Nationwide College Cheating Scandal - Actresses, Business Owners Charged, Mar 2019 - #2

[neesaki]

" ... [A] source close to the 54-year-old actress tells ET that she feels like those who orchestrated the scheme misled her about the severity of her involvement.

'[Lori and her husband] claim they were under the impression they might be breaking rules, but not laws,' the source says. 'They feel they were manipulated by those involved and are planning that as part of their defense.'"


Lori Loughlin & Husband Feel 'Manipulated' in College Scam: 'They Had No Bad Intention,' Source Says

Of course they are, just naive little children , totally clueless , didn’t t even bother to check into it at all? Really? This is so pathetic.

 

[mickey2942]

Of course they are, just naive little children , totally clueless , didn’t t even bother to check into it at all? Really? This is so pathetic.

Ignorance of the law is NOT a defense. I think that Loughlin should get a new attorney.

 

[neesaki]

Ignorance of the law is NOT a defense. I think that Loughlin should get a new attorney.

I know, the thing is, no way she was that naive, I don’t buy it. So what that means is she’s still what? Lying, anything to save her skin.

 

[whitelilac]

I knew it ! Their defense is that Singer et al misrepresented the "deal". They didn't know it was illegal, such wholesome innocence. Right.
Didn't she agree that the $500K would be listed as a "charity donation" on their tax returns? Please..
People with that much money are not naive when it comes to dealing with the IRS.
She's a liar.

 

[Tugela]

I knew it ! Their defense is that Singer et al misrepresented the "deal". They didn't know it was illegal, such wholesome innocence. Right.
Didn't she agree that the $500K would be listed as a "charity donation" on their tax returns? Please..
People with that much money are not naive when it comes to dealing with the IRS.
She's a liar.

It is not an unreasonable defence. At a lot of these elite universities you can get your kids viewed favorably by making some sizable donation to the university, and that is not illegal. They will probably claim that they believed that Singer and company were being employed as middlemen to facilitate the same thing, since their donation was going to the university, less Singer's fee for the service. It will be up to the DA to prove that they knew that they were doing something illegal. I imagine that would be something like evidence that they knew that the coach was designating the kids as recruits without telling the university why, and agreed with it. If there is not documented evidence for that, then the parents could say that they made the donation in good faith and are not responsible for subsequent fraudulent behavior by the coaching staff at the university.

 

[Tugela]

If they were “assisting” their daughters to get improved grades through coersion or bribery, I think they would have not had such bad grades as the high school counselor described.

I belive we will find out all about what grades her daughters received, and their attendance records. I think this kind of information will make the Gianulli’s look very guilty, as they will be exposed as not paying attention to acaemic attendance or performance, yet demanding they get into USC.

I think it’s a terrible thing to do this to your children.

And now what do the daughters do? As I understand, USC hasn’t expelled them but also has not given them educational credits. Are they just going to sit around on their hands for months to a year? Are they going to apply to ASU? Are they going to work further on their crewing skills? Are they going to volunteer to help the underprivileged attend college? Are they going to work at fast-food restaurants or in shops to make some money for college.... ooops. I forgot. They have all the money in the world

It depends on what they knew. For example, if they did not anywhere claim to be being recruited on the rowing team, and that was just something the coaching staff send on to admissions independently, then they personally would not have broken the rules and consequently would not be kicked out. They would have to have made some false claim themselves on the application to be kicked out for violating the code of conduct. Otherwise, presumably their academic credentials were good enough to meet the universities minimum standards and there would be no grounds to boot them.

 

[Tugela]

I don’t know, but I’ve always thought William H. Macy had more sense and scruples than general Hollywood. Of course I have no way to verify that.... At least his wife plead guilty and admitting her wrong doing, maybe he had something to do with that.

Well, apparently he didn't know what was done for the first daughter and nixed it for the second daughter when he was told about the plans to do it for her, so he has not done anything wrong.

 

[Tugela]

The students that posed for fake sports pictures should be punished, held accountable. I don't care if they are 18 or not. If they are applying for college....using such poses....they are cognizant of applying under false pretense, unless they can show that taking photos as a coxswain and sending them on an application is something they do often!

The irony is that in the case of the Stanford student, her false claims about being involved in sailing would probably never have come to the surface if her family had not donated to the sailing program after she was admitted. Although her parents donated through Singer's scheme, the sailing coach had not designated her a as a recruit and she came in through the normal admission process. It was the donation that caused the university to look more closely at her after the coach was arrested, and once the fabrications were found, she got expelled.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/...-fabricated-sailing-credentials-500000-bribe/

Stanford expels student linked to college admissions scandal

 

[Tugela]

Ok. I reviewed your post when I was less distracted. I don't know much about the admissions process. But a lot of stuff to consider in your post.

I think that at least with athletes they have a talent of some kind. A skill. It's not contrived. And it provides value to the community who enjoy sports. It also brings revenue to the college because people pay to attend sporting events, buy college sports tchotchkes, etc.

I mean we can debate whether sports should play such an important role in our culture or educational system but at the least, those admitted to a college due to sports have shown they are hard workers and are committed to their skill/talent. Which actually exists.

Then there's the thing about an A at a private school not being the same as an A at a public high school.

I'm not sure how you're meaning that (like that colleges view the candidates differently based on grades and schools?) but yeah. There's a difference.

But in what way? And is it in a way that should give the students from a private school a better chance at admission in the few slots?

For example, the A's that a child who has had every advantage in life from the time they're in utero, with the best health care, no economic stressors, the best access to enriching extracurriculars, private tutors, etc., aren't those A's comparable to a middle class kid who works hard and is super bright and has parents who ensure they're maximizing their potential?

Also, some of those A's at private schools are obtained the same way there's rich kids got accepted - by cheating, parents doing homework or hiring someone to do it for their kids, bribery, etc.

And what about poorer kids who grow up in challenging conditions and attend overcrowded, subpar schools, without any economic advantages, and with lots of stress that living in a depressed, economic area brings? If such a kid who may have to worry about navigating crime in the neighborhood, maybe gangs, drugs, who has to deal with parents working 2-3 jobs, sometimes having utilities shut off for non payment, or not enough always to eat. Not the best foods, etc. - If such a kid perseveres and gets great grades, graduates, but maybe doesn't have top test scores because their schcool didn't focus on that and because they didn't have thousands for fancy test prep, shouldn't all of those struggles and perseverance be a consideration that mitigates the low test scores?

I mean I think I'd rather have that kid one day be my doctor than someone who had it all handed to them and never knew struggle. Because the kid who faced challenges and got to college has a determination and likely an intellect unmatched by many rich kids who get accepted to top-tier colleges.

So when those kids are given special consideration in the admissions process, THAT I'm for. Because there shouldn't be a set criteria for admissions that favors only one way of looking at achievement.

I think the bottom line is that elite colleges should make room for a diversity of students and look at things holistically. Maybe A's from a regular, bright kid who worked hard and had honest, hard working parents who ensured they met their potential, and A's from a lower income kid who struggled but survived and achieved, should be given equal weight to A's from a richer kid at a fancy private school, who had every advantage handed to them, despite a disparity in test scores.

Especially now that we've seen those test scores can be bought.

It is not just rich people who cheat on SATs, poor people do as well. There is just less money involved.

In any case, an elite university should be going after elite students (provided they can round up the fees involved, if not, the state university is just down the road and the education is just as good), not in terms of wealth or status, but in terms of academic performance. Other stuff, such as sports, money and diversity should not count, or at the very least, be secondary all else being equal.

 

[Tugela]

Title IX, among other things, requires colleges & universities receiving Federal funds -- student Pell grants & other Federal student aid -- provide as many athletic scholarships & athlete slots for female & male athletes.

I agree, a student could legitimately become involved and avoid the bribes!

Which probably happens more than you think. I wonder how many students drop out of their respective athletics program once they have been admitted?

 

[neesaki]

Parents Issue First Formal Challenge to U.S. College Case
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Inthedetails]

It is not an unreasonable defence. At a lot of these elite universities you can get your kids viewed favorably by making some sizable donation to the university, and that is not illegal. They will probably claim that they believed that Singer and company were being employed as middlemen to facilitate the same thing, since their donation was going to the university, less Singer's fee for the service. It will be up to the DA to prove that they knew that they were doing something illegal. I imagine that would be something like evidence that they knew that the coach was designating the kids as recruits without telling the university why, and agreed with it. If there is not documented evidence for that, then the parents could say that they made the donation in good faith and are not responsible for subsequent fraudulent behavior by the coaching staff at the university.

I agree. They could say they really thought there was a charity. They concede they knew they were breaking some rules - after all, they made the donation not because they wanted to help the charity but that the donation would open doors in the admissions process. I think that is what they are going to say. So when Lori agreed to tell the IRS it was a charitable donation, she will say she really believed there was indeed a charity.

I also think she will be lying when she says that.

There is also the possibility they will say they were set up. Rick was already working with the Feds when Lori and Mossimo hired him, right? They will say, perhaps, Rick used them to make good with his Federal case.

The sticky bit are those photos about the "crew" athlete daughters. They knew those were completely fraudulent. But is it illegal to lie on a college app? It can get you booted from the college, but does it actually break a law? Same with test scores.

jmo

 

[JanetElaine]

I'm thinking, or at least hoping, Mossimo storming into the high school counselor's office yelling at her will help blow quite a hole in their "we didn't know anything" defense.

MOO

 

[Curiousobserver]

I agree. They could say they really thought there was a charity. They concede they knew they were breaking some rules - after all, they made the donation not because they wanted to help the charity but that the donation would open doors in the admissions process. I think that is what they are going to say. So when Lori agreed to tell the IRS it was a charitable donation, she will say she really believed there was indeed a charity.

I also think she will be lying when she says that.

There is also the possibility they will say they were set up. Rick was already working with the Feds when Lori and Mossimo hired him, right? They will say, perhaps, Rick used them to make good with his Federal case.

The sticky bit are those photos about the "crew" athlete daughters. They knew those were completely fraudulent. But is it illegal to lie on a college app? It can get you booted from the college, but does it actually break a law? Same with test scores.

jmo

They (the defense team) had better be absolutely sure that they know exactly what the prosecution has in terms of evidence before they try that defense. If there are recordings, emails, or texts that suggest they knew this was wrong in any way that defense will go up in a mushroom cloud of smoke.

 

[Herat]

This is going to bring in the High School to expose it’s grade racket, and USC to bring in it’s screening and admission process.

There are gonna be a heck of a lot of people who are going to hate the Gianulli’s for what they are going to try to pull as a defense.

I hope that High School Guidance Counselor is under police protection. A large number of very wealthy people who’s children went to that school will not like what she has to say .

 

[cluciano63]

Giving a donation is not the same as having someone else take tests for your child, faking sports photos etc...

But I suppose to a parent who always got what they wanted for their kids none of this seemed “illegal”...just the way things are done as long as you can afford it.

 

[kaen]

" ... [A] source close to the 54-year-old actress tells ET that she feels like those who orchestrated the scheme misled her about the severity of her involvement.

'[Lori and her husband] claim they were under the impression they might be breaking rules, but not laws,' the source says. 'They feel they were manipulated by those involved and are planning that as part of their defense.'"


Lori Loughlin & Husband Feel 'Manipulated' in College Scam: 'They Had No Bad Intention,' Source Says

The posturing begins-- both in the court of public opinion and in the backroom for dealmaking. There is no doubt that Singer was slick and made all the illegalities seem like a plan to level the playing field. It is true that he did not inform them that it was against the law to use the side door.

In the public (potential jurors) they are playing a risky game of feel sorry for us. The whole Aunt Becky persona is one that is very polarizing in this scheme. There are people who will buy the manipulated aspect of this case. That said, I believe the government will present a rock solid case that will bury the empathy. And the judges hand down the sentences and I would be surprised if any of the potential judges are tied to the idea that Aunt Becky is too good to do this.

And, we know that ignorance isn't a defense and there are all kinds of cautions about academic/application honesty and the behavior of Mr. Giannulli with the college counselor demonstrates that he knew of the enormity of the lie (potential for withdraw of offer) and...and...

 

[kaen]

I hope that High School Guidance Counselor is under police protection. A large number of very wealthy people who’s children went to that school will not like what she has to say .

RSBM

In all of the schools where I have worked, the policies and procedures for students, applications, and interface with college admissions counselors are all clearly written and reviewed by counsel. Counselors go against those policies at their own risk. Student privacy is covered by privacy laws.

My experience with entitled parents is that they never think you are talking about them when issues arise.

 

[gitana1]

It is not just rich people who cheat on SATs, poor people do as well. There is just less money involved.

In any case, an elite university should be going after elite students (provided they can round up the fees involved, if not, the state university is just down the road and the education is just as good), not in terms of wealth or status, but in terms of academic performance. Other stuff, such as sports, money and diversity should not count, or at the very least, be secondary all else being equal.

How do poor people cheat on SAT's? That's illogical, respectfully. You have to show your ID and there are monitors watching. These rich people got away with it by paying proctors big money who arranged to look the other way when some 36 year old man took the test for a 17 year old girl or by correcting tests.

Poor people specifically don't have the funds to pay for something like that.

And while money/bribes should never be a factor IMO in the admissions process, as the wealthy already have so many advantages, I think having a special skill (likes sports, music, etc.) and diversity should be secondary considerations. Which diversity is.

No one gets in with low intellect and poor grades just because they're a minority. That's not how affirmative action or anything like that works. It was specifically implemented because DESPITE great grades and even great test scores, women and certain ethnic or religious minorities were flat shut out of institutions of higher learning, for centuries in our country.

And I believe other considerations, like achievement in spite of struggle, should be factors on par with test scores (which don't necessarily accurately reflect intellect or potential).

For example, consider a soldier who has seen a few tours of duty, doesn't have exemplary test scores but has shown intelligent leadership and high honor in the military and in terrifying situations during war. Shouldn't what he's gone through and how he has dealt with it be a major consideration in determining his admissions status?

I do.

I'd think a person like that would be better suited for the rigors of academia and for a profession alter on, than some rich kid whose parents paid a lot for great test prep and tutors.

 

[Tighthead]

They (the defense team) had better be absolutely sure that they know exactly what the prosecution has in terms of evidence before they try that defense. If there are recordings, emails, or texts that suggest they knew this was wrong in any way that defense will go up in a mushroom cloud of smoke.

Isn’t that what disclosure is for?