Feds slowly chipping away at College Bribery and Fraud.

Once again semantics, maybe you meant middle of the road upper class. Only a small sliver of upper middle class people people touch a quarter million a year let alone have it to give away to get their kid into a school. If you have a half a ticket to just throw around to get your kid into a school, before you even pay for school, you are rich. Now there are levels to being rich, but you are rich. 1% income is what, just below 450k a year this cycle?

I agree and get what you’re saying I just wana be clear because I think a lot of people are quick to lump this as the 1%’ers. I’m specifically referencing families with incomes between 200-350k/yr. Which is what I’ve found to be people whose parents had “traditional middle class” family incomes of 75-150k, that are willing to do anything to make sure their kids don’t slide back down to that income level. Parents who went to X law school or Y Med school don’t want billy to be an accountant slugging 60k at pwc, they want him to go Finance at Harvard and walk into wall st at 200. Them shelling out 250-500 is a massive sacrifice, but to them it’s worth it.
 
Advertisement
Well I don't know about you guys, but I feel safer already! Hey FBI, you may not have noticed this, since women's volleyball and rowing is so glamorous, but there's this thing called "College Football", where the practice field parking lots look like NFL teams reside there. Where recruits post pictures and videos online with stacks of cash and other "swag". Where the players themselves openly reference "bagmen" and other recruiting "perks". So... when do we see Nick Saban frog-marched in handcuffs out of his Alabama office? Just asking.

Btw, when you get tired of college sports, there seem to be a lot of ex-Washington politicians who end up as high paid executives at, or giving $500k a pop speeches to the very same corporations who lobbied them throughout their time in office. I'm sure there's noting nefarious going on (perish the thought!), but maybe you should get yourself a few wiretaps, just to make sure.
 
What crimes would us wanna-be District Attorneys want to charge the actors in the Bag Game with? Money laundering? Tax fraud? Okay.

Not being sarcastic. I’m curious what anyone on the board with a legal background thinks.
 
What crimes would us wanna-be District Attorneys want to charge the actors in the Bag Game with? Money laundering? Tax fraud? Okay.

Not being sarcastic. I’m curious what anyone on the board with a legal background thinks.
What did they charge the college basketball coaches with for buying recruits?
 
Not quite.

There is nothing illegal about a university accepting a student as a legacy, or if the family is a wealthy donor.

Oh boy...if we truly reviewed the types of things that have been "legal" in this country for years and years...

There's "illegal"....and then there's "wrong." Especially when we ended up here to begin with with that hypocritical quote, "there can't be a separate Admissions system for the wealthy."
If we open up our eyes,...there already has been for decades and decades.
 
Advertisement
One of the convicted gave $400,000 over 8 years ($50,000 per year) to the University, and their child was NOT accepted to the school. That was their motivation to do what they did.

God forbid they just don't use that money for tutors. The kid must have been extremely handicapped mentally

Ignoring better details on this specific case,... this post encapsulates how the system should be.

Give whatever you wish to the institutions all you want...but have no advantage in the admissions process for your relatives.
 
The operative word is slowly

Feds are far too slow to catch the best college crooks ( Bama etc).

It's like putting your 80 year old arthritic Grandma in charge of watching numerous teenagers in a large three story house.
 
Ignoring better details on this specific case,... this post encapsulates how the system should be.

Give whatever you wish to the institutions all you want...but have no advantage in the admissions process for your relatives.

Paying the same tuition as everyone else does NOT entitle you to preferential treatment. You can't come to the door paying the same and expecting anything special

Its advantageous to a degree, for a school to admit celebrities, some prominent legacies or members of prominent families for image and future donations

BUT IF I or anyone else gave millions upfront as a gift to a University .....I would EXPECT certain advantages .....even IF were sponsoring Mr. Ed for admissions.

Most schools , even the Ivy league, have some special provisions, flexibility or leeway to accept students that otherwise do not meet all admission criteria.

Of course, It's up to them whether it's in their interest to provide any advantage......and is dependent, on how impressive my donation actually is in comparison to others ....and just as important, how Mr. Ed's admission may affect their brand.

Of course, then the famous Mr. Ed would have to still pay for tuition and fees as other students and would be on his own regarding grades.

Denying that the rich and famous do not get breaks is just not reality. Whether they should is a different story better left to ethics
 
WTF? since when does government get to tell private instiutions how to decide who to admit? If fraud was conducted, that’s a different issue. But colleges are free to admit wealthy people, poor people ... whoever.
Might not be so simple. Every university gets federal funds and contracts. They might be subject to rules and requirements imposed by the government as a result.
 
Advertisement
Paying the same tuition as everyone else does NOT entitle you to preferential treatment. You can't come to the door paying the same and expecting anything special

Its advantageous to a degree, for a school to admit celebrities, some prominent legacies or members of prominent families for image and future donations

BUT IF I or anyone else gave millions upfront as a gift to a University .....I would EXPECT certain advantages .....even IF were sponsoring Mr. Ed for admissions.

Most schools , even the Ivy league, have some special provisions, flexibility or leeway to accept students that otherwise do not meet all admission criteria.

Of course, It's up to them whether it's in their interest to provide any advantage......and is dependent, on how impressive my donation actually is in comparison to others ....and just as important, how Mr. Ed's admission may affect their brand.

Of course, then the famous Mr. Ed would have to still pay for tuition and fees as other students and would be on his own regarding grades.

Denying that the rich and famous do not get breaks is just not reality. Whether they should is a different story better left to ethics
Maybe Mr. Ed went to a state school and paid in-state tuition. He probably had enough in royalties to tide him over. Could live in a stable at the vet school and probably save on room and board. Do you think hay is more expensive than pizza at the student Union? I doubt it.
 
The real tragedy here is that if they were basketball or football players they would be removed from the school. They wouldn’t be able to continue their education.

I’m betting that none of these kids are kicked out of school.
That one actress' two daughters won't return to USC.
 
Might not be so simple. Every university gets federal funds and contracts. They might be subject to rules and requirements imposed by the government as a result.
I understand that is the legal theory pushed by the govt, which desires to control everything. And accepted by courts, which desire to grudgingly validate about everything govts desire to do. I am simply saying it’s a bad theory, as a matter of law, politics and freedom. And we should not be so reflexively accepting of it as most seem to be. The old unconstitutional conditions doctrine was built on the right foundation. The govt should not be able to attach conditions to funding that restrict constitutional freedoms and which it couldn’t impose absent funding. Fund or dont. It’s not their money anyhow. They just take it by force.
 
Advertisement
What crimes would us wanna-be District Attorneys want to charge the actors in the Bag Game with? Money laundering? Tax fraud? Okay.

Not being sarcastic. I’m curious what anyone on the board with a legal background thinks.
Tax fraud for sure. This was even suggested by an angry AD Sam Jankovich after we lost Terry Metcalf's son Eric to Texas. JJ knew Eric wanted to come to Miami. We knew something was going on and JJ suspected ND had gotten to to Eric's mother in Seattle. At the last minute Eric signed with Texas saying it was because "Texas had the better track program."The irony was, we also signed another DC area kid in the same class, Robert Thomas. Thomas and Metcalf were track rivals and Thomas HS coach at Roosevelt said Robert was "the fastest kid on the East Coast."

He probably was. This kind of throws cold water on Metcalf's explanation that Miami's track program was not good enough.

As it turned out, Thomas dropped football early and I think stayed on the Miami track team through graduation. I don't know how he turned out but he was supposed to be pretty **** fast.

I remember Sam was furious and spoke out publicly that the IRS should look into unpaid taxes on these payments to recruits.

He was right. I worked at the IRS at the time and recognized that substantial amounts of compensation was not being reported.

I was not in a position to do anything, plus I could only surmise from what was coming out publicly. There was no proof.

Beyond that, I'm just guessing that if there is a criminal tax case then maybe you add on things like wire fraud, conspiracy, etc.

Not an expert in this area of law.
 
I understand that is the legal theory pushed by the govt, which desires to control everything. And accepted by courts, which desire to grudgingly validate about everything govts desire to do. I am simply saying it’s a bad theory, as a matter of law, politics and freedom. And we should not be so reflexively accepting of it as most seem to be. The old unconstitutional conditions doctrine was built on the right foundation. The govt should not be able to attach conditions to funding that restrict constitutional freedoms and which it couldn’t impose absent funding. Fund or dont. It’s not their money anyhow. They just take it by force.
Disagree. Some of the conditions are good like requirement not to discriminate. Might be other requirements like don't commit crimes with money given as grants.
 
Over/Under how many go to prison for a year? I say less than a handful. These people should be fined 10 times what they paid to get their kids in and jail time.
 
Advertisement
Disagree. Some of the conditions are good like requirement not to discriminate. Might be other requirements like don't commit crimes with money given as grants.
You are exibiting classic sheeple behavior. You applaud the destruction of freedom as long as you think it serves your moral hankerings. Typical reflexive and shallow thought process. The irony of course is that the govt doesnt just tolerate discrimination, it even funds it ... when the groups being discriminated against arent tied to politically powerful interests. Ultimately, you have to pick between freedom and totalitarianism. And the natural order of things is the latter, so preserving freedom should be considered of much higher importance than preserving the right to discriminate against Asians and poor whites but not other groups. To be clear, the govt should never discriminate on the basis of race. But it should also keep its grubby hands out of the private sphere as much as possible.
 
You are exibiting classic sheeple behavior. You applaud the destruction of freedom as long as you think it serves your moral hankerings. Typical reflexive and shallow thought process. The irony of course is that the govt doesnt just tolerate discrimination, it even funds it ... when the groups being discriminated against arent tied to politically powerful interests. Ultimately, you have to pick between freedom and totalitarianism. And the natural order of things is the latter, so preserving freedom should be considered of much higher importance than preserving the right to discriminate against Asians and poor whites but not other groups. To be clear, the govt should never discriminate on the basis of race. But it should also keep its grubby hands out of the private sphere as much as possible.
Blah-Blah-Blah...not worth my time to answer...or even read in it's entirety. Once I saw "sheeple".....

Back to something more important, like my laundry.

By the way I think he spelled it "Ethenic", not ethnic.
 
Blah-Blah-Blah...not worth my time to answer...or even read in it's entirety. Once I saw "sheeple".....

Back to something more important, like my laundry.

By the way I think he spelled it "Ethenic", not ethnic.
You're better off watching paint dry over trying to reason with EthnicSands.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top