
FBI accuses wealthy parents in college-entrance bribery scheme - patrickxb
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accuses-wealthy-parents-including-celebrities-in-college-entrance-bribery-scheme/2019/03/12/d91c9942-44d1-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html
======
Balgair
Oh dear God. Reading into the indictments, it seems that a lot of the kids
never had a clue that they were complicit in the schemes:

>... and it was like, the kids though, and it was funny 'cause the kids will
call me and say, "Maybe I should do that again. I did pretty well and if I
took it again, I'll do better even" Right? And they just have no idea that
they didn't even get the score that they thought they got.

Can you even imagine what those people are going through?

One day you are a USC/Harvard/Stanford grad. The next day you are a fraud. And
not only that, you are revealed to the entire world to be dumb as a box of
rocks, just totally naked and shamed. And you had _no clue_. Your closest
family members spent tens of thousands of dollars fooling you, committing very
serious crimes on your behalf, and all the while, lying to you about your
intelligence and work ethic.

For those people, it must feel like _The Truman Show_ or an episode of _The
Twilight Zone_. It's totally unreal.

~~~
austincheney
No empathy. The entire system is pay to play for the social connections. If
they were actually interested in education the scenario would have been
completely different.

I saw similar fabrications growing up as I attended one of the wealthiest high
schools in the country. The top 10 of my graduating class got complete
scholarships the most expensive schools in the country and the parents were
willing to do anything to the school faculty to make sure their child had a
higher class rank.

~~~
bonestamp2
> If they were actually interested in education the scenario would have been
> completely different.

Seriously, I was staying at the Trump hotel in Chicago (before Trump ran for
president -- before I ever gave much thought about Donald Trump). Anyway,
there was a looping video on the TV and she was inviting guests to stay at any
one of their other Trump hotels around "North America and Canada." It was at
that moment I realized that she thought North America was some kind of
Northern area of America. I no longer wonder how she got into Wharton.

~~~
alasdair_
>Seriously, I was staying at the Trump hotel in Chicago (before Trump ran for
president -- before I ever gave much thought about Donald Trump). Anyway,
there was a looping video on the TV and she was inviting guests to stay at any
one of their other Trump hotels around "North America and Canada." It was at
that moment I realized that she thought North America was some kind of
Northern area of America. I no longer wonder how she got into Wharton.

Who is "she"?

~~~
thoman23
Ivanka?

------
NowThenGoodBad
This might be more overt than the usual form, but how does this differ from
donating a new building, department, or scholarship fund and subsequently
getting your kid in?

My mother did well in the Masters program at Stanford and I would have likely
gotten in if she donated a couple million dollars but she didn’t and I didn’t
(despite getting an invitation a year after accepting enrollment at another
university).

It’s not like we ever had that type of money, but if we did I wouldn’t have
wanted that.

It seems like they’re targeting this more obvious version of bribery but not
digging in and targeting the systemic issue of affluent people buying their
children’s spot in college.

I really don’t think it’s much harder to prove that an underperforming student
who got in because their parents donated a couple million (or tens of millions
of) dollars took the place of a more qualified candidate. Maybe I’m wrong...

~~~
XCabbage
Donating a building is a payment _to the university_. The university then gets
to decide to admit your child in return. It may not be meritocratic, but it's
not corrupt (except perhaps insofar as by pretending the exchange is a
donation, the university and donor manage to cheat the taxman). The donor is
simply paying the university to provide a service that they have every right
to offer for money. It also benefits other students, which is why the
universities take the deals in the first place.

In this case, we're talking about bribery of specific employees to act against
the interests of their employer. That's simply corruption.

They might be equally non-meritocratic, but they're definitely _not_ equally
dishonest or equally socially harmful.

~~~
fmajid
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not corrupt.

~~~
rb808
They're private clubs, not public charities.

One of the reasons people want to go to these schools is because they have
lots of resources. If you ban wealthy parents and alumni from donating, the
school wont be outstanding, so the University has good reason to accept these.

~~~
mcguire
Technically, they _are_ public charities.

[https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Is...](https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU%20Files/Key%20Issues/Taxation%20%26%20Finance/Tax-
Exempt-Status-of-Universities-FINAL.pdf)

~~~
gowld
Your link does not support your claim:

"charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational"

Obviously a university is scientific and literary, and a college is
educational.

------
highschoolx
US high school senior here. Made a throwaway for this.

Seeing this makes my blood boil. Not only is it essentially an open secret
that the admissions process actively discriminates against Asians and other
high-achieving ethnic groups--and gives a massive leg up to legacies, children
of donors, etc.--these people thought they were good enough, by virtue of
their wealth, to bribe and cheat their way into these top universities (and
some of them, honestly, shouldn't even need cheating to get into!)

I've worked my tail off for the past four years (if not more) to weasel my way
past the racially biased admissions office, and now I see this--brazen
corruption from the elite whose egos ride on their trust-fund children's
college acceptances.

After my personal experience and now this, I've come to a conclusion: the
college admissions process in the US is fundamentally broken. This case isn't
just an aberration--it's a pattern.

I shudder to imagine just what my children will have to go through.

</rant>

~~~
anigbrowl
We live in quite a corrupt society, so here is the part where I tempt you to
undertake a nihilistic leap into radical politics:
[http://www.capitalaspower.com/](http://www.capitalaspower.com/)

 _I shudder to imagine just what my children will have to go through._

Things have been known to improve as well to decline. Don't let your anger
make you pessimistic, experience will supply you with plenty of occasions for
that later.

~~~
jtfairbank
How is that Capital As Power site radical _at all_ when it merely purports to
explore the dominant mode of capitalism / politics in the USA today?

Now if you linked to something like [https://sub.media/](https://sub.media/)
or [https://itsgoingdown.org/](https://itsgoingdown.org/) I'd understand...

~~~
anigbrowl
I like to invite people to climb into the pool as opposed to just tossing them
in at the deep end :)

------
MBCook
A tweet from Yashar Ali:

US Attorney re the Huffman/Loughlin (among others) college scam: "We're not
talking about donating a building...we're talking about fraud."

[https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1105493852578697217](https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1105493852578697217)

Says quite a lot, doesn’t it.

~~~
winningcontinue
yup, most striking sentence to me as well. If you donate an entire building,
it's fine and legal. Smaller payments in the form of money, is fraud.

~~~
enraged_camel
Well yes, because donating a building benefits all the students using that
building today and well into the future. Small payments (i.e. bribes) to
individuals benefit no one except those individuals.

------
75dvtwin
general sentiment of many here is,

A) a private university can set any criteria they want for admissions.

B) a private, federally accredited, university can set different criteria of
admission for different people

C) If a parent donates large amount of money directly to the school, and their
children get accept with lower criteria -- it is perfectly ok.

\---

Are there conditions, that would not make this line of thinking not ok ?

Is donating 'sexual favors' ok ?

Should the same principles be applied for job promotions in private
corporations ?

Is it ok to do similar differential treatment, for different students, for
their grades throughout the study, and not just initial admission?

What does it mean to be an 'accredited university'? Does accreditation implies
any form of fairness? Is that legally enforceable ?

Will the deans of those universities be responsible for lax rules, eg..
looking the other way?

… aren't those kinds of behaviors, that are then breading the 'financial
services execs that 'look the other way' and caused financial crisis of '08?

~~~
timavr
Private universities are private as in control, not in funding. John Hopkins
is a private university whose research is nearly 90% funded by the government.
None of the private universities can exist without government funding.

So when Harvard professor whose salary comes from grants lectures a donor's
child, who didn't get the grades to be there in the first place, it raises a
question, if the arrangement makes sense.

------
shereadsthenews
The one thing we have learned from the last few years is that white-collar /
upper-class crimes are rampant and radically under-prosecuted.

------
naveen99
Looks like they got cheap and tried to bribe low level people instead of
donating directly to the official university fund raising people.

~~~
2sk21
Indeed, every university has a "development" office precisely to collect
"bribes" openly.

------
Alex3917
This is pretty wild. Seeing the FBI tackle something like this is so far
outside of the legal and cultural norms of society that it's difficult to even
really comment on.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Well, frankly I'm glad they are. As many people die slipping in the bathtub
each year as 9/11\. If acronym-agencies want to _actually_ help society maybe
they should tackle these types of real-world problems (e.g. tax-evasion of 1%)
rather than building cool Snowden spy-toys.

------
mcguire
" _Investigators allege the scheme was run largely through Key Worldwide
Foundation, which ostensibly was a nonprofit but, according to the FBI, was
really a conduit for bribing college employees to get rich kids into elite
schools._ "

Well, it's not like there's truth in advertising:

" _We partner with your son or daughter to identify their strengths, unlock
their potential, choose the right college, position themselves for admission,
and outline a course of study and extracurricular experiences to lead to a
life of success. "_ \--
[http://www.thekeyworldwide.com/](http://www.thekeyworldwide.com/)

------
plink
Apparently, these parents were insufficiently wealthy to deflect prosecution.

~~~
Varcht
_" The Justice Department on Tuesday charged more than 30 wealthy people —
including two television stars — with being part of a long-running scheme to
bribe and cheat to get their kids into big-name colleges and universities."_

~~~
save_ferris
I think OP means that weren't wealthy enough to make a large public donation
through the appropriate channels and instead resorted to bribery.

Their legal bills could easily surpass the amount of money exchanged to get
their kids into these schools.

~~~
mcguire
The numbers $15,000 and $50,000 were mentioned in the article.

~~~
Thorrez
Are you saying that's a high number or a low number? Because if you're saying
it's high, you picked the wrong examples, here's a different example from the
article:

>The student’s parents paid $1.2 million in bribes, officials said.

~~~
mcguire
Low. Certainly not enough to be in the "donate a building" range. In fact, I
doubt $1.2million is in that range.

------
a3n
I wonder if these parents will be punished as much as parents who get caught
cheating on government assistance programs so that their kids have housing or
food or health care.

Probably not. They can afford lawyers to defend them and negotiate plea deals
and settlements.

------
wolfspider
This is a really good reason why college should be free and more accessible.
Take away the opportunity for money to play a part in the exclusivity or
stature of admission. If the studies themselves were valued more than the
names of the schools it wouldn't matter as much which school was chosen. The
funding sources could be bonded (that's what Freddie and Fannie are- agency
bonds) and go directly to the institutions. The schools would be there to
provide and not take advantage of students or put a lien on their future
earnings. The money that the parents provide should go to the living expenses
and study supplies of their children. For those who don't have that kind of
support- the same colleges should be able to offer courses to them even if
they have to get a job and have less free time or continuing education.
Academics have become too rigid and this is the inflection point.

------
whatok
[https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-
admis...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-
and-testing-bribery-scheme) Has a list of people and indictments/etc that have
been filed so far.

~~~
scrumper
The parents are facing serious federal charges there. Conspiracy to commit
mail fraud is what, up to 5yrs prison and a $250k fine? I feel for them - it's
the type of crime I can easily imagine myself committing* - but good that this
has been put to a stop.

*while also believing that, given the opportunity, I would choose to play it fair.

~~~
apkessl1
Statutory limit is actually 20 years, under 18 U.S.C. § 1341
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341)

In practice, most of the defendants would be likely to get under 5 years
assuming this is their first offense, don’t commit further crimes, etc.

~~~
scrumper
Oww. Lots of plea bargains coming up I am sure. Don't think any of the parents
would make a particular sympathetic defendant in front of a jury.

Matt Levine today framed it rather neatly as a property crime, in that the
dodgy charity guy and the coaches stole those selective admissions slots from
the universities and sold them on to the parents. (Those parents of course
being fully aware that other people would be taking test on their kids'
behalf, so they are hardly victims.)

------
aliston
There's so much discussion from the perspective of the parents, but what about
the message this sends to the kids that it's OK to cheat your way through
life?

If you could get into USC with a ~1000 SAT score like Huffman's daughter,
would you even want to go? I wouldn't. It is shortchanging the achievement,
and really missing the point of what admission to such a university
represents.

The reality is that the college you attend, especially for undergrad, has
relatively little bearing on your life as a whole. If you're in the GPA/SAT
range to get into Stanford, but end up attending UC Irvine instead, you'll be
just fine. You might even graduate with less debt and at the top of your
class. On the other hand, if your parents bail you out and buy your way into
Stanford when you're not qualified, it sets you up for a life of
disappointment. You'll likely struggle to keep up with classmates, and won't
know what it feels like to achieve on your own. It teaches reliance on mommy
and daddy rather than reliance on yourself, which is not a sustainable
approach to life when you get into the real world.

~~~
jedberg
> The reality is that the college you attend, especially for undergrad, has
> relatively little bearing on your life as a whole.

In most cases yes. But when we're talking about elite colleges, it has
significant bearing. Living in the dorm with a future CEO may be helpful in
your future job search, and if you go to an elite college, you have a much
better chance of having done that.

Going to Stanford or Berkeley or MIT or UW and doing CS there will mean that
when you graduate, a whole lot of hiring managers will see that you attended
the same college they did and give you an automatic boost.

And if you go to USC film school, you're pretty much guaranteed to know
someone who will one day be very successful in the film industry and will help
you get jobs or connections to have your own projects produced. Heck, the
school does that for you.

So yeah, in most cases it doesn't matter, but in some very specific cases it
does.

~~~
aliston
My point is not that going to a top college isn't a great opportunity. My
point is that for someone who could have gotten into Stanford, the actual
admission it isn't defining. Someone with that sort of intelligence and drive
will find a way to meet the future CEO, get a great job and so on regardless
of whether they attend.

I went to Stanford. I love my undergrad. But I also have faced plenty of
rejection and adversity on the way and since graduating. What matters is how
you respond to that rejection, which is what the struggle to earn admission
reflects. Having your parents bail you out means you will never learn those
lessons.

~~~
strikelaserclaw
You really believe that a person with the same intelligence and drive who goes
to say Stanford vs a mid tier state university will have the same outcomes in
life? Unless this person has an exceptional will, this will never be the case.
The kind of network that you will probably build at Stanford without noticing
is vastly superior to the one at a mid tier state university. You probably
personally know many people who've started up XYZ company, work for FAANG, top
hedge funds, scientists etc... No one is saying that life is easy for a
Stanford graduate, i'm sure any ambitious person will face a ton of rejection
in their life time regardless of where they went to school but a lot of doors
will open for you in your life time just because you went to Stanford vs going
to UC Irvine.

~~~
akhilcacharya
You're right.

But I'm more curious as to the people that can't get into Stanford and _have_
to go to lesser schools like I did - what exactly are we to do? It's pretty
clear that our outcomes are not going to be as good by any means, and it seems
like political correctness limits any discussion of that.

~~~
strikelaserclaw
It just means you are gonna have to initially work a bit harder, be a bit more
resilient to rejection, and be a bit more creative in trying to build those
networks. I.e You are going to have to force those doors to open for you.

~~~
akhilcacharya
But yet...outcomes seem like they're destined to be worse overall.

~~~
strikelaserclaw
If you discount that different people value different things in life, and take
a viewpoint of money as being the sole measure of success, then the median
Harvard salary after 10 years is like 90k? Certainly not every
Stanford/Harvard/whatever graduate is killing it regardless of how many
opportunities they have had. At the end of the day, success is really on an
individual level. You make your own outcomes in this world. I could name
countless people who've done very much without a degree from a prestigious
university, David M. Solomon, the ceo of Goldman Sachs, Andy Rubin, etc...
Certainly guys who went to HYP/X/Y/Z will have it easier in many regards, but
you can also think of clawing your way to desired outcomes as teaching you
life lessons that those guys will never have learned.

------
JoshTko
Those with money can always find a way to gain advantage.

So if you have Private universities, those with means will find ways to game
the system. And they will gain opportunity inequality over those that do not
have the means.

Stated differently, having unequal education institutions means that those
that are richer will always be at an advantage to getting in the better
institutions and long term contribute to opportunity inequality.

------
jacquesm
What really vexes me about stuff like this is that the rich parent's kids
already have all the advantages they could possibly wish for. Why would they
take away the one thing that might level the playing field a bit: education
for those who worked very hard to get admitted and then get pre-empted by
someone else who won the birthday lottery?

------
reallydude
A friend of mine, from high school (~1994), had the experience of being in a
family that won the state lottery. He skipped high school a lot after that,
driving around in his new car. Later, I heard his parents bought him a degree
from USC. USC has had a reputation in California of corruption for decades.
This story should not be a surprise for many.

~~~
chmaynard
You should contact the FBI and report this as hearsay. It might be useful in
the ongoing investigation.

~~~
kkarakk
why is this downvoted? actually relevant comment

------
tempodox
The FBI must be extremely bored to waste their time with that trivial day-to-
day bribery that everyone takes for granted. The cultural shock to those poor
rich parents must be debilitating. How is the country supposed to work if you
can't grease the wheels? On the plus side, any actual crime must obviously
have been extinguished.

------
waterhouse
The caption to the video currently says this:

"Authorities charged more than people, like actresses Felicity Huffman and
Lori Loughlin, March 12 with being part of a long-running college admittance
scam. (Allie Caren, Justin Scuiletti/The Washington Post)"

It seems to be saying that actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are
more than people.

One of the HN comments quotes "The Justice Department on Tuesday charged more
than 30 wealthy people — including two television stars". The article
currently begins with "The Justice Department on Tuesday charged 50 people —
including two television stars". I suppose it must have been edited—and, based
on the caption I see, there must be less scrutiny that goes into edits than
into the original.

------
Latteland
It doesn't seem fare that it's okay to donate millions of dollars to the
university without a hope you get something like you kid in and it's not a
crime (I don't care that it's an institution and not a person, you can get
something).

Most programmers think we are in a meritocratic society and we all got to our
positions based solely on raw ability, including me. Probably we are full of
it. :-) I'm from a small town in the south, but my dad worked as an engineer
at IBM. No doubt I was helped because I was around engineers, we talked about
the world, and I knew I could probably make it there too. And he had money to
help me in college.

------
tomphoolery
get around the paywall -> [http://archive.is/s2w6P](http://archive.is/s2w6P)

~~~
god_bless_texas
thank you!

------
tareqak
I wonder how the points of view vary on admission based on:

1) financial compensation (ranging from bribes as described in the article all
the way to large donations)

2) affirmative action

both of those approaches result in the admissions process deviating from being
100% meritocratic, and yet both of those approaches can be argued to help the
educational institution and society overall (better facilities, more research,
adding different perspectives, helping a disadvantaged group etc). I thought
about this topic and this comparison in particular on my own over the weekend,
so the coincidence of this being posted so soon feels a bit uncanny to me.

------
gorbachev
Anyone seen any information about what's expected to happen to the kids of
these lowlife scum? I'm assuming they'll be expelled, just haven't seen it
actually mentioned explicitly anywhere.

~~~
dustindiamond
They are paying full-price tuition, so probably nothing will happen as long as
they continue to pay.

I went to school with a girl who’s mother pretended to be a guidance counselor
and obtained a copy of the SAT test prior to the daughter taking the exam.

The daughter was accepted to Harvard, and the mother charged and convicted,
but the daughter has a Harvard degree now.

------
jak92
Is it _illegal_ to bribe a _private_ university for admission?

~~~
morpheuskafka
It sounds like part of the problem was that only some individuals were
involved out of the institution. So it was a case of some coach being paid off
to transmit false info to the admissions committee about someone being on a
sports team (making it federal wire fraud). The admissions committee was then
influenced to accept based on that fake info.

------
heyyyouu
What I find interesting is that when my kid got into a UC via a semi-sport
yes, it helped her, but only a tiny bit -- the overall average GPA for these
students is only slightly lower (by two points -- 4.0 vs 4.2) than the overall
average of who get in, but you still HAVE to make the requirements, and the
SAT requirements and other requirements stay exactly the same. Why is it
different at other schools like UCLA? That would seem to be an easy fix for
this.

------
rixrax
So you let in people with dubious qualification that wouldn’t have met the
entry requirements. Yet they seem to graduate from these schools. Therefore
curriculum must be simple enough that even less qualified|gifted|hardworking
can pass. How does that make those graduates feel that got in legit, and
worked hard for their degrees?

As a side note - somehow this topic and the wrong it represents to me makes me
want to cry for mob justice.

~~~
godelski
I think this is also a great argument for making prestige a low priority in
selection.

------
ghobs91
This is why they should make it law that your kids can't attend a university
if you've donated there. This and the legacy admissions nonsense is beyond
absurd.

It's why I roll my eyes so hard when investors say that attending a top school
is a "signal" that makes you a better bet to invest in as a founder. That
signal is pretty damn weak if those top schools so rampantly accept bribes.

~~~
oefrha
> they should make it law that your kids can't attend a university if you've
> donated there.

Wow, not so fast. I'm a Stanford grad and I donate a bit of money every year
when they ask. Should my future kids be excluded from admissions? There's a
world of difference between donating and donating to get your kids admitted.

~~~
ghobs91
Yes. If after that law passed, you still chose to donate, then it would show
your intentions were to benefit your alma mater, and not to get your kids in.

These elite schools all have massive endowments, on top of the ridiculously
inflated tuition they charge, so give me a break if you're trying to tell me
they need these donations.

Otherwise, the idea of an elite school on your resume "signaling" something
about you is meaningless. These schools are supposed to be bastions of
knowledge and research, not expensive country clubs for rich kids to network
with each other.

------
Latteland
Certainly, people do at least some times give money to universities thinking
they will get something out of it, like a kid being admitted. You know in
closed doors it is discussed explicitly, and the fund raisers at the
universities must be trying to skirt the legal limits. A bunch of them must be
wandering if they are next or were wiretapped talking to the guilty ones here.

------
kazinator
The underlying problem is that a college only needs a smattering of renowned
alumni in order to maintain its academic prestige; graduating a whole lot of
dummies who paid their way in doesn't detract from the cherry-picked examples
of academic achievement. The remaining bulk of its prestige can be rooted in
money and social position. That seems to be the formula.

------
gabbygab
It's understandable that every parent wants the best for their children and
wants to give them a leg up in life and will do almost anything help their
children. It's human nature that every parent appreciates and you can't fault
them for that. But bribing and cheating isn't fair to other parents and their
children.

But then neither is legacy preference of alumni's children. Or giving special
treatment to large donors. Or a slew of other preferential admission policies.

How does one even start to fix this? It's structural and natural. The longer
you live, the more you realize life isn't ideal. Meritocracy and fairness are
wonderful ideals but ultimately impractical and unrealistic. Or maybe we just
haven't evolved to that stage in human development?

I recently watched Forrest Gump and this story reminded me of Gump's mother
trading sexual favors for school admission for her son. Was that ethical or
even legal? I imagine we could argue about it forever and never come to a
satisfactory conclusion.

------
JudasGoat
I wonder if the applicants bumped by the bribed admissions would be able to
bring legal action against all parties in this case? The amount of income lost
by rejection to a prestigious school would seem to be a large number.

------
Golfkid2Gadfly
The real scandal is how many kid of congress people get into good schools, not
because they're deserving nor because of bribes, but b/c the schools figure
they might mifgt need a favor sometime so will take a moron

------
ovx99
I for one am COMPLETELY SHOCKED that rich parents are able to get their kids
into top colleges using their money and influence. Wow, how long has this been
going on without anyone realizing it? Wow.

------
gumby
Why is this illegal while underfunding the schools and paying $35K to a
"college counselor" not equally corrupt? Because the results of the latter are
less certain?

~~~
smt88
How do you suppose Yale and USC are underfunded? Who should be giving these
private universities more money, exactly?

For context: Yale's endowment is ~$40B and USC's is $5.5B.

~~~
gumby
I meant underfunding high schools so the candidate pool of kids are not well
prepared.

For example California's public school system is one of the worst schools in
the nation; even top schools like Palo Alto are pretty appalling compared to
what I got on the east coast. And Palo Alto's schools get all sorts of
"private" donations from PA residents, not shared with other schools. But
almost all the high school and middle school students also receive private
tutoring after school to make up for the crummy public education.

------
projectramo
I understand why it is unethical, but what law did they break?

The coach is not a government employee, so aren't you legally permitted to
bribe them?

~~~
Wohlf
They commited textbook fraud. You can take a look at the charges for yourself.

[https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-
admis...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-
and-testing-bribery-scheme)

~~~
projectramo
Exactly what I was looking for, thank you.

Weird that they have so many of them on "mail fraud." That part confuses me
more than it enlightens me.

~~~
funkjunky
"mail fraud" is a catch-all charge that most fraud cases fall under. Think of
it like a fraud * wildcard

------
dqpb
Next up: _Wealthy Parents avoid jail time with legal bribery scheme - Plea
Bargains_

------
KingFelix
So, I want to see some data on these kids. This could be some great research,
what are these kids doing now? How do they stack up against their graduating
class, with career etc. Could you find some correlations, hard to see if
everything was a product of their parents cash, but I would be interested in
seeing some of this Data

~~~
chatmasta
It only started 2011 at the earliest, and seems like the bulk of it was
2015-2017, so you won't have much data yet; most of those kids are still in
college. You could look at the GPA I suppose. It's also an interesting ethical
question; what do the universities do with the kids? Were any of them unaware
of the scheme? I read that the test-taker would take the test "with" the
kid... so presumably they do some kind of paper mixup at the end. It's
conceivable that the kid might not even realize their parents have paid
somebody to take their test at the same time as them.

------
known
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a
tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" \--Einstein

------
lunulata
who cares, FBI stop wasting my tax money and catch some real criminals

------
jarsin
T-10 until we have interviewers at tech companies being bribed.

Probably the best way for an experienced engineer to get in at this point.

------
mark212
Apparently there are no more drug cartels to go after? We’re now worried about
a has-been actress who paid $15,000 so her kid could cheat on the SAT?

I’m skeptical of the FBI’s investigative priorities. Wall Street is suddenly
squeaky-clean? No more insider trading? Ponzi schemes have all gone away?
Municipal governments across the land are staffed by honest and dedicated
civil servants? All defense contractors are scrupulously precise about their
billing and would never ever bribe a DOD procurement official?

I’m not saying it’s right to engage in cheating on the SAT or bribing someone
to get into a university. But inarguably there are many more crimes that are
far more serious.

~~~
wyldfire
> Apparently there are no more drug cartels to go after? We’re now worried
> about a has-been actress who paid $15,000 so her kid could cheat on the SAT?

This is a false dichotomy.

~~~
mark212
So you live in a world where the FBI has unlimited resources to prosecute all
crimes? Sounds fabulous, what’s that like?

~~~
kkarakk
well they found this out while they were pursuing another case so actually
they're a real value for money service

