Entrance Exam Cheating Scandal

[Not A Serious Person]

just curious, but don't our federal authorities have better things to do than go after universities and celebrities?  Wouldn't this fit under the concept of victimless crime?  Is paying lots of money to get them into school really a crime?

Scamming a tax-exempt foundation for personal gain is not a victimless crime.

This is something that jail time is handed out for.

[warriorchick]

Good article with lots of jaw-dropping details:

https://deadspin.com/here-are-all-the-incredible-details-from-the-college-ad-1833236579

[Lennys Tap]

Wouldn't potential "victims" be students not admitted on the merits because they were passed up by fake applications, scores and resumes?   I wouldn't call that without victims.

Absolutely. Would love to see jail time for these creeps.

[nyg]

just curious, but don't our federal authorities have better things to do than go after universities and celebrities?  Wouldn't this fit under the concept of victimless crime?  Is paying lots of money to get them into school really a crime?

The main subject received over 25 million dollars for bribing public and private individuals and defrauding universities.  Like Cheeks stated, the victims are the potential students who did not gain acceptance due to this activity and the monetary loss for tax evasion.  The tax liabilities and penalties for those who made payments will be substational.  Along with the fact they might be charged with a conspiracy charge. 

It is a very interesting case and the Bureau did an outstanding job.  Working another case and an informant comes forward and provides information on main subject, Singer, who is conducting this business in California.  Build up on information based from informant and confront Singer.  Singer folds in a heartbeat, opens up his books and tells all.  Based on financial records and Singer's information, they confirm who is involved.  To solidify their case, the Bureau has Singer make telephone calls to all involved, which are recorded, and as they say, that is that.  Not much of a defense when you are on tape via a consensual monitoring, basically admitting your involvement and the prosecution also has the financial records detailing the transactions.

DOJ will want to set an example to these defendants and that was confirmed by the US Attorney at his press conference.  This won't be local court, but federal, where there are sentencing guidelines in which the Judge must abide by.  Look at that Manafort guy, he had no criminal record, charged with lying to Congress and didn't pay his taxes.  He received the low end of the guidelines and still received 4 years in prison, plus monetary payback restitution.  These defendants are looking at mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion. I would predict lots of guilty pleas and defendants praying for mercy.

[AZMarqfan]

Wouldn't potential "victims" be students not admitted on the merits because they were passed up by fake applications, scores and resumes?   I wouldn't call that without victims.

That depends.  I'm assuming these schools didn't reject anyone in order to accept these individuals.  I don't know of colleges that have a set number of slots.  So I'm assuming they were allowed in, but nobody was denied entry due to their presence.  It's shameful and horrible...I'm glad it's coming to light.  Without having seen all the details, I just am not sure of the crime. 

Edit: Sounds like you guys are saying crimes were committed.  All I've heard and seen so far in basic articles is talking about gifts/bribes being given to university officials.  I'll have to read up on some other stuff later. 

[Cheeks]

That depends.  I'm assuming these schools didn't reject anyone in order to accept these individuals.  I don't know of colleges that have a set number of slots.  So I'm assuming they were allowed in, but nobody was denied entry due to their presence.  It's shameful and horrible...I'm glad it's coming to light.  Without having seen all the details, I just am not sure of the crime. 

Edit: Sounds like you guys are saying crimes were committed.  All I've heard and seen so far in basic articles is talking about gifts/bribes being given to university officials.  I'll have to read up on some other stuff later.

Definitely crimes alleged

[warriorchick]

That depends.  I'm assuming these schools didn't reject anyone in order to accept these individuals.  I don't know of colleges that have a set number of slots.  So I'm assuming they were allowed in, but nobody was denied entry due to their presence.  It's shameful and horrible...I'm glad it's coming to light.  Without having seen all the details, I just am not sure of the crime. 

Edit: Sounds like you guys are saying crimes were committed.  All I've heard and seen so far in basic articles is talking about gifts/bribes being given to university officials.  I'll have to read up on some other stuff later.

I would guess that most of these colleges had a defined number of reduced-standard slots set aside for athletes, and that's how many of them got in. The coach was bribed, who then asked for special consideration for a student because of their "talent", therefore a legitimate athlete gets rejected.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

And oftentimes a women's crew team is used as a Title IX balance more than anything.  Some sports, and I'm sure crew is one of them, have no roster limits. So a coach, who makes less than many of their athletic department colleagues, is usually required to recruit a certain number of female athletes, not for competitive purposes, but to make sure the athletic department doesn't get into Title IX troubles. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

And oftentimes a women's crew team is used as a Title IX balance more than anything.  Some sports, and I'm sure crew is one of them, have no roster limits. So a coach, who makes less than many of their athletic department colleagues, is usually required to recruit a certain number of female athletes, not for competitive purposes, but to make sure the athletic department doesn't get into Title IX troubles.

You know British people also go to these schools and Britain is going through Brexit.  So you know there's that connection too. 

[Lennys Tap]

And oftentimes a women's crew team is used as a Title IX balance more than anything.  Some sports, and I'm sure crew is one of them, have no roster limits. So a coach, who makes less than many of their athletic department colleagues, is usually required to recruit a certain number of female athletes, not for competitive purposes, but to make sure the athletic department doesn't get into Title IX troubles.

is this really true? If so, Title IX needs some serious reforming.

[Not A Serious Person]

I would guess that most of these colleges had a defined number of reduced-standard slots set aside for athletes, and that's how many of them got in. The coach was bribed, who then asked for special consideration for a student because of their "talent", therefore a legitimate athlete gets rejected.

Having two kids that were (legitimately) recruited to high D1 sports teams (one B1G and the other an Ivy). The coaches were very upfront about this process.  They have you submit your application early and you work with a school counselor to tweak it and retake the SAT/ACT until you hit a target.

They have two targets in mind:

* get you to reach the minimum academic requirements to get in.

* or, in one of my kid's experience, get you to raise the academic profile so you do NOT have to get in on the lower requirement for athletes (that way they can use it on another recruit). 

And yes, in the case of the Ivy, the coach told us how many lowered slots he had, what was the minimum ACT to get the lowered slot, and what was the minimum ACT to NOT use the lowered slot (what is about the posted average score per College Confidential).  He pushed every recruit to NOT use the lowered slot.  He would use it if necessary but preferred to hold onto it for a late recruit (spring senior year).

And oftentimes a women's crew team is used as a Title IX balance more than anything.  Some sports, and I'm sure crew is one of them, have no roster limits. So a coach, who makes less than many of their athletic department colleagues, is usually required to recruit a certain number of female athletes, not for competitive purposes, but to make sure the athletic department doesn't get into Title IX troubles. 

100% correct.

Title IX counts an athlete MONEY per sport.  So if you have a distance runner at a D1 school (like one of my daughters was at a B1G school), they run Cross Country, indoor track and outdoor track.  So that one runner counts as THREE athletes for Title IX to offset men's sports.

The football coach loves women's cross country and Track.  That alone can count for 75 to 100 athletic spots to offset men's spots.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

is this really true? If so, Title IX needs some serious reforming.

It might. But schools that do it right have created a ton of opportunities for female athletes.  And I think most schools do it right.

[Not A Serious Person]

is this really true? If so, Title IX needs some serious reforming.

College sports come in two types.

* Headcount sports.
* Equivalency sports.

An example of a headcount sport is Basketball.  The team has 13 scholarship spots.  Each spot of 100% free ride (high D1 example).  Partial rides are not allowed.

But what is allowed is "preferred walk on."  That means no money but they will give you a spot on the team.  Tennis is a headcount sport and tennis has been highlighted in this scandal.  The coach can only offer a full-ride to UT-Austin and/or Georgetown.  But, they can take unlimited preferred walk-ons and can use the lower academic limit on preferred walk-ons.  My guess is this is how the bribe worked in headcount sports.  (and I would further guess that the team members knew nothing about this scam the coach was running).  Only the headcount spots are counted for Title IX (the spots that get money).

The other is an equivalency sport.  Cross Country is an example. The team gets enough scholarship money for 8 full rides.  BUT ... the typical team has 20 to 25.  So they offer partial scholarships (in our school's case it was 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and full-ride).  But it counts for 8 spots for Title IX (or 24 if they run indoor and outdoor track as explain in the post above).

So, yes you can have an unlimited number on an equivalency sports team (like crew), but it does not mean more Title IX spots. Title IX counts money, not actual athletes.

[skianth16]

I would guess that most of these colleges had a defined number of reduced-standard slots set aside for athletes, and that's how many of them got in. The coach was bribed, who then asked for special consideration for a student because of their "talent", therefore a legitimate athlete gets rejected.

If these kids are cheating on exams and submitting inflated applications, would they still be considered a reduced-standard? I'm not familiar with the phrase, but if I can put 2 and 2 together, it sounds like schools will often allow X number of students to be admitted who do not meet the traditional entry standards, often for athletes. But if these kids have submitted applications that do meet the typical standards, wouldn't they be considered a typical applicant?

[warriorchick]

If these kids are cheating on exams and submitting inflated applications, would they still be considered a reduced-standard? I'm not familiar with the phrase, but if I can put 2 and 2 together, it sounds like schools will often allow X number of students to be admitted who do not meet the traditional entry standards, often for athletes. But if these kids have submitted applications that do meet the typical standards, wouldn't they be considered a typical applicant?

Who says they met the standard?  Maybe even with the cheating, they still only got "athlete" scores.  Raises fewer flags than a kid who got a 19 on his first try on the ACT and a 35 on the second try.

[skianth16]

Who says they met the standard?  Maybe even with the cheating, they still only got "athlete" scores.  Raises fewer flags than a kid who got a 19 on his first try on the ACT and a 35 on the second try.

I guess I'm assuming those 5-figure cheating scams can at least get the kids a respectable score. Not a 35, but maybe something in the 26-28 range that is good enough at a lot of schools. If the kid on Suits can figure out the system, I bet the pros are even better!

[warriorchick]

I guess I'm assuming those 5-figure cheating scams can at least get the kids a respectable score. Not a 35, but maybe . If the kid on Suits can figure out the system, I bet the pros are even better!

At an elite school, not unless you are an athlete, which is the point.

[forgetful]

That depends.  I'm assuming these schools didn't reject anyone in order to accept these individuals.  I don't know of colleges that have a set number of slots.  So I'm assuming they were allowed in, but nobody was denied entry due to their presence.  It's shameful and horrible...I'm glad it's coming to light.  Without having seen all the details, I just am not sure of the crime. 

Edit: Sounds like you guys are saying crimes were committed.  All I've heard and seen so far in basic articles is talking about gifts/bribes being given to university officials.  I'll have to read up on some other stuff later.

Gifts/bribes are crimes. Their were also the separate crimes of money laundering, tax evasion, tax fraud, and many others.

As for schools, and a set number of slots. Every University has a set number of slots. They divide them based on normal admission, athletic admission, "extra special admission" (read big donors). They pay substantial sums of money to study/model how many of accepted students in each bin will actually accept. When they accidentally go over it creates massive headaches for most schools.

So yes, they did take someone else's spot.

Now a caveat. I find it a bit ironic, that it is tax fraud to bribe this individual to sneak their kid in to a University. But it is perfectly accepted to pay for a building, to bribe your kid into a University. I think both should be crimes.

[Billy Hoyle]

College sports come in two types.

* Headcount sports.
* Equivalency sports.

An example of a headcount sport is Basketball.  The team has 13 scholarship spots.  Each spot of 100% free ride (high D1 example).  Partial rides are not allowed.

But what is allowed is "preferred walk on."  That means no money but they will give you a spot on the team.  Tennis is a headcount sport and tennis has been highlighted in this scandal.  The coach can only offer a full-ride to UT-Austin and/or Georgetown.  But, they can take unlimited preferred walk-ons and can use the lower academic limit on preferred walk-ons.  My guess is this is how the bribe worked in headcount sports.  (and I would further guess that the team members knew nothing about this scam the coach was running).  Only the headcount spots are counted for Title IX (the spots that get money).

The other is an equivalency sport.  Cross Country is an example. The team gets enough scholarship money for 8 full rides.  BUT ... the typical team has 20 to 25.  So they offer partial scholarships (in our school's case it was 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and full-ride).  But it counts for 8 spots for Title IX (or 24 if they run indoor and outdoor track as explain in the post above).

So, yes you can have an unlimited number on an equivalency sports team (like crew), but it does not mean more Title IX spots. Title IX counts money, not actual athletes.

Not entirely correct.

Men's Tennis is not a headcount sport. They only get 4.5 scholarships to divide.

Participation is based on how many people are on the roster for the first competition. 

Partial rides are allowed for headcount sports, but they still take up 1 spot. It depends on the school's budget as not all sports are fully funded, even headcount sports.  For example, a women's tennis player could only get $25K in athletic aid but they count as a full.

All sports are counted for Title IX purposes. It comes down to how much aid is offered and allocated throughout the athletic department.  However, Title IX compliance is not just measured based upon equality or meeting the same proportion as the student body. There are three, disjunctive prongs a school can use to show Title IX compliance. One is meeting demand. If there are spots but not enough women are filling them then that's ok. You don't have to add players or hand out scholarships just to add them for numbers.

[79Warrior]

UCLA has more Asian students than any other group.  Asian + Hispanic students are 50% of student body.  Whites make up 27% at UCLA, the second largest group.

So what? Asian students academically are outstanding. They are not buying their way in, their grades do the talking.

[Pakuni]

Now a caveat. I find it a bit ironic, that it is tax fraud to bribe this individual to sneak their kid in to a University. But it is perfectly accepted to pay for a building, to bribe your kid into a University. I think both should be crimes.

But the building donation is done above board and in compliance with all tax regulations and assorted financial requirements. The scheme that led to these indictments fraudulently took advantage of tax deductions and the bribes almost certainly weren't reported - at least not legally/accurately reported - as income by the recipients.

[skianth16]

As for schools, and a set number of slots. Every University has a set number of slots. They divide them based on normal admission, athletic admission, "extra special admission" (read big donors). They pay substantial sums of money to study/model how many of accepted students in each bin will actually accept. When they accidentally go over it creates massive headaches for most schools.

So yes, they did take someone else's spot.

Is it really that rigid? I've got to think that for universities whose class sizes are several thousand students, that it would be nearly impossible for the admissions department to only accept X number of students due to size restrictions. I can understand if the acceptance target is a range, but that range would likely be at least a few hundred wide, wouldn't it? Incoming class sizes have to vary by a couple hundred students year by year at a school like USC, don't they? It doesn't really seem like allowing a few extra kids in would really result in anyone else being kept out.

This is definitely not my area of expertise, but just thinking through the numbers, it seems like there is probably some wiggle room on acceptance numbers.

[warriorchick]

Is it really that rigid? I've got to think that for universities whose class sizes are several thousand students, that it would be nearly impossible for the admissions department to only accept X number of students due to size restrictions. I can understand if the acceptance target is a range, but that range would likely be at least a few hundred wide, wouldn't it? Incoming class sizes have to vary by a couple hundred students year by year at a school like USC, don't they? It doesn't really seem like allowing a few extra kids in would really result in anyone else being kept out.

This is definitely not my area of expertise, but just thinking through the numbers, it seems like there is probably some wiggle room on acceptance numbers.

Imagine if you were at the top of the waiting list for one of these schools.  Those people most certainly did take your spot.

[wadesworld]

Imagine if you were at the top of the waiting list for one of these schools.  Those people most certainly did take your spot.

Or if some of the "elite" schools can only make so many exceptions for student athletes and you're hoping to be one of those exceptions but it ends up going to a person who doesn't even play the sport that they become an exception for.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Or if some of the "elite" schools can only make so many exceptions for student athletes and you're hoping to be one of those exceptions but it ends up going to a person who doesn't even play the sport that they become an exception for.

Right. And the coach meets their recruiting goals, is (illegally) making money on the deal, and gets to do less work since they actually will never participate in the sport.