
Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal - dsavant
https://www.axios.com/lori-loughlin-husband-sentenced-college-bribery-scandal-17611534-00ff-4d25-9d88-de62725dec71.html
======
bleepblorp
I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery
scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the _truly_ rich to get their
failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple
millions to the institutions.

The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being
prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being
prosecuted for finding a cheaper way to get their children into selective
colleges than paying the ten million+ selective colleges charge a for legacy
admission.

~~~
fossuser
Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and
not giving the universities the bribe directly (likely because the actual
'fee' for getting your kid in is more than they could afford).

I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that
these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in.

Says a lot about the actual signalling value vs. educational value of the
universities (and the lottery that is admissions).

On a tangential note, Lisa Brennan-Jobs' really great memoir "Small Fry" talks
about her experience with this a bit. She dreamed of going to Harvard and
during the admissions interview it didn't seem to be going anywhere until she
quietly mentioned that her dad founded a computer company (the interviewer
asked which one which prompted Lisa to say Apple at which point the dense
interviewer figured out she was Steve Jobs' daughter) - and then the
interviewer ___left the room_ __for a time.

When the interviewer came back she was smiling and generally a lot more
engaged. Lisa went to Harvard.

College admissions is an unfair system in a billion different ways, I hope
ISAs like Lambda School end up replacing a lot of it for most people. Lori
Loughlin and the actors cheated the system, but it's weird to me that they got
in trouble because they didn't cheat _in the right way_.

You need to be rich enough to pay a large enough bribe to the school directly.
If that fails, hopefully you have a famous father.

Otherwise it's a lottery.

[Edit]: For those arguing paying the school bribe is different because other
students benefit, I'd argue there should be at least some transparency in this
process. If admissions slots are for sale, let the public see the price
(instead the schools pretend otherwise).

~~~
andreilys
_“ I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried
that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in.”_

You would be surprised at how difficult it is to fail out of programs.

From what I’ve seen profs have an unwritten rule to not fail students from
school admin, otherwise they might complain and so it’s easier to give a D
than fail them completely.

~~~
toast0
That depends on the school. My 4-year would put you on academic suspension if
your GPA was too low, which ended with you kicked out (well forced to take a 1
year break and have to ask to return... Not a lot of people did, especially
since credits expired after 7 years). Although, I did get a D in a class I
should have failed by the curve because I didn't write up all the lab reports,
but I did well on all the tests and went to office hours to ask how to not
fail, and a better grade than I deserved in a final quarter class where I
wrote an apology note on the final exam, because I skipped studying that lieu
of other course work, since that one wasn't needed to graduate.

On the other hand, my mom teaches pre-baccalaruate math at a CSU and gets all
kinds of grief from administration for failing kids who don't earn a passing
grade.

~~~
WalterBright
It wasn't really possible to flunk out of Caltech. What would happen is
students would get discouraged and just leave. If you wanted to return, they'd
let you back.

A friend of mine "flunked out" this way, and 10 years later came back and
finished with all As. I asked him if he got any smarter in that decade. He
laughed, and said no, he was just willing to do the work the second time
around.

------
supernova87a
The most entertaining argument I read about this whole scandal is that it
wasn't fraud, it was _theft_ , and that's why the US Attorney is going after
it on behalf of the colleges. Theft from the _colleges_.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-
ha...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-have-to-pay-
the-right-person)

"...Here is one thing that U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the
charges:

 _“There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, and I
'll add that there will not be a separate criminal justice system either.”_

Level playing field! Here is another thing he said less than a minute later:

 _“We’re not talking about donating a building so that a school’s more likely
to take your son or your daughter. We’re talking about deception and fraud.”_

There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, except for
the extremely well-known one where you donate a building in exchange for
getting your kid in! “Lol just donate a building like a real rich person,” the
U.S. Attorney almost said. Josh Barro’s analysis on Twitter is exactly right:

 _The admissions slots were stolen from the colleges and resold on the black
market. Which is a crime, for good reason. We don’t have to act like there
wasn’t a legal, primary market for the admissions slots already._

I think the key is not to understand this as a crime against other applicants,
or the public, or “fairness.” It’s a crime against the schools.

It is not about fairness; it is about theft. Selective colleges have
admissions spots that they want to award in particular ways. They want to
award some based on academic factors; they want to award others based on
athletic skill; they want to award others in exchange for cash, but—and this
is crucial—really a whole lot of cash. Buildings are not cheap.

~~~
jmole
I mean - economically speaking - why wouldn't a college take a student in
exchange for a building? It would be unfair to not allow this, no?

I think the unfairness argument should be taken up a level - it's unfair that
someone can even have the wealth to do this.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Colleges should compete for students based on the number of endowed buildings
and sports facilities, and not on irrelevant metrics like academics.

In fact there should be a two-speed college system - one for very wealthy
people who like having buildings and stadiums named after them, and a separate
vocational academic system for those who can't afford to operate on that
level.

Studying would be optional on the fast track. Academic life would become a
round of partying, networking, and assortative mating, and efficiency would be
enhanced by shortening it by a year or two. This would increase student
throughput and further boost the property portfolios of the high status
educational institutions.

With this system everyone would know exactly what their money was buying, and
immoral attempts to cheat the system would become very easy to spot.

------
rumcajz
I have hard time understanding what goes for the bribery in US. Apparently, a
lot of stuff that would be considered corruption in Europe is just business as
normal in the US. In this particular case I would guess that what they did
would be considered OK. Apparently it wasn't. Can someone from the US comment
on where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies?

~~~
rsynnott
Their bribe wasn't big enough, so it was the BAD sort of bribe, seems to be
about the size of it. Bizarre.

I have a lot of concerns about the Irish college admissions system (a numeric
score is derived from final school year exam results; places are filled based
on the highest scores who applied by a national computer system, then anyone
left is shunted to their second choice (which may be in a different
institution) and so on), but at least people can't outright buy a place.

~~~
kumarvvr
In India, a similar thing happens for engineering admissions.

People write a national level exam, get individual ranks. No two people get
the same rank.

A convention is organized by the education body, where students are called in
slots, with the top rankers going first. So they have all the colleges to
choose from, all the subjects, etc.

Some % of seats in all colleges are reserved for various categories of
students like athletes, physically handicapped, etc. But they are also
prioritized based on their rank and an additional score (like a national level
badminton winner is prioritized over a state level one, even if the national
level player has a worse rank than the state level one).

Apart from this, all colleges are allowed 'management' seats, which are
essentially seats that can be purchased. However, even to purchase seats, the
student has to get a qualifying rank in the exam.

Costs for the seats are also fixed nationwide, with govt. doling out grants to
the colleges for specific indexes, like male / female ratio, etc.

------
cwhiz
The most amusing thing about this is that the kids didn’t fail out. Kids
couldn’t qualify to get in but they had no problem doing the coursework.

Really laying bare that you’re paying for the diploma, and not the education
itself.

------
tempsy
This case just annoys me - this is hardly justice - she will probably be
released due good behavior or covid in 2 weeks. The amount of tax payer money
that went into investigating and prosecuting the case far outweigh the reward
here.

------
technotony
Does anyone know why the husband got 2.5x more penalty than the wife? Was the
court able to prove it was his idea or he was somehow more guilty?

~~~
boomboomsubban
It's a plea deal, he plead guilty to more crimes.

>Loughlin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and
Giannulli pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and
honest services wire and mail fraud

[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-
guilty-p...](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-
plea/index.html)

~~~
onionisafruit
Prosecutor probably wanted one of them to plead to the higher charge and
didn’t care which one.

------
bitL
Why weren't they both punished evenly? Seems like a biased decision. Is it
because Lori is a "celebrity"?

~~~
boomboomsubban
It's a plea deal, he plead guilty to more crimes. It is likely they discussed
it.

>Loughlin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and
Giannulli pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and
honest services wire and mail fraud

[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-
guilty-p...](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-
plea/index.html)

------
naveen99
It would be funny if the irs decided to go after all the people who
legitimately donated To the development office to get their children
admission, but took the full charitable tax deduction and didn’t subtract the
fair market value for the admission... even funnier if they clawed back the
universities tax free status or atleast back taxes on the donations as well.

Which brings me to, Wikileaks or someone should publish the FMV of quid pro
quo admissions charity by college.

------
darkerside
This whole thing strikes me as prosecuting drug users instead of the dealers.
If someone is selling this, I promise there are going to be people looking to
buy it. College admissions is just too emotionally fraught for people to make
clear decisions consistently.

I assume it edged its way from plausible deniability to mutual culpability in
a very subtle way. Amd I believe the fraudster was eventually colluding with
the FBI. How is it not entrapment?

------
awillen
Remember when this was the biggest symbol of corruption in the US? I miss
those times...

------
denago
seems silly to send people to prison for this

~~~
microtherion
As a comparison, a homeless mother who deliberately enrolled her 5-year-old in
the wrong school district was sentenced to 5 years in prison:
[https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-
he...](https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-went-prison-enrolling-
her-191400017.html)

I would argue that the kind of bribery at the heart of this case is
considerably worse, as it fosters a mentality that everything is for sale at
the right price.

~~~
driverdan
While the charges are absurd people need to stop referencing this case. She
was given 5 years for the drug charges so the judge tacked on a concurrent 5
year sentence for the school charges. It has no material impact. If she didn't
have the drug charges she wouldn't have been given that sentence.

~~~
nrmitchi
Does that not have the impact of setting a precedent the next time that
someone in the region is charged with the same thing?

"Well, last time, the defendant was given 5 years. Therefore, a fair sentence
is 5 years".

Tacking a 5 year sentence on to anything because "it doesn't matter" seems
exceptionally short-sighted.

------
tunesmith
Stiffer sentence than Felicity Huffman, who got 14 days (she served 11), 30k
fine, 250 hours of community service.

~~~
anonAndOn
Didn't Felicity plea bargain pretty quickly and accept her fate? Lori refused
the initial plea bargain to which the prosecutors responded by adding more
charges. Oops!

~~~
glaucon
To a non-USAian such as myself it's just so marvellous that a case involving,
a sort of, corruption has the resulting penalty affected by a "plea bargain".

"Plea bargains", a strange mixture of government approved gambling and trial
by ordeal making a travesty of the justice system.

~~~
tunesmith
Generally it makes a little sense to me in this case - accept accountability
sooner, get a more lenient penalty. Not sure if that is more common or rare in
other cultures?

~~~
Supermancho
In Germany, plea bargains are not common practice -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Germany)

------
TrackerFF
It's interesting - you read about David E. Shaw, that donated _millions_ to
ALL his target universities - just to cover all options. His kids got in (Yale
IIRC) - completely legal.

Then you have these parents, that paid money to some corrupt worker, and it's
jail time.

------
j45
Were any parties receiving bribes similarly identified, charged and convicted?
I can’t recall hearing much about that.

------
tibbydudeza
Prediction ... she will be released on good behavior ... 14 days later.

------
mike503
More time than most Trump cronies seem to get.

------
pers0n
She got off easy with 2 months. A black lady got 20 yrs for falsifying info to
get her child(ren) into a school system

------
icantspellwell
First, we don't know whether the children of the guilty were kicked out of
school.

So, the only victims here are students and athletes who lost an earned spot in
university. But they don't have any agency here.

The universities administration has no skin in the game - they get paid, the
endowments are bountiful, and the professors keep on suffering on. There may
even be a backslaps and high five deal to recapture any "lost" income.

The guilty here are resourceful and powerful, so really, the court case is
more of a negotiation at best. Kiss the hand of the king and receive a small
slap on the wrist sort of a deal.

The government has bigger fish to fry than worry about fairness.

~~~
downrightmike
The university is trying to protect its reputation and goodwill. The trial
helps as a warning to other parents: cough up the money the way they want and
your kids get in, or risk the lottery.

