44 Indictments On College Bribery Case

[StillAWarrior]

Agreed. This is a shameless money grab. I'm not sure how the plaintiff here proves standing, much less actual damages. But hey, $500 BILLION seems reasonable.
The sad part is, given all the related bad PR and legal costs, it's probably in the universities' best interests to pay off this troll (and the others that'll surely follow) to make her go away. And that'll likely be covered by schools' insurance, which in turn could drive up costs for everyone else.
So, yeah, not good.

The fact that this is a mother suing on behalf of her (presumably) adult son just confirms what I think about this lawsuit.  If the young man feels that he was legally wronged, he should file a lawsuit.  The fact that mommy filed this $500 Billion lawsuit on behalf of her precious son who was denied admission speaks volumes.

[GooooMarquette]

Agreed. This is a shameless money grab. I'm not sure how the plaintiff here proves standing, much less actual damages. But hey, $500 BILLION seems reasonable.
The sad part is, given all the related bad PR and legal costs, it's probably in the universities' best interests to pay off this troll (and the others that'll surely follow) to make her go away. And that'll likely be covered by schools' insurance, which in turn could drive up costs for everyone else.
So, yeah, not good.

The plaintiff isn't suing the schools...she is suing Loughlin, Huffman and the other indicted parties. Like you said, though, I doubt she can show standing or damages.

[StillAWarrior]

The plaintiff isn't suing the schools...she is suing Loughlin, Huffman and the other indicted parties. Like you said, though, I doubt she can show standing or damages.

Yeah.  That's one of the things that bothers me.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for the indicted parties, but it's absurd that they have to deal with this BS.  They've all got plenty of problems already...now they have to devote some time and attention (i.e., money) to this frivolous lawsuit.

[MU82]

First of all, when I gave the article a quick read of the top few paragraphs, I thought the ones being sued were Huffman, Loughlin et al. And that's what my "Good!" was about.

And that seems to be true of the first plaintiff mentioned. Others, however, are suing the schools. I mostly agree that they shouldn't have to deal with this -- and from what I have read, the plaintiffs don't have much of a case against them.

However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate ...

Two people die after eating McDonald's pies because it's discovered the pies contain arsenic (this didn't really happen; I am presenting it as a hypothetical case). An investigation shows that one deranged employee put the arsenic in the pies. The families of the dead people sue McDonald's. Is the company culpable at all because it employed the deranged person and the poisoning happened "on the company's watch"?

I legitimately don't know the answer to that question. Nor do I know if I am straying too far afield in comparing this case to that hypothetical Mickey D's case.

I find these kinds of things to be very interesting, and in this college bribery case it will be fascinating to find out who gets in trouble for what and how they are punished.

[StillAWarrior]

First of all, when I gave the article a quick read of the top few paragraphs, I thought the ones being sued were Huffman, Loughlin et al. And that's what my "Good!" was about.

And that seems to be true of the first plaintiff mentioned. Others, however, are suing the schools. I mostly agree that they shouldn't have to deal with this -- and from what I have read, the plaintiffs don't have much of a case against them.

However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate ...

Two people die after eating McDonald's pies because it's discovered the pies contain arsenic (this didn't really happen; I am presenting it as a hypothetical case). An investigation shows that one deranged employee put the arsenic in the pies. The families of the dead people sue McDonald's. Is the company culpable at all because it employed the deranged person and the poisoning happened "on the company's watch"?

I legitimately don't know the answer to that question. Nor do I know if I am straying too far afield in comparing this case to that hypothetical Mickey D's case.

I find these kinds of things to be very interesting, and in this college bribery case it will be fascinating to find out who gets in trouble for what and how they are punished.

You're referring to the legal doctrine of respondeat superior -- when an employer is held liable for the actions of its employees.  Oversimplification alert!  Generally, and employer can be held liable for its employees' negligence or omissions.  However, employers generally are not responsible for intentional wrongful acts that are outside the scope of the employee's job.  Where an employer can get in trouble for such intentional acts is when they were negligent in hiring the employee, or when the wrongful acts advance the employer's interest and are then ratified and/or approved by the employer.

In your hypothetical, there is no doubt that McD's would get sued because that's where the money is.  But as long as there isn't evidence to think that McD's knew that they were hiring a homicidal maniac or somehow knew what was going on, they'd almost certainly win.  That doesn't mean that wouldn't pay a little something to make it go away...but that's an entirely different issue.

As I said, this is a general discussion and oversimplified. These issues can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[GooooMarquette]

First of all, when I gave the article a quick read of the top few paragraphs, I thought the ones being sued were Huffman, Loughlin et al. And that's what my "Good!" was about.

And that seems to be true of the first plaintiff mentioned. Others, however, are suing the schools. I mostly agree that they shouldn't have to deal with this -- and from what I have read, the plaintiffs don't have much of a case against them.

However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate ...

Two people die after eating McDonald's pies because it's discovered the pies contain arsenic (this didn't really happen; I am presenting it as a hypothetical case). An investigation shows that one deranged employee put the arsenic in the pies. The families of the dead people sue McDonald's. Is the company culpable at all because it employed the deranged person and the poisoning happened "on the company's watch"?

I legitimately don't know the answer to that question. Nor do I know if I am straying too far afield in comparing this case to that hypothetical Mickey D's case.

I find these kinds of things to be very interesting, and in this college bribery case it will be fascinating to find out who gets in trouble for what and how they are punished.

The answer is that McD's probably would be liable, as StillAWarrior stated, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

But in that case, you have clear plaintiffs (families of the deceased) and clear injuries (dead people).

The case of suing the schools really has no clear plaintiffs. My daughter got waitlisted at Yale, but would she have been accepted if Huffman's daughter wasn't? Who knows? All in all, far more vague, as it isn't even clear who has a right to sue, and what their "injuries" were.

[Pakuni]

The plaintiff isn't suing the schools...she is suing Loughlin, Huffman and the other indicted parties. Like you said, though, I doubt she can show standing or damages.

My mistake on the defendants.

[StillAWarrior]

The answer is that McD's probably would be liable, as StillAWarrior stated, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

I want to make it clear -- I stated exactly the opposite of that.  Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly.  I have no doubt that McD's would get sued, but I think McD's would win the lawsuit and would not be liable.  If, as MU82 hypothesized, a rogue employee poisoned customers without McD's knowledge, it is extremely unlikely that McD's would be liable.  At least in jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

[Dr. Blackheart]

So every waitlisted or rejected applicant has the right to be added to the class action suit? I am glad MU has such a high acceptance rate. It may suppress the USNWR ratings but it limits the class action lawsuits.

Does anyone remember a few years ago when Chicago pols we're pulling similar stunts to get various kiddos into U of I? 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

So every waitlisted or rejected applicant has the right to be added to the class action suit? I am glad MU has such a high acceptance rate. It may suppress the USNWR ratings but it limits the class action lawsuits.

Does anyone remember  a few years ago over the course of recorded history when Chicago pols were (sic) pulling similar stunts to get various kiddos into U of I anything and everything?

FIFY

[Pakuni]

I want to make it clear -- I stated exactly the opposite of that.  Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly.  I have no doubt that McD's would get sued, but I think McD's would win the lawsuit and would not be liable.  If, as MU82 hypothesized, a rogue employee poisoned customers without McD's knowledge, it is extremely unlikely that McD's would be liable.  At least in jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

This is where facts and evidence matter. Obviously if - in the admissions case - the universities were aware or should have been aware, of these employees' actions, then they could be find liable. Likewise, if a court/jury finds a university failed to sufficiently train and monitor their employees, it could be find liable.
I would suspect that the universities' defense here would be that they properly trained these employees, who went to great lenghts to hide their activities.

[StillAWarrior]

This is where facts and evidence matter. Obviously if - in the admissions case - the universities were aware or should have been aware, of these employees' actions, then they could be find liable. Likewise, if a court/jury finds a university failed to sufficiently train and monitor their employees, it could be find liable.
I would suspect that the universities' defense here would be that they properly trained these employees, who went to great lenghts to hide their activities.

Absolutely. USC comes off as more culpable because there were more senior people in athletics involved and money was being paid into athletic department coffers. That’s much harder to say they shouldn’t have been aware. Also, there is an argument that the university ratified - and certainly benefitted from - the activity because they got some of the money. From what I’ve read, Georgetown (and some others) seem very different because a single rogue coach pocketed the money. I think the schools in those situations have a better argument that they are not responsible.

[MU82]

Still, Goooo and others, thanks for the conversation.

I was on a jury about 15 years ago that ended up awarding $20 million plus to the family of a girl who was poisoned after a Walgreen's pharmacist put the wrong stuff in a prescription. The trial was all about damages, as Walgreen's admitted the error. But it was clearly accidental -- the pharmacist didn't want to poison the girl or anybody else. So that's different, too.

[StillAWarrior]

Still, Goooo and others, thanks for the conversation.

I was on a jury about 15 years ago that ended up awarding $20 million plus to the family of a girl who was poisoned after a Walgreen's pharmacist put the wrong stuff in a prescription. The trial was all about damages, as Walgreen's admitted the error. But it was clearly accidental -- the pharmacist didn't want to poison the girl or anybody else. So that's different, too.

That's awful.  And goes straight to my point - employers generally are responsible for their employees' mistakes/negligence.  They generally are not responsible for their employees' intentional wrongful acts.

And thank you for the discussion.  I absolutely love scoop when we discuss subjects without getting into politics and/or arguing about certain posters.

[MU82]

That's awful.  And goes straight to my point - employers generally are responsible for their employees' mistakes/negligence.  They generally are not responsible for their employees' intentional wrongful acts.

And thank you for the discussion.  I absolutely love scoop when we discuss subjects without getting into politics and/or arguing about certain posters.

Yessir!

[dgies9156]

This one bothers me on several fronts, so I don't know where to begin.

1) The notion of extra help for ACT/SAT is a necessary and often essential component to getting learning disabled students properly tested for college. There's nothing wrong with it so long as it is administered properly and there really is no cheating. My fear is that the extra time and special proctoring -- within the rules -- will be a changed in a way that trashes the ability of learning disabled students to put their best foot forward.

2) Colleges need to be more forthcoming about how they admit students. Period. So you want to go to Zebra Institute of Technology? Here's how we decide who gets in our class. I would not be surprised when this is over if Congress passes some type of truth in admissions act for colleges that accept federal funding. The act should say a college has to disclose how it selected its annual admissions at the risk of losing federal grants and ability to use federal aid for students.

3) Ironically, years ago, the University of Tennessee had a simple admissions policy. Get an "X" on the ACT, have a diploma from an accredited high school in the State of Tennessee and be a Tennessee resident and you're admitted. No guarantee you'll stay, but the University will admit you. So what happened? A third-rate, failing news magazine decided to rank colleges and every university public relations department repositioned themselves to game the third-rate, failing news magazine's faux rankings. When easy entry becomes a negative on the third-rate, failing news magazine's survey, change a basic operating procedure for the university.

4) Finally, and this is for Disco Hippie: I was one of those Upper Middle Class Punks ("UMPs") that you called out earlier in this thread. My father and mother saved an enormous amount of money and gave up a lot in their lives so my brothers and sisters and I could go to college. Four of us ended up at Marquette without a dime of aid. Dad was a Marquette Engineer and saw the value of a Marquette education. If this makes us UMPs, I plead guilty. We paid our parents back by making good use of our degrees and our education from Marquette. In my case, all I'll say is that my wife and I more than paid it forward.

[MU82]

This one bothers me on several fronts, so I don't know where to begin.

1) The notion of extra help for ACT/SAT is a necessary and often essential component to getting learning disabled students properly tested for college. There's nothing wrong with it so long as it is administered properly and there really is no cheating. My fear is that the extra time and special proctoring -- within the rules -- will be a changed in a way that trashes the ability of learning disabled students to put their best foot forward.

2) Colleges need to be more forthcoming about how they admit students. Period. So you want to go to Zebra Institute of Technology? Here's how we decide who gets in our class. I would not be surprised when this is over if Congress passes some type of truth in admissions act for colleges that accept federal funding. The act should say a college has to disclose how it selected its annual admissions at the risk of losing federal grants and ability to use federal aid for students.

3) Ironically, years ago, the University of Tennessee had a simple admissions policy. Get an "X" on the ACT, have a diploma from an accredited high school in the State of Tennessee and be a Tennessee resident and you're admitted. No guarantee you'll stay, but the University will admit you. So what happened? A third-rate, failing news magazine decided to rank colleges and every university public relations department repositioned themselves to game the third-rate, failing news magazine's faux rankings. When easy entry becomes a negative on the third-rate, failing news magazine's survey, change a basic operating procedure for the university.

4) Finally, and this is for Disco Hippie: I was one of those Upper Middle Class Punks ("UMPs") that you called out earlier in this thread. My father and mother saved an enormous amount of money and gave up a lot in their lives so my brothers and sisters and I could go to college. Four of us ended up at Marquette without a dime of aid. Dad was a Marquette Engineer and saw the value of a Marquette education. If this makes us UMPs, I plead guilty. We paid our parents back by making good use of our degrees and our education from Marquette. In my case, all I'll say is that my wife and I more than paid it forward.

Superb post, my friend. Especially No. 4. Your parents did right by you, and I am sure you have made them proud many times over.

[Cheeks]

I hired a tutor for my daughter and her ACT two months ago.  The agency sent an email out to me on Thursday making sure they knew everything was cool. It was, but I don't blame them.  Tutors hired all the time, but kids have to take the tests.  That's the part that is sinister, along with the fake athletics, etc.

The tax part, already hearing some over rotation on that which is going to hurt legitimate donations to some schools if it goes through with what some pols are talking about. 

[Disco Hippie]

This one bothers me on several fronts, so I don't know where to begin.

1) The notion of extra help for ACT/SAT is a necessary and often essential component to getting learning disabled students properly tested for college. There's nothing wrong with it so long as it is administered properly and there really is no cheating. My fear is that the extra time and special proctoring -- within the rules -- will be a changed in a way that trashes the ability of learning disabled students to put their best foot forward.

2) Colleges need to be more forthcoming about how they admit students. Period. So you want to go to Zebra Institute of Technology? Here's how we decide who gets in our class. I would not be surprised when this is over if Congress passes some type of truth in admissions act for colleges that accept federal funding. The act should say a college has to disclose how it selected its annual admissions at the risk of losing federal grants and ability to use federal aid for students.

3) Ironically, years ago, the University of Tennessee had a simple admissions policy. Get an "X" on the ACT, have a diploma from an accredited high school in the State of Tennessee and be a Tennessee resident and you're admitted. No guarantee you'll stay, but the University will admit you. So what happened? A third-rate, failing news magazine decided to rank colleges and every university public relations department repositioned themselves to game the third-rate, failing news magazine's faux rankings. When easy entry becomes a negative on the third-rate, failing news magazine's survey, change a basic operating procedure for the university.

4) Finally, and this is for Disco Hippie: I was one of those Upper Middle Class Punks ("UMPs") that you called out earlier in this thread. My father and mother saved an enormous amount of money and gave up a lot in their lives so my brothers and sisters and I could go to college. Four of us ended up at Marquette without a dime of aid. Dad was a Marquette Engineer and saw the value of a Marquette education. If this makes us UMPs, I plead guilty. We paid our parents back by making good use of our degrees and our education from Marquette. In my case, all I'll say is that my wife and I more than paid it forward.

I agree with everything you said Diges!  I too, am a card carrying UMP so that was an attempt at self deprecating humor.  Like you, my parents also made tremendous sacrifices to put me and my brother and sister through college.  Because I am one, I have nothing against UMP's, but it seems that MU, under the current administration does, and like the democratic party in 2016, they seem to have forgotten who their core constituency is.  They may not want to acknowledge it, but at the end of the day UMP's are MU's largest constituency and they need a lot of them to thrive.  That's not to say they shouldn't continue everything they're already doing and more on the diversity front and in trying to make higher education more affordable and accessible to students from lower income backgrounds, they absolutely should, but they need to find a balance there.

Like it or not, the third rate news magazine will continue to rank colleges and universities.  It's one of their highest selling issues each year, and a strong argument can be made that their continued publication is the only reason said third rate news magazine still exists.  You're right that colleges and universities make decisions and policies based solely on the existence of these rankings that are in many cases, anathema to what higher education should ideally accomplish.  But as long as these rankings continue to exist, Marquette needs to pay more attention to them and how they influence people's perceptions, because they are not an influential or wealthy enough institution to ignore the rankings and thumb their noses at them the way they have.   

The only way they'll become less influential is if the Ivy's and their ilk thumb their noses at the rankings and say it's all nonsense.  Perhaps this case is what eventually will cause the entire thing to come tumbling down and force the most prestigious institutions to re-evaluate what their purpose really is.  That would be wonderful but I'm not going to hold my breath.

MU's reputation in the Northeast region has taken a hit, not so much because of their USNWR raking but because of the 89% admit rate.   Too many prospective students and their parents see that and immediately think WTF?  They've become a more regional school because of it.

If you look at pages 2 and 3 of the attached PDF from MU's office of institutional research, see how MU compares to the other institutions MU administrators hand chose to be compared against?   We have half the number of applicants, double the acceptance rate, and our yield (the percentage of admitted students who choose to enroll) is still 8 points lower than the average of the the other schools.  What this tells me is that the current approach is not the right one.

[Benny B]

I want to make it clear -- I stated exactly the opposite of that.  Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly.  I have no doubt that McD's would get sued, but I think McD's would win the lawsuit and would not be liable.  If, as MU82 hypothesized, a rogue employee poisoned customers without McD's knowledge, it is extremely unlikely that McD's would be liable.  At least in jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

Apparently you're not familiar with California.

[Cheeks]

I agree with everything you said Diges!  I too, am a card carrying UMP so that was an attempt at self deprecating humor.  Like you, my parents also made tremendous sacrifices to put me and my brother and sister through college.  Because I am one, I have nothing against UMP's, but it seems that MU, under the current administration does, and like the democratic party in 2016, they seem to have forgotten who their core constituency is.  They may not want to acknowledge it, but at the end of the day UMP's are MU's largest constituency and they need a lot of them to thrive.  That's not to say they shouldn't continue everything they're already doing and more on the diversity front and in trying to make higher education more affordable and accessible to students from lower income backgrounds, they absolutely should, but they need to find a balance there.

Like it or not, the third rate news magazine will continue to rank colleges and universities.  It's one of their highest selling issues each year, and a strong argument can be made that their continued publication is the only reason said third rate news magazine still exists.  You're right that colleges and universities make decisions and policies based solely on the existence of these rankings that are in many cases, anathema to what higher education should ideally accomplish.  But as long as these rankings continue to exist, Marquette needs to pay more attention to them and how they influence people's perceptions, because they are not an influential or wealthy enough institution to ignore the rankings and thumb their noses at them the way they have.   

The only way they'll become less influential is if the Ivy's and their ilk thumb their noses at the rankings and say it's all nonsense.  Perhaps this case is what eventually will cause the entire thing to come tumbling down and force the most prestigious institutions to re-evaluate what their purpose really is.  That would be wonderful but I'm not going to hold my breath.

MU's reputation in the Northeast region has taken a hit, not so much because of their USNWR raking but because of the 89% admit rate.   Too many prospective students and their parents see that and immediately think WTF?  They've become a more regional school because of it.

If you look at pages 2 and 3 of the attached PDF from MU's office of institutional research, see how MU compares to the other institutions MU administrators hand chose to be compared against?   We have half the number of applicants, double the acceptance rate, and our yield (the percentage of admitted students who choose to enroll) is still 8 points lower than the average of the the other schools.  What this tells me is that the current approach is not the right one.

This feels like a yield problem.  MU is accepting a bunch, but the yield is lower than the other schools.  As a result, my guess is MU has to accept more to get the numbers they need.  We are probably the number two choice by many students vs those peer schools.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The Onion right on queue.

SPORTS NEWS IN BRIEF
NCAA Launches Investigation Into Why It Wasn’t Making Millions Off Recent College Admissions Scandal

https://sports.theonion.com/ncaa-launches-investigation-into-why-it-wasn-t-making-m-1833381271

[Disco Hippie]

This feels like a yield problem.  MU is accepting a bunch, but the yield is lower than the other schools.  As a result, my guess is MU has to accept more to get the numbers they need.  We are probably the number two choice by many students vs those peer schools.

No doubt that's the case.  What I don't understand is their lack of interest in trying to become more of those students' first choice.  I mean why bother comparing themselves to those other schools in the first place if they're unable, or unwilling to improve.

[Efficient Frontier]

My take is that I find this story as disturbing and abhorrent as everyone else.  Why anyone would think otherwise is offensive to me, and instead of disparaging my alma mater, I have gone out of my way to evangelize the value of a Marquette education to high school Jr's and Seniors in my community, served as mentor for the last 12 years to current students in both the Business and Comm schools, and consistently made modest donations to the extent I can afford. Not enough for them to take me seriously but given only something like 8% of alums apparently have ever donated a cent according to Marquette, the fact that I do firmly places me on the list of alums who actually care, which I know all Scoopers do as well.   I still think MU's 89% acceptance rate, which is what it was last year  is problematic, and although I may be one of the few Scoopers that feel this way, I am hardly the only alum with that POV.   

I know this because multiple admissions counselors as well as a high ranking administrator have told me personally that MU has received "significant" push back on this issue not just from alums, but more importantly from current students, who they value the opinion of even more, since they changed their enrollment strategy.  Thankfully they are taking steps to correct it, but at the end of the day MU is never going to be an elite school and I'm totally fine with that.

All I've ever said was that the difference in perception between a school that accepts 68% of applicants versus 90% is substantial, and that single statistic is in many cases, discouraging, instead of encouraging exactly the types of high performing students that Marquette claims to want to enroll more of from even applying there.   

Whether or not it should is certainly a valid question, and even I will acknowledge that it probably shouldn't, but as long as enough people think it still does, Marquette can't just dismiss it out of hand.  At the end of the day, brand matters, and not just to the super rich either.

Would it be such a bad thing if Marquette were the type of school where parents and their high school senior kids are willing to go to great (legal and non criminal) lengths to have a shot at going there?  I can't imagine why anyone that cares about Marquette would think so, but perfectly content that it isn't.

“The ev­i­dence shows that a col­lege de­gree de­liv­ers a large and sus­tained in­come pre­mium over a high school diploma, but a se­lec­tive col­lege doesn’t make the pre­mium big­ger. There are ex­cep­tions, but most peo­ple who pros­per af­ter grad­u­at­ing from such a col­lege would likely have pros­pered if they had at­tended a less pres­ti­gious in­sti­tu­tion as well. Af­ter all, the chil­dren whose par­ents were charged last week were born with wealth, con­nec­tions, and de­voted par­ents will­ing to do al­most any­thing for them, a recipe for suc­cess no mat­ter where they grad­u­ate from.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-elite-college-worth-it-maybe-not-11553084146?emailToken=c479cc580525283d799171b8bdc12affJjxXzHCrb5y3+dELRnBX6MdvSCGq0vt8xABiQtrcX8mJmiUsz4W+Aa4hX+rxpDi2tXOoxBrro37C11e48giMKg%3D%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share

[Not A Serious Person]

They are eating their own at USC ...

Suspicious USC students officially accuse SIXTY of their classmates of cheating their way into the school amid 'hysteria' over bribery scandal, as officials promise to expel guilty offenders
* The school's Judicial Council is seriously investigating three of 60 complaints
* USC has rejected six prospective students with ties to the scandal
* A number of enrolled students linked to the scandal have been told they cannot register for classes until their level of culpability is determined
* That is not a major blow to most students as open enrollment for fall classes  does not open until August, and summer session enrollment is not until May
* It comes as Lori Loughlin's daughters both withdrew from the school
* Loughlin allegedly paid $500,000 in bribes to get them designated as athletes

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6830087/Suspicious-USC-students-accuse-SIXTY-classmates-cheating-way-school.html