Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 29 minutes ago, Gordio said: ...But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.) “How rude!”, as her TV niece would have said.
row_33 Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 33 minutes ago, Gordio said: Laughlin should of took the plea deal & this would of all been over. Probably would done a couple months in prison. But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.) Laughlin portrayed being a thief of the $$$ in people's wallets on the Larry Sanders Show
Augie Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 41 minutes ago, Gordio said: Laughlin should of took the plea deal & this would of all been over. Probably would done a couple months in prison. But she is arrogant & I have a feeling she is going to pay dearly(not 45 years but I could see her doing 5-10 years.) Arrogance rarely works FOR you. She will probably pay dearly for hers. I don’t think it will be 5 years, but this should have gone away already.
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, row_33 said: Laughlin portrayed being a thief of the $$$ in people's wallets on the Larry Sanders Show Must have been enough?...? Edited November 7, 2019 by Ridgewaycynic2013
plenzmd1 Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 13 hours ago, Augie said: So............she bribed the wrong people? ? This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock! 1
Augie Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock! I don’t know how they got you in, but I bet they quietly moved right after they dropped you off to keep you from going back home! I can hear them now: ”he’s their problem now!”
KD in CA Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 13 hours ago, apuszczalowski said: So if the University gets a cut of the money its cool, If they don't then its a crime? Makes sense I wouldn't be surprised if the schools knew about this and got a cut of it How is the University a victim? They got their money for having a student enrolled there, whether it was a 'Legacy' enrolment who only got in because their parent was an alum who made a donation, or someone else who made it in but didn't give the school a donation directly Actually yes, and if you can remove the "all rich people bad" blinders for a minute, you'd see that it does. 14 hours ago, Augie said: So............she bribed the wrong people? ? This whole thing is crazy and I don’t know what to make of it. I DO think that facing 45 years in prison is ridiculous. You can KILL someone and get off with FAR less than that. Of course she won't get anywhere near 45 years. I'm sure your nephew was "facing" a lot longer than 5 years at trial. The media just looooves to play up the facing number in criminal cases for shock value! But she will almost certainly get more than she deserves for the crime itself because of her arrogance and stupidity. Huffman got the appropriate punishment. Had Loughlin followed that path she probably gets the same. No different than any other case....if you plead you get the lower sentence. If you roll the dice at trial and lose, you get a longer sentence. Not sure why people are acting like those longstanding rules are so shocking in this case. 1
Augie Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Actually yes, and if you can remove the "all rich people bad" blinders for a minute, you'd see that it does. Of course she won't get anywhere near 45 years. I'm sure your nephew was "facing" a lot longer than 5 years at trial. The media just looooves to play up the facing number in criminal cases for shock value! But she will almost certainly get more than she deserves for the crime itself because of her arrogance and stupidity. Huffman got the appropriate punishment. Had Loughlin followed that path she probably gets the same. No different than any other case....if you plead you get the lower sentence. If you roll the dice at trial and lose, you get a longer sentence. Not sure why people are acting like those longstanding rules are so shocking in this case. The arrogance is amazing, and right now it appears stupidity is her defense. “But I just thought......”
RochesterRob Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 18 hours ago, Irv said: Does anybody actually think George Bush Sr. and Jr. and the Kennedy clan all deserved admission to Ivy League schools? Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin are just following in the footsteps of hundreds of our forefathers. I think it's pretty naive to think people have not been buying their way into prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale forever. Now they are going to jail for what slimy politicians and the blue bloods have been doing for years. They were wrong but this crap has been going on forever. Just ask Hunter Biden. The difference is that the Kennedy's and the Bush's "did it right" while the actresses "did it wrong." Meaning the Kennedy's and the Bush's made donations to the school overall with an understanding while the actresses bribed an official who was not on the top layer of administration. Also, 400K is a little light in the bribery dept if you ask me. We would not be hearing anything about it if each woman had offered say a couple million dollars at a lunch with a dean.
RochesterRob Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 17 hours ago, Marv's Neighbor said: You're right! If they were smart, they wouldn't have had to cheat, and the whole thing wouldn't have happened. The others were mostly "legacy." That's Ivy League nepotism. Being a legacy helps but certainly is not a guarantee for admission. For the most part a legacy gives the edge if test scores are close. But there are certainly exceptions when heavyweights are involved such as politicians, lawyers, captains of industry, etc..
Sundancer Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 1 hour ago, RochesterRob said: The difference is that the Kennedy's and the Bush's "did it right" while the actresses "did it wrong." Meaning the Kennedy's and the Bush's made donations to the school overall with an understanding while the actresses bribed an official who was not on the top layer of administration. Also, 400K is a little light in the bribery dept if you ask me. We would not be hearing anything about it if each woman had offered say a couple million dollars at a lunch with a dean. If you donate a few million to the school, are an active alum donor, that's a benefit to the entire school and student body. And such donations are legal. Greasing a guy's pocket and doctoring transcripts, tests, and photos is bribery and fraud--and benefits only the kid that is the subject of the fraud. Pretty big difference. 1 hour ago, RochesterRob said: Being a legacy helps but certainly is not a guarantee for admission. For the most part a legacy gives the edge if test scores are close. But there are certainly exceptions when heavyweights are involved such as politicians, lawyers, captains of industry, etc.. Test scores mean less and less, but your point is true if applicants are close. It's a plus in the column of students who are children of alum. 1
Uncle Joe Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock! wrestle? 1
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 (edited) Edited November 7, 2019 by \GoBillsInDallas/
RochesterRob Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 32 minutes ago, Sundancer said: If you donate a few million to the school, are an active alum donor, that's a benefit to the entire school and student body. And such donations are legal. Greasing a guy's pocket and doctoring transcripts, tests, and photos is bribery and fraud--and benefits only the kid that is the subject of the fraud. Pretty big difference. Test scores mean less and less, but your point is true if applicants are close. It's a plus in the column of students who are children of alum. The ethics are highly questionable if the donation was done solely to get the kid admitted and I thought that point was coming through. More so if a very highly ranking official does so in terms of doctoring a kid's application. I would bet that as part of the "service" an undeserving kid's record is cleaned up so there is not all kinds of resentment by instructors, administrators, and fellow students towards that kid most of the time. Usually the doctoring is done to make the student's background look reasonable if not top notch. Further, I was also making a point that what the women did was plain stupid in terms of trying not to get caught. It's like they were trying to work the bargain bin in terms of payola which does not make sense. I am not saying the second method is not fraudulent but a majority of the time a general donation is pretty much the same thing although quite a bit less risky. If you were the dean of a school or even the president of the university I would think that if you are bright enough to hold either post that if some big shot calls you out of the blue about a meeting it would take a split second to realize they want to place some kid there. The minute you gain access to that kid's files and see issues it will dawn on you that a bribe of some kind is going to be pitched at you. Again, the first approach mentioned in this regard is far less sloppy than the second but no more ethical if the donation was not happening without the admission. After all nobody makes a donation for a million or two on the basis of "if you can."
row_33 Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 (edited) can you pay the tuition? you are enrolled i'm about to do this without any great accomplishments on my transcripts...... Edited November 7, 2019 by row_33 2
Irv Posted November 7, 2019 Author Posted November 7, 2019 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: man, should have seen what my parents had to do to get me into Slippery Rock! I was going to go there but didn't have enough money for the special shoes. 1
KD in CA Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Augie said: The arrogance is amazing, and right now it appears stupidity is her defense. “But I just thought......” Yup. It's hard to sympathize with her when the DA publicly announced he was gunning for anyone who refused to own up to it. Of course they are going to use rich celebs as a warning to others....same reason Rudy insisted on doing perp walks for big shot Wall Street guys he busted in the 80s (well, that and he wanted to be Mayor). Who knows, maybe she'll get some Full House fans on the jury and get off. But I bet the stress is far more than she would have experienced if she had spent a few weeks in some cushy celeb prison cell. As Sammy Davis Jr said, don't do the crime if you can't do the time! 1
bills_fan Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 These people didn't bribe the colleges in the right way. This article about David Shaw shows how to bribe the colleges legally lol. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/david-e-shaw-college-donations.html
RochesterRob Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 41 minutes ago, bills_fan said: These people didn't bribe the colleges in the right way. This article about David Shaw shows how to bribe the colleges legally lol. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/david-e-shaw-college-donations.html Interesting read but I would say that most potential applicants do not have close to the means that Shaw has. I would guess that in most cases the family more or less has a one time shot which means they insist on a quid pro quo. Even then it is not a slam dunk even if the potential applicant's history is white-washed. While admissions is no doubt prone to some leaning on by upper administration faculty often has a considerable say which I saw as a student being accepted into Cornell. Even if the heavy hand of the dean or president prevails the student is very vulnerable once in as he will be in the crosshairs of a number of instructors and fellow students. It would not surprise me that many students who had their family buy their way in wash out after a year. My advisor on his best day was a miserable prick but would not screw anybody over that he though had merit. Somebody that he thought did not deserve a "chair" would receive his undying resentment any way he could dish it out. I give credit to my advisor for finding elective courses that enhanced my GPA.
Sundancer Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 4 hours ago, RochesterRob said: The ethics are highly questionable if the donation was done solely to get the kid admitted and I thought that point was coming through. More so if a very highly ranking official does so in terms of doctoring a kid's application. I would bet that as part of the "service" an undeserving kid's record is cleaned up so there is not all kinds of resentment by instructors, administrators, and fellow students towards that kid most of the time. Usually the doctoring is done to make the student's background look reasonable if not top notch. Further, I was also making a point that what the women did was plain stupid in terms of trying not to get caught. It's like they were trying to work the bargain bin in terms of payola which does not make sense. I am not saying the second method is not fraudulent but a majority of the time a general donation is pretty much the same thing although quite a bit less risky. If you were the dean of a school or even the president of the university I would think that if you are bright enough to hold either post that if some big shot calls you out of the blue about a meeting it would take a split second to realize they want to place some kid there. The minute you gain access to that kid's files and see issues it will dawn on you that a bribe of some kind is going to be pitched at you. Again, the first approach mentioned in this regard is far less sloppy than the second but no more ethical if the donation was not happening without the admission. After all nobody makes a donation for a million or two on the basis of "if you can." The difference is substantial. Money donated to the school, which money benefits all the students vs. money going to the personal pocket of some admissions person/coach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFia7FhVmuM
Recommended Posts