|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 13, 2019 9:37:32 GMT -5
Your point is a very good one.....but... The difference in this scandal is that the money wasn't going to build a gym or library or enhance the university in any way. Rogue players were pocketing the money. And while doing so they were taking actions that were hampering other departments and employees. You can cheat your way into a college, but just do it the 'right' way. Yes I agree, but you are not contradicting my point. This case is illegal because scoundrels pocket the money instead of the school. But let's not kid ourselves that college admissions is based solely on merits of the applicant. Harvard can fill its entire frosh class with applicants with perfect grades and SAT/ACT scores, a boatload of extra-curriculars and references, etc. There will always be rejected applicants who can make an argument that they should be admitted over another applicant who was admitted (the same is true for any employment position). The Bakke decision by the Supreme Court, which outlawed racial quotas, but ratified the use of diversity criteria, resulted in legitimizing a wide-range of criteria--including legacies, athletes, special talents, donations and socio-economic status--as considerations for admissions to colleges and universities. There's no doubt that this case highlights the worst of the possibilities with the existing admissions processes, but there's also no doubt that our Universities have also contributed greatly to the strength of our country in terms of its intellectual, economic and social strength and diversity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 9:40:39 GMT -5
Mick had no involvement with the sand team. You do not get my point. The girl that was bribing her way in had some VB experience so they wanted to use that route to get her in. Donna went with sand with this girl. Sand pushed back because indoor has more schollies. Donna then had ANOTHER girl that she had already said was indoor (same time Aug 2017) and was going present to admissions (todd and diane blake) so Donna was likely panicking. Two VB recruits (both of which did not play VB), one through Sand and one through Indoor. Donna was pushing them through admissions AND the Sand Coach FOUND OUT. It was only a matter of time before Haley found out Donna had done the same with Indoor. Donna fixed the sand situation (girl would never join team or take schollie from team) but what if Mick found out about the Indoor girl? The girl (BLAKE) was admitted and Mick might be asked. Donna had to get rid of Mick or be exposed as a Felon. What did Donna do? Fired Mick right before the Blake girl received her admission letter based on Indoor VB. Still not sure I'm following. So you think the athletics coach, whether it was Mick or anyone hired to replace Mick, wouldn't "figure out" that there was something odd going on when a senior athletic director is telling that coach who to use his or her scholarships towards? Just trust the senior AD, sight unseen, that this girl she's pushing into his/her program is going to be worth the scholarship? And even if that's the case, when this recruit shows up and obviously doesn't play the sport...?
|
|
|
Post by vbkahuna on Mar 13, 2019 10:03:59 GMT -5
This thread is experiencing "peak schadenfreude" this morning. It's like the nuking of "Deep Campus" and assorted careers and university reputations rising in a dirty mushroom cloud.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 13, 2019 10:14:05 GMT -5
Yes I agree, but you are not contradicting my point. This case is illegal because scoundrels pocket the money instead of the school. But let's not kid ourselves that college admissions is based solely on merits of the applicant. Harvard can fill its entire frosh class with applicants with perfect grades and SAT/ACT scores, a boatload of extra-curriculars and references, etc. There will always be rejected applicants who can make an argument that they should be admitted over another applicant who was admitted (the same is true for any employment position). The Bakke decision by the Supreme Court, which outlawed racial quotas, but ratified the use of diversity criteria, resulted in legitimizing a wide-range of criteria--including legacies, athletes, special talents, donations and socio-economic status--as considerations for admissions to colleges and universities. There's no doubt that this case highlights the worst of the possibilities with the existing admissions processes, but there's also no doubt that our Universities have also contributed greatly to the strength of our country in terms of its intellectual, economic and social strength and diversity. I am aware of that, and people can manipulate that process. I am not saying universities does not contribute to the well-being of our country, clearly it has. But is everyone so deserving of that college spot? Hmmmm.....
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Mar 13, 2019 10:18:03 GMT -5
Harvard can fill its entire frosh class with applicants with perfect grades and SAT/ACT scores, a boatload of extra-curriculars and references, etc. There will always be rejected applicants who can make an argument that they should be admitted over another applicant who was admitted (the same is true for any employment position). The Bakke decision by the Supreme Court, which outlawed racial quotas, but ratified the use of diversity criteria, resulted in legitimizing a wide-range of criteria--including legacies, athletes, special talents, donations and socio-economic status--as considerations for admissions to colleges and universities. There's no doubt that this case highlights the worst of the possibilities with the existing admissions processes, but there's also no doubt that our Universities have also contributed greatly to the strength of our country in terms of its intellectual, economic and social strength and diversity. I am aware of that, and people can manipulate that process. I am not saying universities does not contribute to the well-being of our country, clearly it has. But is everyone so deserving of that college spot? Hmmmm..... People who say college isn't for everyone are usually talking about other people's children.
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on Mar 13, 2019 10:18:39 GMT -5
You do not get my point. The girl that was bribing her way in had some VB experience so they wanted to use that route to get her in. Donna went with sand with this girl. Sand pushed back because indoor has more schollies. Donna then had ANOTHER girl that she had already said was indoor (same time Aug 2017) and was going present to admissions (todd and diane blake) so Donna was likely panicking. Two VB recruits (both of which did not play VB), one through Sand and one through Indoor. Donna was pushing them through admissions AND the Sand Coach FOUND OUT. It was only a matter of time before Haley found out Donna had done the same with Indoor. Donna fixed the sand situation (girl would never join team or take schollie from team) but what if Mick found out about the Indoor girl? The girl (BLAKE) was admitted and Mick might be asked. Donna had to get rid of Mick or be exposed as a Felon. What did Donna do? Fired Mick right before the Blake girl received her admission letter based on Indoor VB. Still not sure I'm following. So you think the athletics coach, whether it was Mick or anyone hired to replace Mick, wouldn't "figure out" that there was something odd going on when a senior athletic director is telling that coach who to use his or her scholarships towards? Just trust the senior AD, sight unseen, that this girl she's pushing into his/her program is going to be worth the scholarship? And even if that's the case, when this recruit shows up and obviously doesn't play the sport...? I would have thought most of these "players" were "recruited walk-ons", not scholarship athletes....
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 13, 2019 10:22:15 GMT -5
I am aware of that, and people can manipulate that process. I am not saying universities does not contribute to the well-being of our country, clearly it has. But is everyone so deserving of that college spot? Hmmmm..... People who say college isn't for everyone are usually talking about other people's children. Clearly. That reminds me. There is a whole topic somewhere about whether college is still "worth it", if I recalled. With the tsunami of student debt and rising student tuition and government cutbacks in funding...does make some people wonder. If you are going to college to get a professional degree (i.e. lawyer, doctor, architect, engineer, etc), fine. But if you are going to spend $150,000 on some obscure degree on Latin or English poetry and no clear career path afterwards, does make you wonder about it...unless of course you or your family are loaded, then that's a different story.
|
|
|
Post by jake on Mar 13, 2019 10:23:14 GMT -5
Yes I agree, but you are not contradicting my point. This case is illegal because scoundrels pocket the money instead of the school. But let's not kid ourselves that college admissions is based solely on merits of the applicant. Harvard can fill its entire frosh class with applicants with perfect grades and SAT/ACT scores, a boatload of extra-curriculars and references, etc. There will always be rejected applicants who can make an argument that they should be admitted over another applicant who was admitted (the same is true for any employment position). The Bakke decision by the Supreme Court, which outlawed racial quotas, but ratified the use of diversity criteria, resulted in legitimizing a wide-range of criteria--including legacies, athletes, special talents, donations and socio-economic status--as considerations for admissions to colleges and universities. There's no doubt that this case highlights the worst of the possibilities with the existing admissions processes, but there's also no doubt that our Universities have also contributed greatly to the strength of our country in terms of its intellectual, economic and social strength and diversity. It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel!
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Mar 13, 2019 10:28:22 GMT -5
Is no one talking about Bill Ferguson and Wake Forest?
$10K to the school booster club $40K to the volleyball program $50K to the Bill Ferguson volleyball camps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 10:43:58 GMT -5
You do not get my point. The girl that was bribing her way in had some VB experience so they wanted to use that route to get her in. Donna went with sand with this girl. Sand pushed back because indoor has more schollies. Donna then had ANOTHER girl that she had already said was indoor (same time Aug 2017) and was going present to admissions (todd and diane blake) so Donna was likely panicking. Two VB recruits (both of which did not play VB), one through Sand and one through Indoor. Donna was pushing them through admissions AND the Sand Coach FOUND OUT. It was only a matter of time before Haley found out Donna had done the same with Indoor. Donna fixed the sand situation (girl would never join team or take schollie from team) but what if Mick found out about the Indoor girl? The girl (BLAKE) was admitted and Mick might be asked. Donna had to get rid of Mick or be exposed as a Felon. What did Donna do? Fired Mick right before the Blake girl received her admission letter based on Indoor VB. Still not sure I'm following. So you think the athletics coach, whether it was Mick or anyone hired to replace Mick, wouldn't "figure out" that there was something odd going on when a senior athletic director is telling that coach who to use his or her scholarships towards? Just trust the senior AD, sight unseen, that this girl she's pushing into his/her program is going to be worth the scholarship? And even if that's the case, when this recruit shows up and obviously doesn't play the sport...? No that is not what happened. You have to read the hundreds of pages. The AAD at USC was adding additional PSAs to the list that the coaches submitted to the AAD. Essentially the AAD was adding more "walk ons" that needed to be presented to admissions for special consideration. The AAD was only doing this for the sports that she did not have coaches that were also getting bribed (at USC waterpolo coach was also in on it). Sand VB and Indoor (and the other sports not cooperating with the AAD) had no idea these students existed (read the pole vaulter's case) but near the time that Haley was fired, Sand VB had found out about one of them and asked the AAD about it. Additionally, prep schools had called admissions about the terrible student (aunt becky's kid) that clearly put no effort into school, work, athletics to ask how the eff she was admitted to USC. Donna was playing whack a mole trying to cover up multiple fake athletes that she had been bribed to let in at the exact same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 10:46:17 GMT -5
You do not get my point. The girl that was bribing her way in had some VB experience so they wanted to use that route to get her in. Donna went with sand with this girl. Sand pushed back because indoor has more schollies. Donna then had ANOTHER girl that she had already said was indoor (same time Aug 2017) and was going present to admissions (todd and diane blake) so Donna was likely panicking. Two VB recruits (both of which did not play VB), one through Sand and one through Indoor. Donna was pushing them through admissions AND the Sand Coach FOUND OUT. It was only a matter of time before Haley found out Donna had done the same with Indoor. Donna fixed the sand situation (girl would never join team or take schollie from team) but what if Mick found out about the Indoor girl? The girl (BLAKE) was admitted and Mick might be asked. Donna had to get rid of Mick or be exposed as a Felon. What did Donna do? Fired Mick right before the Blake girl received her admission letter based on Indoor VB. Still not sure I'm following. So you think the athletics coach, whether it was Mick or anyone hired to replace Mick, wouldn't "figure out" that there was something odd going on when a senior athletic director is telling that coach who to use his or her scholarships towards? Just trust the senior AD, sight unseen, that this girl she's pushing into his/her program is going to be worth the scholarship? And even if that's the case, when this recruit shows up and obviously doesn't play the sport...? These kids were presented as walk ons to admissions. At USC, they were not selling scholarships, they were selling admission to rich people with kids too lazy or too stupid to get in.
|
|
|
Post by jake on Mar 13, 2019 10:47:18 GMT -5
Private schools have no admissions' requirements.
They do what they want,...and report to who they want.
Isn't this all moot?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 10:53:19 GMT -5
Private schools have no admissions' requirements. They do what they want,...and report to who they want. Isn't this all moot? Tax Evasion (the bribes were passed through a charity so these people could deduct off their taxes), Fraud, Wire Fraud usually are not moot to the people in prison for them. On the tax evasion/fraud alone, over 80% of the cases I read through took the tax deduction. Those parents HAVE to serve time in prison or the public loses faith in the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 10:56:08 GMT -5
It's not small amounts of money either. If you just write it as-- --Someone cheated the government out of 250,000 dollars, you'd take that as a serious crime. If it was Jack Smith instead of Lori Loughlin, people would demand maximum penalties but because she's pretty and a TV star, things will get rationalized. I am also not dumb. There are smart rich people out there also. They donate buildings or endow departments to get the kids in rather than using middle men Private schools have no admissions' requirements. They do what they want,...and report to who they want. Isn't this all moot? Tax Evasion (the bribes were passed through a charity so these people could deduct off their taxes), Fraud, Wire Fraud usually are not moot to the people in prison for them. On the tax evasion/fraud alone, over 80% of the cases I read through took the tax deduction. Those parents HAVE to serve time in prison or the public loses faith in the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 10:57:12 GMT -5
This thread is experiencing "peak schadenfreude" this morning. It's like the nuking of "Deep Campus" and assorted careers and university reputations rising in a dirty mushroom cloud. Sorry, I was admitted to college to play a sport so I am not sure what your post means as those classes were not on my approved list.
|
|