College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach

I think the tax fraud is what makes this all the more problematic - I have a hard time they did not know what they were doing and there is clear intent behind couching the bribes as charitable donations. It's hard for me to think of it as a common mistake - too much intent behind it but maybe I am giving too much credit to the uber-wealthy to know what they were doing was foul.

(And I do think there is a categorical difference between an above-board donation to the school - while greatly enhancing the possibility of admission, it is not a guarantee. As Singer himself said, that's the back door but it was his side door that was the guarantee.)
 
dk_b said:
I think the tax fraud is what makes this all the more problematic - I have a hard time they did not know what they were doing and there is clear intent behind couching the bribes as charitable donations. It's hard for me to think of it as a common mistake - too much intent behind it but maybe I am giving too much credit to the uber-wealthy to know what they were doing was foul.

(And I do think there is a categorical difference between an above-board donation to the school - while greatly enhancing the possibility of admission, it is not a guarantee. As Singer himself said, that's the back door but it was his side door that was the guarantee.)
Click to expand...

For Singer, it was definitely tax fraud, racketeering, money laundering, etc... the question is for the parents, I don’t think they cared if it was a charity or Singer himself, that’s just what Singer wanted them to do. He was the one hiding the money. They simply didn’t pay taxes on the money they paid Singer and improperly deducted the expense.

Just read that Huffman plead guilty to honest services fraud which I think is the most appropriate charge for most parents - however, if you read the wiki, there’s a lot of debate as to whether this statute is even constitutional as it’s so vague, any type of influence to gain preference could be construed as such. They gave the example of a government official getting a priority reservation or table at a restaurant as violating this law. There are no limits here....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud
 
I follow and maybe I'm giving them too much credit but I think that they absolutely knew what they were doing was wrong and figured, "what the F? I'm cool also getting a tax benny out of this. I will pay to Singer's charity".

I know some folks who have had contact with Singer up here in the Bay Area (extended) and he did offer legit services. If you considered paying $500K or more for "guarantees", you can't be that naïve to believe it was on the up and up. My guess is the mental calculus was, "well, I can make a $5MM donation to School X and enhance my kid's chance to get admitted or I can pay this guy $500K to guarantee it. If I do this through his charity, I'll take a deduction, too. A good use of my money. And worth the risk." It's only a problem b/c they got caught - just like in so many other contexts when people express remorse (remorse they got caught, not of the act itself).
 
dk_b said:
I follow and maybe I'm giving them too much credit but I think that they absolutely knew what they were doing was wrong and figured, "what the F? I'm cool also getting a tax benny out of this. I will pay to Singer's charity".

I know some folks who have had contact with Singer up here in the Bay Area (extended) and he did offer legit services. If you considered paying $500K or more for "guarantees", you can't be that naïve to believe it was on the up and up. My guess is the mental calculus was, "well, I can make a $5MM donation to School X and enhance my kid's chance to get admitted or I can pay this guy $500K to guarantee it. If I do this through his charity, I'll take a deduction, too. A good use of my money. And worth the risk." It's only a problem b/c they got caught - just like in so many other contexts when people express remorse (remorse they got caught, not of the act itself).
Click to expand...

I’m with you here, 100%. It’s very possible, if not likely, they thought “hey cool, tax deduction too!”

I’m just not sure if that qualifies as tax fraud... It’s murky and just like we’re wrestling with this, it’d probably be hard for a jury to agree beyond reasonable doubt that they did this with that intent.

At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line. If nothing else, the kids who worked their asses off and got in on their own merit should be extremely proud of themselves. They are the ones who gained the most because it’s the journey that shapes who you are more than the destination.
 
Supermodel56 said:
I’m with you here, 100%. It’s very possible, if not likely, they thought “hey cool, tax deduction too!”

I’m just not sure if that qualifies as tax fraud... It’s murky and just like we’re wrestling with this, it’d probably be hard for a jury to agree beyond reasonable doubt that they did this with that intent.

At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line. If nothing else, the kids who worked their asses off and got in on their own merit should be extremely proud of themselves. They are the ones who gained the most because it’s the journey that shapes who you are more than the destination.
Click to expand...
These parents surely had good lawyers - so you have to assume that they didn't plea out if there wasn't a decent case.

I believe this one could have had to do with their kid. Even though the prosecutors don't seem to be after the kids, in this case, there was a clear path to charge her. The player helped facilitate the conspiracy that the men's coach was a part of. She can't claim that she was not involved.

So I suspect part of the parents settling fast was a guarantee that there would be no charges for their daughter. And they have to cooperate (their daughter too) about the exact details of what happened and who else helped facilitate.
 
Supermodel56 said:
At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with this - I think the parents in this scheme want to convince themselves they were doing it to help their kids but I think it is 100% about the parents' ego. These are wealthy enough people that dropping $1/2 Million is something they can do. Wealth is the ultimate safety-net for any kid so whether that kid attended Yale or USC or Chico State, his/her future is largely secure and the difference of one school over another (and the resulting impact on the kid's future) is marginal at best. So why wouldn't a parent just help the child find the right spot for the kid based on the kid's interest, abilities, drive, future dreams? Because the parents' EGO is all about telling their buddies at the club that "my kid got into Yale. She really is amazing" or "my kid got into USC. He's sure to be a leader. Fight on!"

Would the parents do anything? Yes. But it is for themselves. The kids are afterthoughts.
 
these rich people see elite college admission as jewelry. Just want bragging rights and love to show off their kids.

Immoral as it is, admitting a handful of rich kids whose parents donate money to the school to improve conditions for existing students is ........ugh....ugh...ok as I can see value for the whole. “The whole is greater than it’s parts”.

Trying to get out of paying taxes by deducting these donations that are affecting the “whole” is what I have an issue with.
 
Supermodel56 said:
I’m with you here, 100%. It’s very possible, if not likely, they thought “hey cool, tax deduction too!”

I’m just not sure if that qualifies as tax fraud... It’s murky and just like we’re wrestling with this, it’d probably be hard for a jury to agree beyond reasonable doubt that they did this with that intent.

At the end of the day, you have parents who would do anything to help their kids and lost sight of the line. If nothing else, the kids who worked their asses off and got in on their own merit should be extremely proud of themselves. They are the ones who gained the most because it’s the journey that shapes who you are more than the destination.
Click to expand...

It's tax fraud.
 
dk_b said:
I respectfully disagree with this - I think the parents in this scheme want to convince themselves they were doing it to help their kids but I think it is 100% about the parents' ego. These are wealthy enough people that dropping $1/2 Million is something they can do. Wealth is the ultimate safety-net for any kid so whether that kid attended Yale or USC or Chico State, his/her future is largely secure and the difference of one school over another (and the resulting impact on the kid's future) is marginal at best. So why wouldn't a parent just help the child find the right spot for the kid based on the kid's interest, abilities, drive, future dreams? Because the parents' EGO is all about telling their buddies at the club that "my kid got into Yale. She really is amazing" or "my kid got into USC. He's sure to be a leader. Fight on!"

Would the parents do anything? Yes. But it is for themselves. The kids are afterthoughts.
Click to expand...

I’ll agree, I’m sure there’s ego involved... But only they know what was going through their minds. It was likely a combination of a lot of things... Was it a poor choice? Absolutely.
eastbaysoccer said:
these rich people see elite college admission as jewelry. Just want bragging rights and love to show off their kids.

Immoral as it is, admitting a handful of rich kids whose parents donate money to the school to improve conditions for existing students is ........ugh....ugh...ok as I can see value for the whole. “The whole is greater than it’s parts”.

Trying to get out of paying taxes by deducting these donations that are affecting the “whole” is what I have an issue with.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s quite how they see it... sure there’s the element of pride being able to say your kid goes to XYZ school - But so does everyone else on this forum...

But regarding the tax issue, it’s not what you think. The wealthy don’t think about it as, “we get to save on taxes by donating to this charity”, rather when they donate to the charity, they see a $500k donation as only costing them $250k because the gov would’ve taken half of the $500k in taxes anyway. They don’t get to keep the tax savings. They actually spend more and keep less by giving to a tax deductible cause than if they were to not donate at all.
 
SAT exam reportedly to give students "adversity score" in bid to level playing field
BY BRIAN PASCUS

MAY 16, 2019 / 10:03 AM / CBS NEWS

A new "adversity score" assigned by the College Board on the SAT exam will reportedly reflect students' family income, environment and educational differences in an effort to level the playing field in the highly competitive college admissions process. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that 50 schools used the new indicator as part of a beta test last year and the College Board plans to bring more than 150 schools into the fold this fall.

The College Board is a New York-based non-profit that is in charge of overseeing the SAT. A dialogue about wealth and privilege in educational institutions exploded this year in wake of the college admissions scandal, in which 33 parentswere charged with paying huge sums of money to have their children cheat on the SAT and be admitted into top colleges under the false pretenses of being student athletes.
Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

According to the Journal, a score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege." The College Board did not immediately respond to a CBS News request for more information about the methodology behind its calculation of the adversity score and if other factors are considered.

The Journal reported that this new score will appear alongside a student's SAT score and will be featured in a section labeled the "Environmental Context Dashboard." The adversity score's formal name on the dashboard is "Overall Disadvantage Level," but it has been colloquially called the "adversity score" by college admissions officers, per The Journal's article.
 
Colleges already take all these factors into consideration. The first read of an application is by someone that is familiar with the student’s school. Not everyone financially secure spends money on test prepare and college advising, so this system would penalize those students.

Also essay questions provide a good opportunity for student to discuss challenges they faced.

Another good reason to take the ACT.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
SAT exam reportedly to give students "adversity score" in bid to level playing field
BY BRIAN PASCUS

MAY 16, 2019 / 10:03 AM / CBS NEWS

A new "adversity score" assigned by the College Board on the SAT exam will reportedly reflect students' family income, environment and educational differences in an effort to level the playing field in the highly competitive college admissions process. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that 50 schools used the new indicator as part of a beta test last year and the College Board plans to bring more than 150 schools into the fold this fall.

The College Board is a New York-based non-profit that is in charge of overseeing the SAT. A dialogue about wealth and privilege in educational institutions exploded this year in wake of the college admissions scandal, in which 33 parentswere charged with paying huge sums of money to have their children cheat on the SAT and be admitted into top colleges under the false pretenses of being student athletes.
Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student's adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student's family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual's adversity score on a scale of one to 100.

According to the Journal, a score of 50 is considered "average." Anything above 50 proves "hardship" while anything below 50 is considered "privilege." The College Board did not immediately respond to a CBS News request for more information about the methodology behind its calculation of the adversity score and if other factors are considered.

The Journal reported that this new score will appear alongside a student's SAT score and will be featured in a section labeled the "Environmental Context Dashboard." The adversity score's formal name on the dashboard is "Overall Disadvantage Level," but it has been colloquially called the "adversity score" by college admissions officers, per The Journal's article.
Click to expand...
Just reading that makes me want to cheat.
 
espola said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I would hope in this day and age we could strive to provide equal educational opportunities for children in underprivileged neighborhoods. A rubric like this above pretty much gives up on that. Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do not crazily control their kids' lives.
 
Real Deal said:
I would hope in this day and age we could strive to provide equal educational opportunities for children in underprivileged neighborhoods. A rubric like this above pretty much gives up on that. Plus... exactly as Nefutous points out above, it then becomes unfair to "median" or even affluent families who chose not to throw thousands at test study programs and collge consultants- in other words it could serve to penalize those who do not crazily control their kids' lives.
Click to expand...

Rubric? You lost me.
 
espola said:
Rubric? You lost me.
Click to expand...

Oh forget it. I was being sarcastic in the first place. But can't you see how it might be more beneficial to do something like providing free test prep services to underprivileged students instead?

Another option could be for them to hire test proctors who don't accept bribes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top