Felicity Huffman Sentenced To 14 Days in Jail

[RootAnn]

College Admissions Scandal news

Just saw this. Jail time (14 days), 250 hours of community service. A $30,000 fine.

Enough? Not enough? What do you guys think?

[HomeAgain]

Given similar precedents, like the homeless woman who was sentenced to 5 years for sending her kindergartener to the "wrong" district, I think it sends a continued message that money is power.

I also think it shows why we need to abolish the justice system as we know it and start from scratch with one based in real restitution.

[EmseB]

If I were Lori Laughlin (sp?), I'd be scared because FH was pretty contrite about the whole thing and she's still doing jail time. It doesn't seem too light to me considering it's a non-violent crime, but I'm no expert.

[PrincessMommy]

It sends a message that if you have enough money for good lawyers you can get away lightly.  Yes, it was a non-violent crime, but it's still not a fair sentence.  

I hope they throw the book at Lori.

 

[MysteryJen]

At least she is going to jail. Everyone seemed pretty sure that she was going to escape that- pleading guilty, being contrite, etc. 

All of these entitled criminals are contrite that they were caught. 

Personally, I think her community service should be getting trained as a Barton or OG tutor and providing dsylexia tutoring for poor kids for free for the rest of her life. 

These people hit our family right where we live: dd2 is an athlete with dyslexia and slow processing disorder. 

I am still enraged by their attempts to downplay their actions and their pleading that they are sorry.

[Annie G]

I don’t care about the jail time- I’d rather they impose some penalties that really hurt, like a large fine or some extended (very long term!) meaningful community service.  14 days in jail seems like it’s just a lot of hassle for administrators at the facility- by the time they get her processed, etc., she’ll be released. 

LL should be worried- she is not going to be as fortunate. 

[scholastica]

Just now, happysmileylady said:

I pretty much agree with this.  Ultimately, she cheated on a test.  I am not sure that we want to start sending people for cheating on tests.  There are thousands and thousands of students buying papers and test answers online from foreign vendors right this very moment.  I don't think we really want to start sending people to jail for that.

But the fine, yeah....I mean, look at how much she paid just for the test scores!  This fine is obviously nothing to her.    

This is not cheating on a test. Students with legitimate LDs are now going to be looked at askance for having accommodations. Qualified students may have lost slots at these universities. The damage they have done in abusing the system goes far beyond cheating on a test.

[Scarlett]

24 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

My struggle with jail time though, is we're all looking into prison reform now- and so much talk about "non-violent" crimes. I still haven't sorted all of my thoughts on that. But I have one young adult who is sort of jumping on the whole "no jail time for non-violent offenses" bandwagon when it comes to things like possession or whatever. So then to say "well you need to go to jail for this....." I'm not 100% I think this is then in line with it being jail worthy. I get they are trying to make examples of them. But if you're anti-jail time for non-violent offenders, you can't really add "unless they are rich." They throw people in jail for tax evasion for years, yet some people rape someone and get less time. Things like this make it more convoluted in my mind to say "oh yeah she should definitely get time."

Martha Stewart did more time for obstruction of her stock sale investigation than Brock Turner did for raping an unconscious woman. I would rather them up the fines to where people like FH and MS are working HARD to pay them off, than do jail time- especially something like two weeks. Really? Save the jails for rapists and murders is more the way I'm leaning right now. I think you can hit someone a lot harder financially than they did here and it serve as good, or even as a better lesson/deterrent. 

I agree that the fines need to be painful.  Jail time....meh I don't feel good or bad about her going to jail for 14 days.  I think her mortification of what she has done and how she is viewed now is much worse than the jail time.  At least that is how I read her.  But it isn't like we are best buds or anything....lol

[Scarlett]

59 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

It sends a message that if you have enough money for good lawyers you can get away lightly.  Yes, it was a non-violent crime, but it's still not a fair sentence.  

I hope they throw the book at Lori.

 

But this is a crime that only rich people can commit.  So naturally they are going to have the money for good attorneys.  

I think Lori is in for a rude awakening.  And her husband.....

[Corraleno]

That fine is a joke. 🤬 If not for the 14 days in jail, a fine that small would have every other cheating parent breathing a huge sigh of relief. Most of them could write a $30K check without even blinking.

I do think we need sweeping justice reform in this country, but I think the idea that nonviolent crime should never be punishable by jail time just legalizes all white collar crime. "Punishable by fine" basically means "legal for rich people."

[Katy]

So she'll get 4-7 days, right?  Isn't that how California works right now?  roughly 30-50% of time sentenced due to overcrowding?

[MysteryJen]

It's a federal crime.

Mail fraud and honest services fraud. 

The real scandal is that admissions weren't rescinded in every case and students expelled. 

That would have been a true punishment for the parents.

Most of the students were 18 and signed that their application was true. 

[MysteryJen]

I don't know- I do know they decided not to do the scam for the second daughter.

They clearly knew it was wrong. 

[catz]

In the context of the low income AA mother who enrolled her child in another district that got 5 years this whole thing just enrages me.  I don't want people going to jail for cheating on tests necessarily, though these were federal charges and she clearly knew it was wrong.  And the fine should have been WAY WAY more.  I would love to see her scrubbing floors in an urban public school with a toothbrush.  

Poor thing's going to have to miss a single manicure.  Sniff.  

[Frances]

1 hour ago, scholastica said:

This is not cheating on a test. Students with legitimate LDs are now going to be looked at askance for having accommodations. Qualified students may have lost slots at these universities. The damage they have done in abusing the system goes far beyond cheating on a test.

But she was only one individual in one plot, masterminded by someone else. Accommodations for disabilities during testing were already being questioned and scrutinized due to the much higher percentage of students using them in wealthy areas. Many people cheat on admissions by hiring people to write essays or take exams or fake credentials. This is a growing issue with more and more admits from foreign countries where it is harder for US admissions to evaluate credentials. Qualified students were already losing slots to many cheaters and it will continue to happen.

[Frances]

21 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Even for the "normal" wealthy- except maybe Warren Buffet/Masters of the Universe level- there IS a monetary level where it a fine would hurt. I think our justice system fines simply haven't kept up with it as far as the levels of wealth now. But it's not like your average wealthy person is unaffected by spending money. They would prefer to keep it. They're wealthy because they LIKE being wealthy and work to maintain that status.

The fact that this whole circle still cares about where a college degree comes from fascinates me. I don't understand it to be frank. I guess once you have achieved a certain amount of monetary success, that's the next "bar"? We have a family friend who is a huge ranch owner- self made millionaire, and I do mean self made, coming from a hard background. He married a doctor though and went back to college at 62 because he got so tired of going to fundraisers with his wife and hearing "where did you go to school?" At the age of SIXTY FIVE. Who asks a 60 year old man with multiple successful business that question? Apparently a lot of people. To me I'm like WHO CARES!! You own a horse farm and a zillion dollars in real estate. But apparently it matter to people still. It just baffles me though. I mean, if you make it without a degree- hats off to you. That's more impressive than doing it with one anymore. 

 

Some Scandinavian countries link some fine amounts to income level.

[LucyStoner]

I think the fine is light.  I think the jail time is what it is.  I don’t know that she deserves a longer sentence.  

I definitely don’t support ending jail time for any and all non-violent crimes. 

The sailing coach who took over a 1/2 million in bribes?  He got no jail or prison time when he was sentenced.  

[Frances]

20 minutes ago, MysteryJen said:

It's a federal crime.

Mail fraud and honest services fraud. 

The real scandal is that admissions weren't rescinded in every case and students expelled. 

That would have been a true punishment for the parents.

Most of the students were 18 and signed that their application was true. 

Which students are still attending universities where their parents paid for their admission? I haven’t kept up lately, but it seems like most of the schools said they were reviewing information, but weren’t releasing individual details due to student confidentiality.

[MysteryJen]

The sailing coach gave all the money to his program at the poor, struggling Stanford university. And was fired. I don't know where the money went after that.

Unlike the other coaches in the scheme who took the money for personal gain.

[Corraleno]

17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

In FH's case, I am not sure that her child even got admitted?   I thought the DD who's test was fixed was actually still in high school when it happened?  Did she attend a school based on that fixed score?

 

14 minutes ago, MysteryJen said:

I don't know- I do know they decided not to do the scam for the second daughter.

They clearly knew it was wrong. 

Sofia Macy graduated HS after the scandal broke, and has "put college plans on hold." 

[RootAnn]

Does anyone know what the fine amount range was for the crime? Could they not have given her more because the guidelines were too low?

[Scarlett]

56 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Even for the "normal" wealthy- except maybe Warren Buffet/Masters of the Universe level- there IS a monetary level where it a fine would hurt. I think our justice system fines simply haven't kept up with it as far as the levels of wealth now. But it's not like your average wealthy person is unaffected by spending money. They would prefer to keep it. They're wealthy because they LIKE being wealthy and work to maintain that status.

The fact that this whole circle still cares about where a college degree comes from fascinates me. I don't understand it to be frank. I guess once you have achieved a certain amount of monetary success, that's the next "bar"? We have a family friend who is a huge ranch owner- self made millionaire, and I do mean self made, coming from a hard background. He married a doctor though and went back to college at 62 because he got so tired of going to fundraisers with his wife and hearing "where did you go to school?" At the age of SIXTY FIVE. Who asks a 60 year old man with multiple successful business that question? Apparently a lot of people. To me I'm like WHO CARES!! You own a horse farm and a zillion dollars in real estate. But apparently it matter to people still. It just baffles me though. I mean, if you make it without a degree- hats off to you. That's more impressive than doing it with one anymore. 

 

I am right there with you.  All of this status nonsense just blows my mind.  And not every wealthy person is like that.....my very wealthy friend has a son who really struggled academically. At some point in his early teen years when some one was trying to freak her out about his future she said to me, ‘who cares? I will pay him to mow my lawn if that is all he can do.’

Happiness on earth isn’t just for high achievers...

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, LucyStoner said:

The sailing coach who took over a 1/2 million in bribes?  He got no jail or prison time when he was sentenced.  

The Stanford coach was sentenced to 6 months of house arrest wearing a monitor, a token 1 day in jail, plus an additional 18 months of supervised release and a $10K fine. I think he was helped by the fact that he didn't actually get any students into Stanford, and he didn't benefit personally.  Plus he lost his job and his career.

I will be really interested to see what kind of sentence Rudy Meredith, the Yale soccer coach, gets. Even though he personally accepted nearly a million dollars in bribes, some of it stashed in a Swiss bank account, he agreed to cooperate with the FBI in return for a plea deal that calls for minimal jail time, 3 yrs probation,  and return of all the money he took in bribes. The judge seemed rather skeptical about the leniency of the plea deal, and the fact that there seemed to be additional charges that could have been brought but weren't, so I hope the judge gives him more than just a token jail sentence. Former Yale soccer players report that Meredith also pressured them to write term papers for him, as well as significant parts of his dissertation, for a masters degree in sports management he was doing with another university. Sounds like a slime ball all around. 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Corraleno

[Farrar]

I really think Lori Laughlin must be freaking out. Is it too late for a plea? Because she must be regretting their decision to fight it.

I've got mixed feelings. The harm to testing accommodation seekers was huge. The offense was not okay and they knew it was wrong. I think the penalty should hurt, but I'm not sure if this hurts the right way or what. I'm generally for higher fines for the rich and this wasn't. I'm generally for less jail time in general, so I'm not sure about that.

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

Given similar precedents, like the homeless woman who was sentenced to 5 years for sending her kindergartener to the "wrong" district, I think it sends a continued message that money is power.

I also think it shows why we need to abolish the justice system as we know it and start from scratch with one based in real restitution.

we have a legal system.  big difference.  

[JustEm]

I think the fine was too low.  Assuming the fine could have been more, they should a slapped her with more. Her net worth is roughly $20 million and her husband's is $45 million,  $30,000 is nothing to that family.  If rich people know that their crimes aren't going to hurt them significantly they will continue to find ways to commit them.  

[Bluegoat]

I'm generally not of the view that jail time should be among the more standard types of punishment unless it's actually necessary to confine people.  I do find sentences quite weird at times when you compare them to other crimes, they don't make a lot of sense.

 

But the fine is very low, and I also think more significant community service might be a good thing.  Though community service can actually be more of a pain in the butt to the community than a help.

[LucyStoner]

5 hours ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

I read this week that a lot of them are hiring Prison Coaches/Consultants?!?! I had no idea that was a paying career. Interesting indeed. 

 

Yep.  I did some work for a prisoners project.  One of the board members had was self employed advising clients how to navigate/adjust to prison life.  

There is probably a consultant for any random thing we all can dream up.  

Edited September 14, 2019 by LucyStoner

[mathnerd]

7 hours ago, Katy said:

So she'll get 4-7 days, right?  Isn't that how California works right now?  roughly 30-50% of time sentenced due to overcrowding?

They mostly adjust their prison term against any time "already spent" in jail during their initial arrest when charges were filed against them. So, technically, it could be less than 4 days. Perhaps even one day when she will report to prison late and get released after lunch! (I am being sarcastic). She is wealthy, conniving, got herself a good PR coach to look repentant, got herself a good legal team to strategize and she will be out and about in hollywood soon enough.

What I would have loved to see is the judge ordering that her community service be to clean toilets in public parks for 250 hours (i remember some other celebrity being given that sentence before). That usually teaches them humility.

[Carrie12345]

I have issues with the way jail/prison is used. I’m not sure if I’m a “no jail for non-violent crimes” person or not, but maybe I’m close to that.  I don’t think it should be used to make a spectacle, and I think that’s what’s being done here. (And is often done elsewhere, in addition to making $$$.)

The fine is ridiculous. At least, it is on the surface. I wonder (without googling) if the judge chose to consider lost work as part of the “consequence”. On one hand, they’re all (deservedly) losing legit dollars over their actions. On the other, people may eventually decide to just forget about it and they could all go back to making lots of money.  There’s no real telling.

I’d like to see the community service be something substantial and meaningful. It doesn’t often work out that way, though.

[gardenmom5]

11 hours ago, hjffkj said:

I think the fine was too low.  Assuming the fine could have been more, they should a slapped her with more. Her net worth is roughly $20 million and her husband's is $45 million,  $30,000 is nothing to that family.  If rich people know that their crimes aren't going to hurt them significantly they will continue to find ways to commit them.  

I like how for Finland does fines by percentage of a person's net-worth, not a flat rate.

[SKL]

I am not at all surprised with the short jail time for fraud, but the fine should have been a heck of a lot bigger IMO.

That said - Martha Stewart, in contrast, got 5 months in jail.

I wonder how they decided what the damages were - i.e., how much she hurt others who were more qualified for the spot her daughter got.  And how much this kind of behavior hurts all candidates bc they have to do more than they should to get a seat.

I'm one of those naive people who always thought that you just do your best and you will land where you're supposed to land.  (I didn't even think it was ethical to "prepare" for the ACT/SAT, until recently when I learned almost everyone does so.  I still don't get "preparing" for gifted testing.  But that's another thread.)  I mean, I know there will always be people who offer bribes and people who accept them, but that it would become an essential part of the system is so disappointing.  That's how it is in corrupt countries, not here, idealistically.

[SKL]

I also wonder if the judge considered that the family has been shamed, especially the student in question.  Which is true, it's humiliating, but big wah.  They will get over it.  Recalling how nasty everyone was to the not-rich family where the little preschooler got into the gorilla pen ... and so many other times when a family was shamed for something they really didn't knowingly cause ... I have some sympathy for the daughter, but not a ton.

[Corraleno]

The plea deal Huffman signed called for 30 days in jail and a $20K fine, and the judge reduced the jail time and slightly increased the fine. But the maximum fine for mail fraud and honest services fraud is $250K or twice the bribe, whichever is greater, so I don't understand why the fine was so low. I think a week in jail and $250K would have been more appropriate. 

Toby McFarlane, the parent whose crime is most similar to Laughlin & Giannuli (he paid $550K to get his 2 kids into USC as fake athletes), signed a plea deal that called for 15 months in jail and a $95K fine, so it will be interesting to see if the judge also reduces the jail time and increases the fine in his case.

I really don't understand why the prosecution is asking for such low fines, knowing how incredibly wealthy these people are. I mean, these are the type of people who think nothing of dropping $30-40K or more on an Hermès Birkin handbag; that money is loose change to them. McFarlane could legally be fined up to $1.1 million, which would make an actual impact.

Anyway, given the fact that McFarlane will almost certainly spend several months in jail, and Laughlin & Giannuli are facing even more charges due to their refusal to take a plea, they should get significantly more jail time than whatever McFarlane gets. The maximum prison sentence for their crimes is 20 years, and the maximum fine would be $1 million, plus going to trial means their daughters will likely be called to testify — you'd think they'd be willing to take a plea just to avoid that, if nothing else.

[Corraleno]

58 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

Can/will the kids still get caught up in this in any way as far as being charged? I know it sounds like some were completely blindsided and had no idea. However, it sounds like others totally knew what was going on, and were complicit in many ways. 

I haven't read anything about students actually being charged, and it seems like only a few of them knew what was going on — most were completely clueless and their parents went to great lengths to keep it secret. I feel really bad for Huffman's daughter who, ironically, really does have learning disabilities and would qualify for regular extra time — plus she was applying to drama schools, where test scores are not that important. Huffman originally hired Singer as a regular college consultant, to help with essays and test prep, and Singer persuaded her to "boost" her daughter's test scores, claiming that everyone does it.

USC said they rescinded admission for 6 students who had been accepted but hadn't started yet, and they froze the accounts of students who were potentially involved and were already attending. Apparently the Giannuli sisters tried to withdraw but couldn't because their accounts were frozen. I assume USC did that so they can be formally expelled if they were involved (and all reports indicate that they were complicit in fabricating the athlete bios). From the USC reports, though, it sounds as if they do not plan to expel students who did not know what their parents did, even if their admission was based on fake profiles.

Georgetown expelled two students who were admitted as fake athletes — and one of them is suing the school, saying they have no right to expel him because it was their own fault for not properly vetting his application! I believe the other student they expelled is the girl who bragged about cheating on her SATs and helped fake her tennis profile (including rewriting her essay to focus on tennis). Yale rescinded the admission of one student who was already at Yale, and denied admission to the other student involved. Wake Forest said their student did not know about the scheme and will be allowed to remain. Gordon Caplan's daughter was a HS junior and hadn't applied to colleges yet. I can't find anything about any other students.

ETA: According to the lawsuit filed by one of the students dismissed by Georgetown, the school intends to cancel or invalidate their credits, so the students can't transfer them to another school. Both students were dismissed at the end of junior year.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Corraleno

[Lanny]

On FoxNews.com the information I am reading is not what I would call, in any way, sympathetic, to Felicity Huffman. What they are reporting seems to me to be hostile towards her.   She is trying to get into one of the 10 cushiest prisons in the USA, which is located in the San Francisco Bay area. That's the closest one to where she lives in the L.A. area.  I don't blame her for wanting to get into a "cushy" prison.  Even tho it's only 14 days (probably less with time off for good behavior) it isn't going to be a cakewalk for her.  IMO she responded very well, and properly, until a few weeks ago, when the information she was submitting to the court about the sentencing became public and I am not sure how much that hurt her.  Lori Loughlin is another matter and IMO did not respond properly from the beginning and she may do a lot more time in the slammer.

 

[Murphy101]

I think her fine should be equal to the amount of money she spent on the scam + the cost of what she was trying to get (4 years at Stanford).

I do think she should get jail time due to the high expense of her crime. Somewhat like how taking $10 out of til might not get you jail time, but taking 100k out of an account probably will. I think at least 6 months. To me, that’s enough to seriously impact her life and leave a memorable impression.

Generally speaking, I think giving anyone a sentence shorter than 6 months is a waste of taxpayers money and limited prison resources.

I would also be fine with fines being a set % of income, but only if it’s a genuinely painful amount, like 20-30% of assets or yearly income for 5 years. None of that $20 a month for 30 years crap.  

I don’t think Stanford should get a single dime from these events.

[Corraleno]

I read that one reason the sentencing for some of the other parents was delayed was because the judge asked the prosecution for more details about the financial loss to the institutions and other organizations, because penalties for this type of fraud are often usually based on the financial losses they cause, and the judge said she wasn't clear on whether there really were financial losses. The prosecution cited the costs to the colleges of the internal investigations, loss of prestige/value of the brand, loss of income due to reduced applications in the wake of the scandal (for which they cited figures), as well as a few other factors I don't remember. The prosecution further argued that since there was no way to quantify the exact financial loss to each school that could be attributed to each parent, they asked the court to use the formula of double the cost/gain/bribe — which seems to be a change in tactics since the plea deals they offered included much smaller fines. The fact that Huffman's fine was, in fact, exactly twice the bribe she paid, may mean that the judge is amenable to that method of calculating fines. And hopefully that means the parents who spent anywhere from $400K to $1 million in bribes will also pay much higher fines. 

[LucyStoner]

In my state generally sentences less than a year are served in jails, not prisons.  I can’t see how it would be cost effective to transport and process someone into prison for 14 days or 1/3 of that time.  Much more reasonable to book them into jail. 

[Corraleno]

@Murphy101 As far as I know there is no connection between Huffman and the Stanford scandal, which involved fake athletic recruits. Unlike most of the other parents involved, Huffman did not bribe any coaches. The only unethical part of her daughter's application would have been the artificially inflated test scores, Sofia would still have had to be accepted to schools based on her own interviews and auditions. Not that cheating on the SAT isn't a bad thing, but it's far more common than most people think, especially with international applicants, and even a top SAT score doesn't guarantee admission — which is why all the other parents involved paid $400K+ bribes to guarantee admission as a fake recruit.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Corraleno

[moonflower]

People selling drugs are commiting non-violent crimes but also with potentially violent impacts (ie.e overdose, suicide, job loss, addiction, general misery)

I'm with you on possession though

 

[moonflower]

It's not illegal to fleece people out of money legally, either (that is to say, you can pay a minimum wage even if it's not a living wage, you can charge too much for a necessary procedure in a hospital, you can sell people things that are bad for them and addictive but not drugs, like junk food).  

There are many other things that are very wrong but not illegal - adultery, factory farming, cheating on a test in college.  

 

[Corraleno]

23 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Also, IIRC all of the parents involved were wealthy but not super wealthy. Super wealthy people get their kids into elite schools without having to resort to these tactics. The means they use are perfectly legal but achieve the same end, the admission of unqualified applicants thus taking the space of a qualified applicant. Which is another reason why I do not see these elite schools as victims. 

Massimo Giannuli has a net worth of $80 million, not counting whatever Lori Laughlin has (or had). Macy & Huffman's combined net worth is around $65 million. Pimco CEO Doug Hodge was getting bonuses, on top of salary, of up to $45 million per year.  William McGlashan was the founder and managing partner of a multi-billion dollar investment management company, and many of the other parents were owners or managing partners of large investment companies or national/international businesses. Many of them could have afforded to donate a few million to get their kids in as legitimate development admits, if it was that important to them. But they were greedy and decided they could save money by falsifying documents and bribing coaches. Some of them even crowed, in the recoded conversations with Singer, about what an awesome deal it was. Some compounded the fraud by writing the bribes off their taxes as business expenses and/or paying for them from "charities" they founded and served on the board of.

IMO there is a big difference between actual development admits and fake recruiting admits. With development admits, the donation benefits the school as a whole, and ultimately the students, and it doesn't really take away anyone else's slot (other than possibly bumping the admission of a student whose parents offered a smaller donation), since every school has a few development slots available.

The money in the Varsity Blues scandal, on the other hand, only benefitted a handful of crooked coaches (plus Singer), not the schools, and those kids clearly stole the spot of a legitimate student-athlete. Coaches at D1 schools are given a limited number of recruiting "slots" they can use to guarantee admission for a select few athletes they want on their team. By selling off some of those slots to rich parents for personal profit, those coaches not only deprived a genuinely talented kid of the chance to compete for USC or Georgetown or whatever, they hurt the team and the school by not recruiting the best athletes they could get.

[Lanny]

3 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

In my state generally sentences less than a year are served in jails, not prisons.  I can’t see how it would be cost effective to transport and process someone into prison for 14 days or 1/3 of that time.  Much more reasonable to book them into jail. 

 

This is a Federal thing  so she must go to a Federal Prison. The article I read said that she wants to go here:  https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/dub/

[Farrar]

38 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

IMO there is a big difference between actual development admits and fake recruiting admits. With development admits, the donation benefits the school as a whole, and ultimately the students, and it doesn't really take away anyone else's slot (other than possibly bumping the admission of a student whose parents offered a smaller donation), since every school has a few development slots available.

The money in the Varsity Blues scandal, on the other hand, only benefitted a handful of crooked coaches (plus Singer), not the schools, and those kids clearly stole the spot of a legitimate student-athlete. Coaches at D1 schools are given a limited number of recruiting "slots" they can use to guarantee admission for a select few athletes they want on their team. By selling off some of those slots to rich parents for personal profit, those coaches not only deprived a genuinely talented kid of the chance to compete for USC or Georgetown or whatever, they hurt the team and the school by not recruiting the best athletes they could get.

This has been my complaint throughout. And in the case of the Huffman Macy daughters, it's especially dismaying because the girls were overall good students who could have, with a bit of development cash, gotten into a number of very good schools. Just not the schools they had decided were the must attends for their kids. And I'm sure many other families fell into that bracket as well. If they'd just set their sights on Oberlin or Hamilton or something instead of Yale, then as full pays with some money but decent scores, great grades and EC's, they'd have been shoo ins. Yet, they couldn't imagine not being able to go Ivy League. Ugh. And if they'd done that, then that money would have benefitted the school as a whole, so no need to feel guilty. It's clear from the tapes that it bothered them from the get go. Why hang that noose around your neck to walk around in if you have perfectly good options that others would figuratively kill for? But when you're rich, sometimes nothing is ever good enough.

[Paige]

I think the fines should be at least more than the bribes. I don't think it's fair, however, to say rich people need to pay higher fines in general. Justice is supposed to be blind- not blind unless you're rich. 

I am fine with the short jail time and would prefer no jail time and a more meaningful way for her to pay her debt to society. There was a time when people could not imagine justice without debtors' prisons or cruel and tortorous executions. I hope our reliance on prisons and imprisoning people ends soon. It isn't effective, humane, or sustainable, and IMO really makes us all less safe. We suffer from a lack of creativity in how we respond to people who violate laws and an over reliance on "common sense" ideas that aren't supported by the outcomes.

I don't want to see any of the parents in prison as I feel it's a waste of my money and I have no desire to inflict that kind of punishment on their extended families. I think prison should be reserved for people who can't be safe in the community.

[moonflower]

I had no idea about the details of it wrt the money, that's just crazy!  If you can afford to pay your kids' way into an elite school, like actually afford it, why not do that?  The prestige of being able to do that must mean something to these people.  Why cheat instead?  Insanity imo

 

 

[moonflower]

7 minutes ago, Paige said:

I think the fines should be at least more than the bribes. I don't think it's fair, however, to say rich people need to pay higher fines in general. Justice is supposed to be blind- not blind unless you're rich. 

I am fine with the short jail time and would prefer no jail time and a more meaningful way for her to pay her debt to society. There was a time when people could not imagine justice without debtors' prisons or cruel and tortorous executions. I hope our reliance on prisons and imprisoning people ends soon. It isn't effective, humane, or sustainable, and IMO really makes us all less safe. We suffer from a lack of creativity in how we respond to people who violate laws and an over reliance on "common sense" ideas that aren't supported by the outcomes.

I don't want to see any of the parents in prison as I feel it's a waste of my money and I have no desire to inflict that kind of punishment on their extended families. I think prison should be reserved for people who can't be safe in the community.

 

I'd agree on the whole.

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm kind of torn about this. 

I am a proponent of prison reform and believe that generally non-violent crimes should not have any jail time. However, I see some financial crimes, even though technically "non-violent," as deserving of jail time. For example, Bernie Madoff's crimes lead to suicides and probably other deaths as well. See Atrocious Things that Happened Because of Bernie Madoff

I think that maybe adding "unless they are rich" does make sense when discussing non-violent crimes. Whose crimes will have a greater impact? Maybe the solution is to consider financial crimes to be a form of violence? No one went to went to jail for any of the financial misdoings that lead to the Great Recession but millions of people suffered. It undoubtedly caused deaths. It destroyed the livelihoods of families. Does possession have that kind of an impact? 

I'm also torn about prison this case. I think one of the reasons it's hard for me to denounce the parents here is that I blame the universities too. I don't see them as victims. Elite universities created this environment. It's hard for me to think of universities as victims when 43 million Americans carry educational debt. Debt that is not dischargeable through bankruptcy. Although I guess that's congress's fault, not the universities. Although universities have definitely contributed to the problem by dramatically increasing tuition costs. 

ETA that what I find most interesting about this scandal is that Lori Loughlin's daughters didn't even want to go to college. Why did their mom go through these lengths to get them into USC when they already had lucrative careers on Instagram? What does that tell us about higher education in the US today? That this happened at all demonstrates how broken the entire system is. 

Also, IIRC all of the parents involved were wealthy but not super wealthy. Super wealthy people get their kids into elite schools without having to resort to these tactics. The means they use are perfectly legal but achieve the same end, the admission of unqualified applicants thus taking the space of a qualified applicant. Which is another reason why I do not see these elite schools as victims. 

I’m not sure it’s always the case of unqualified applicants taking the place of a qualified applicant. All of these schools could be filled many, many times over with qualified applicants. At the most basic level, it’s the scarcity of spots that creates both the eliteness and the craziness around getting in. At least in some cases, I think it’s more about absolutely guaranteeing admission of a qualified applicant. Much of the admission process is quite subjective. There’s a reason schools like Caltech and MIT were not involved in this scandal.

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

I’m not sure it’s always the case of unqualified applicants taking the place of a qualified applicant. All of these schools could be filled many, many times over with qualified applicants. At the most basic level, it’s the scarcity of spots that creates both the eliteness and the craziness around getting in. At least in some cases, I think it’s more about absolutely guaranteeing admission of a qualified applicant. Much of the admission process is quite subjective. There’s a reason schools like Caltech and MIT were not involved in this scandal.

Well CalTech and MIT aren't involved because the coaches there don't get any recruited slots, they have to take whatever athletes happen to get in on their own. The reason this worked at USC, Georgetown, and even Yale, is because those coaches can guarantee admission to athletes with stats that are WAY below the normal stats required for admission. That's exactly the loophole these parents exploited, bribing coaches to admit kids whose stats would never get them in on their own. And in some cases, they needed to cheat on the SATs to even get up to a level that would be accepted for an athlete, like the girl whose parents not only bribed the Georgetown tennis coach, they also paid $25K to "improve" her SAT scores from the low 500s to mid 600s.

Even at Ivies, which have an agreement that the average stats for athletes can't be more than one standard deviation below the overall average (an overall average that also includes the lower-stat athletes), the coaches in revenue sports are still allowed a certain number of admits who are two or more standard deviations below average. And schools like USC have no such restrictions — coaches can admit an athlete with an ACT score of 12 and a 2.5 GPA if they want.