outside!
DA
I wonder if she got issued the team swag (practice jerseys, warm ups, etc.) that the other players got or was everyone in on the scam?
College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach
- Thread starter Dos Equis
- Start date
She had the uniform and swag to be in the pictures but you don't keep the uniform. They give them to the players cleaned before each game.
Not sure if the other players ever saw her at practice so that might have have been surprising for them to see her at the photos.
Our daughter was considering UCLA just before this and had a official visit. The time demands and sacrifices the players where making after spending some time with them made her pause and reevaluate that's for sure.
Mystery Train
GOLD
My cynical answer is: Three Pac 12 championships, 3 Cup finals appearances, and a national championship will exempt you from being held to the same level of responsibility as random assistant coaches, part-timers, or crew and sailing coaches. You know that if she had a poor record, she'd have been fired for lack of oversight. Not saying it's right or wrong, just true.
The men's coach at UCLA was behind that female non-player being on the women's teams roster. Cromwell was a much newer employee at the university at the time. Whose to say she was not pressured into this by superiors? I have no inside knowledge at all. But that is a plausible scenario. If her superior told her this was going to happen (she would be getting a manager who will be rostered in exchange for a donation to the univeristy), she is not culpible, in my opinion. She is taking orders.
That's exactly where ethics begins.
It depends how it was spun to her. She may have just been told that there was a sizeable donation to the university and she was being a team player. If she knew nothing about the bribe the men's coach took, it comes off as weird that they want me to roster her, but it is not illegal. If you expect a newer coach at UCLA to blow the whistle on her boss and risk her prestigious coaching job over it (which would have likely happened), good luck finding that person.
That's exactly where ethics begins.
USC and UCLA are not easy to get into. About a 10% overall acceptance rate, and kids with GPA's well above 4.0 and high test scores consistently get denied. I am not suggesting it is Ivy league level, but (if you don't have a hook) you generally need to be at the top of your class now to get into either school.
You ignored what I said, smart guy. There was potentially nothing illegal (just strange) about the plausible scenario I presented. That would not be about a lack of ethics. How many football coaches (or any sport) let the guy join their roster even though he will never see the field ... perhaps because he is a kid with connections? It happens all the time.
Legal and ethical are not the same thing.
Feds didn't find a financial trail or transaction to her so she was not charged.
They had the goods, paper trail, finances on the men's coach and some speculation he was a scapegoat
Obviously they had been acquaintances since they both had been at UCLA several years when this broke.
Head coaches are responsible for their programs and it's not like the other teams coach can put players on your roster or make personnel decisions for you. SHe either did some favors, turned a blind eye or let him and/or assistants do things without her knowledge or approval which did raise questions about ethic's and controls in place.
UCLA did their own investigation and decided to retain her.
If they had fired her for doing what the athletic and admissions departments asked, that would have been a juicy lawsuit. It seems to me that if she had refused to go along with the charade they couldn't have fired her then either without some damage or scandal. She went along to try to keep things quiet, which is her ethical shortcoming.
You are assuming the men's coach coerced her into this. What if it was the AD or her direct supervisor who asked this of her? That is what I was proposing.
As for the difference between legal and ethical, is it unethical for a football coach to let the guy he knows will never play - but is the son of a booster, or his next door neighbor - be on the roster. It happends all the time, and that question was ignored. It is the same thing Cromwell did.
I doubt that the men's coach was simply a scapegoat. He pocketed the cash, and from reports, he had a direct relationship with the former USC women's coach. He deserved what he got. I would think he would have implicated someone else in a plea deal if you could have. This wasn't a toothless NCAA investigation, it was the Feds.
Does the football coach accept such a person if he has no skill or history in the game? Even Rudy at Notre Dame had played the game before.
He was the fall guy for AC
"Isackson did not play competitive soccer before matriculating at UCLA, prosecutors say, and yet for an entire season she was listed as a midfielder on the roster of a team that finished the 2017 season as runner-up to national champion Stanford. Her profile on a Pac-12 website says she made no appearances and played no minutes during the season"
When she was admitted as a recruited soccer player in June 2016, a UCLA student-athlete admissions committee required she play on the team for at least one year, the indictment says.
Salcedo sent the girl’s transcript and test scores to an unnamed UCLA women’s soccer coach, according to the indictment. About a month later, the “UCLA Student-Athlete Admissions Committee” approved Isackson for admittance as a recruited non-scholarship athlete, the indictment says.
No soccer experience, but she still got a spot on elite UCLA team in college admissions scandal
Lauren Isackson’s athletic credentials were dwarfed by those of her teammates.
www.latimes.com
The unnamed womens soccer coach is AC's responsibility and they recommend she be admitted, she did not play one year as required but was listed on the roster for the entire season.
Tamberg blamed Jorge Salcedo, UCLA’s men’s soccer coach, for allegedly submitting a “falsified soccer profile”. If that's not scapegoating don't know what is?
We're going through the college process with my Senior daughter, not a soccer player, and if I had an extra $200,000 laying around I might consider the back door approach. Seriously though the whole college process has become such a contrived process, particularly in California. Kudos to any kid that can get into a top notch school without any outside professional consulting on essays and tests. My daughter has a 4.6/4.0 with a heavy load of AP and honors classes with a decent extracurricular resume; however, she hasn't cured cancer, founded a woke startup or grown up in a grass hut raised by hyenas. It's highly unlikely she will get into Berkeley, UCLA or even UCSB.
I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed. And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.
At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job. It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.
I don't condone anything that the Operation Varsity Blues parents did but our University admissions system is FUBAR'ed. And don't get me started on the cost of a college education.
At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that it doesn't matter where you go to school, other than maybe your first job. It's just frustrating to see your child work so hard and get great results in their classes, yet have that be not enough.
Mystery Train
GOLD
This. All day.
Where you got your undergraduate degree means next to nothing when it comes to achieving success in life, personally and professionally. I worked at a kid's after school program when I got out of college and we hired a guy who had just got his bachelor's from Yale, and then canned him in less than a month because he was completely useless. The only thing he accomplished in his incredibly brief time there was to ensure nobody missed that he'd gone to Yale. Years later I was at an electrical engineering firm where we had technicians with 2-year degrees from ITT who ran circles around a guy with an engineering degree from Cambridge. Ancedotes, yes. But the point is, (and all of you should know this from observing the youth club soccer scene) fancy names and branding can't hide lack of talent, grit, determination, and productivity. Ultimately, if you have those qualities, you're going to win, in spite of the fact that lots of people without those things are going to have head-starts because of money, luck, location, or birthright.
The "advantages" of going to these prestigious schools are real, but they are also wildly overvalued. Who is smarter? The kid who gets all their general ed credits out of the way at the local CC, saving their money and working, transfers to SC (the transfer success rate is FAR greater than the freshman acceptance rate) and graduates without debt, or the kid who gets private tutors and academic coaches, rich parents to grease the wheels, and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars (legitimately or otherwise) to get that same degree to hang on the wall?
Messi>CR7
GOLD
Is she trying to get into computer or electrical engineering? 4.6 is certainly higher than the average profile of an incoming freshman at UCSB.