guides and rosters are edited and reviewed by multiple people including, in most cases, the coaching staff.

Choose the explanation -- complicity or incompetence. They failed to provide the appropriate oversight of their programs, or exhibited extremely poor judgment.
 
Back
Top