The schools themselves were the victims of fraud, not the perpetrators. Reforms could attempt to make decisions less discretionary, or more transparent, but that's about all you can do without still ultimately relying on humans not abusing their position.
Not sure I agree.
Do we know if any of the schools detected the fraudulent admissions cases when the students sucked at the sport and/or classes?
If the students otherwise performed to standard, then I don't think the school was harmed at all, as the quality of their alumni was not harmed.
If they did not, and they were still allowed to graduate, then the schools have perpetuated the fraud through not giving appropriate care to the quality of students that graduated through them.
The third option is that the schools noticed their new intake had the handwriting skills of a primary school kid, and informed the authorities whilst preventing the student from graduating, and then I'm not sure what harm there would have been done to the school.
I guess they don't get paid for the classes the ejected student won't be attending?
Actually this question might be a lawyer question. Could the student successfully sue the school if they expelled the student based on their parents misconduct?
Because the school is in a contract with the student not the parents. I don’t know if this constitutes a breach, and colleges fall in a weird area of law.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
The schools themselves were the victims of fraud, not the perpetrators. Reforms could attempt to make decisions less discretionary, or more transparent, but that's about all you can do without still ultimately relying on humans not abusing their position.
Not sure I agree.
Do we know if any of the schools detected the fraudulent admissions cases when the students sucked at the sport and/or classes?
If the students otherwise performed to standard, then I don't think the school was harmed at all, as the quality of their alumni was not harmed.
If they did not, and they were still allowed to graduate, then the schools have perpetuated the fraud through not giving appropriate care to the quality of students that graduated through them.
The third option is that the schools noticed their new intake had the handwriting skills of a primary school kid, and informed the authorities whilst preventing the student from graduating, and then I'm not sure what harm there would have been done to the school.
I guess they don't get paid for the classes the ejected student won't be attending?
Actually this question might be a lawyer question. Could the student successfully sue the school if they expelled the student based on their parents misconduct?
Because the school is in a contract with the student not the parents. I don’t know if this constitutes a breach, and colleges fall in a weird area of law.
Initial reaction: the school isn't in contract with the parents - John Doe Coach is, and he's acting outside of the bounds of any appropriate agency or apparent authority vested in him by the school
In any case, it'd be a contract to commit a fraud so it's void out the gate for illegality
I'm willing to bet there is an attestation somewhere where these students ratified their application materials as being full and compete, so outside of the edge cases where parents fixed the ACT and not the sports-admission fraud, I wouldn't think that's looking good
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I imagine the school could sue the admissions organisation for any damages done by students with forged scores anyway.
Like the two things in this case appear to be bribes to coaches and testing centres forging results for students, both being coordinated by a central (fraud) company.
Emails among athletics, admissions and fundraising officials at the University of Southern California show the school explicitly weighed how much money applicants’ families could donate when determining whether to admit students.
The messages were filed Tuesday in a Boston federal court by a lawyer for two parents accused in the nationwide college-admissions cheating scandal. He claims USC wasn’t a victim of any scheme, but rather based admission decisions in part on expectations of donations from well-heeled families.
There is a long-held assumption that money influences college admissions, but the 18 previously undisclosed documents, obtained during the discovery process in the case, appear to make the direct connection in stark terms.
They include intricate spreadsheets color-coded by university officials to track “special-interest applicants”—applicants flagged for their connections to USC officials, trustees, donors or other VIPs—with direct references to past and prospective dollar amounts of gifts from their families.
Also included are email exchanges about specific candidates whose qualifications were portrayed as questionable by admissions and other officials but whose family ties and bank funds won out.
“VIP” students were described in spreadsheets with references like “given 2 million already,” “1 mil pledge,” “Previously donated $25k to Heritage Hall” and “father is surgeon,” the filings show.
So how does that impact the case? IANAL, but... it seems like it doesn't directly undermine the charge but definitely makes USC unsympathetic (in a "they're just as guilty" sort of way).
So how does that impact the case? IANAL, but... it seems like it doesn't directly undermine the charge but definitely makes USC unsympathetic (in a "they're just as guilty" sort of way).
Which could be enough - paint the school as greed focused, and you could potentially sway a jury.
Edit: Seems like they could also be arguing that they were just playing the secret game that USC had with their "VIP" admits, so they weren't engaged in fraud.
So how does that impact the case? IANAL, but... it seems like it doesn't directly undermine the charge but definitely makes USC unsympathetic (in a "they're just as guilty" sort of way).
Which could be enough - paint the school as greed focused, and you could potentially sway a jury.
Edit: Seems like they could also be arguing that they were just playing the secret game that USC had with their "VIP" admits, so they weren't engaged in fraud.
I suspect the latter argument could pull some real weight with a jury, and also why I imagine from the start these schools would rather this admission case just quietly went away. If the defense can produce documents that show the schools had a direct hand in creating and reinforcing this underground rating system, and how the system was supporting a cottage industry of businesses selling services to navigate it...that's a real problem. Some of the administrators that took money are probably still f'd, but it will probably get the parents off the hook.
I mean, it's at least considerate of the university to put all those shenanigans in writing in that obvious a way, especially the fun bits like that discussion that implies they were threatening to decline an admissions application unless the parents ponied up a donation...
+6
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
So how does that impact the case? IANAL, but... it seems like it doesn't directly undermine the charge but definitely makes USC unsympathetic (in a "they're just as guilty" sort of way).
Which could be enough - paint the school as greed focused, and you could potentially sway a jury.
Edit: Seems like they could also be arguing that they were just playing the secret game that USC had with their "VIP" admits, so they weren't engaged in fraud.
I suspect the latter argument could pull some real weight with a jury, and also why I imagine from the start these schools would rather this admission case just quietly went away. If the defense can produce documents that show the schools had a direct hand in creating and reinforcing this underground rating system, and how the system was supporting a cottage industry of businesses selling services to navigate it...that's a real problem. Some of the administrators that took money are probably still f'd, but it will probably get the parents off the hook.
Yeah, I'd have to know more about the whole thing but this certainly puts a different perspective on the whole situation at least.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
The schools were never upset about the students getting in, it was always about their reputation and the parents and staff finding a way to cut the administrators out of the loop.
MWO: Adamski
+10
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Felicity Huffman was sentenced for cheating her feckless daughter into college...a slap on the wrist. A whole grand fourteen days in jail, a $30,000 fine, and some community service, so basically this rich famous lady got off scot free. Meanwhile, a black woman who claimed residency in a place where she wasn't resident so her son could go to a better elementary school had gotten sentenced five years in jail and five on probation.
Felicity Huffman was sentenced for cheating her feckless daughter into college...a slap on the wrist. A whole grand fourteen days in jail, a $30,000 fine, and some community service, so basically this rich famous lady got off scot free. Meanwhile, a black woman who claimed residency in a place where she wasn't resident so her son could go to a better elementary school had gotten sentenced five years in jail and five on probation.
So yeah, this sounds about white.
I think this is much more a problem with the latter case than the admissions one. A couple weeks and a fine sounds right for a non-violent crime that someone is unlikely to repeat (the PR in this case has been the real punishment).
Felicity Huffman was sentenced for cheating her feckless daughter into college...a slap on the wrist. A whole grand fourteen days in jail, a $30,000 fine, and some community service, so basically this rich famous lady got off scot free. Meanwhile, a black woman who claimed residency in a place where she wasn't resident so her son could go to a better elementary school had gotten sentenced five years in jail and five on probation.
So yeah, this sounds about white.
I think this is much more a problem with the latter case than the admissions one. A couple weeks and a fine sounds right for a non-violent crime that someone is unlikely to repeat (the PR in this case has been the real punishment).
The fine is a joke for an actress who makes that for a single scene. But otherwise yes, agree.
Is that sentence deferred, or "home confinement"? Cause I can't imagine they'll send a celebrity into prison at the moment.
And if it's home confinement, FUCK. THAT. SHIT. That's the same punishment every fucking reasonable person is already paying.
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Ten bucks says they end up serving house arrest for pandemic reasons.
At which point they're basically sentenced to the same punishment as everyone else living in California.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+27
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Posts
Because the school is in a contract with the student not the parents. I don’t know if this constitutes a breach, and colleges fall in a weird area of law.
Initial reaction: the school isn't in contract with the parents - John Doe Coach is, and he's acting outside of the bounds of any appropriate agency or apparent authority vested in him by the school
In any case, it'd be a contract to commit a fraud so it's void out the gate for illegality
I'm willing to bet there is an attestation somewhere where these students ratified their application materials as being full and compete, so outside of the edge cases where parents fixed the ACT and not the sports-admission fraud, I wouldn't think that's looking good
Like the two things in this case appear to be bribes to coaches and testing centres forging results for students, both being coordinated by a central (fraud) company.
9 coaches were in the initial charges filed. Nyt paywall, but this has everyone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-massimo-giannulli.html
(repeated headdesk until the hurting stops)
This is part of why I don't donate, by the way.
USC isn't a for-profit university (it's a private non-profit university.) What it is, though, is infested with terminal goosiness.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Which could be enough - paint the school as greed focused, and you could potentially sway a jury.
Edit: Seems like they could also be arguing that they were just playing the secret game that USC had with their "VIP" admits, so they weren't engaged in fraud.
Yeah, profit is just an accounting term/definition of where money is spent in an organization.
The online resources of your local public library.
I suspect the latter argument could pull some real weight with a jury, and also why I imagine from the start these schools would rather this admission case just quietly went away. If the defense can produce documents that show the schools had a direct hand in creating and reinforcing this underground rating system, and how the system was supporting a cottage industry of businesses selling services to navigate it...that's a real problem. Some of the administrators that took money are probably still f'd, but it will probably get the parents off the hook.
Yeah, I'd have to know more about the whole thing but this certainly puts a different perspective on the whole situation at least.
MWO: Adamski
So yeah, this sounds about white.
I think this is much more a problem with the latter case than the admissions one. A couple weeks and a fine sounds right for a non-violent crime that someone is unlikely to repeat (the PR in this case has been the real punishment).
The fine is a joke for an actress who makes that for a single scene. But otherwise yes, agree.
And if it's home confinement, FUCK. THAT. SHIT. That's the same punishment every fucking reasonable person is already paying.
At which point they're basically sentenced to the same punishment as everyone else living in California.
So they're going to burn alive?
Be reasonable here
The smoke will get you before the fire
House arrest can probably be extended to their numerous vacation homes. As well as their main house, and travel between them.