Blog
Bribery in College Admissions: Varsity Blues Scandal Explained
Bribery in College Admissions: Varsity Blues Scandal Explained
The college admissions bribery scandal known as “Varsity Blues” shocked the nation when it was uncovered in 2019. It involved wealthy parents bribing college coaches and test administrators to get their kids into elite universities like Yale, Stanford, Georgetown and USC. Here’s an in-depth look at how the scheme worked and who was involved.
The Mastermind: Rick Singer
The ringleader of the Varsity Blues operation was a college admissions consultant named Rick Singer. He ran a college prep business called “The Key” and a fake nonprofit called “Key Worldwide Foundation” (KWF). Singer used The Key to connect with wealthy families and KWF to funnel bribe money under the guise of charitable donations. He pled guilty to racketeering, money laundering, fraud and obstruction in March 2019.
Singer used several schemes to get students admitted:
- Bribing college entrance exam administrators to allow cheating (having another person take/correct the SAT or ACT)
- Bribing college coaches to recruit unqualified students as athletes
- Fabricating student athlete profiles with fake credentials
- Funneling payments through KWF as tax-deductible charitable donations
He had a network of corrupt exam proctors and college coaches on the take. Singer guided clients to deduct bribe payments from their taxes as donations to his “charity.” Many parents didn’t understand it was illegal. Singer kept detailed records of his activities and clients. He eventually cooperated with investigators in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The Parents Involved
Dozens of wealthy parents paid Singer to get their kids into elite schools. They included CEOs, real estate developers, lawyers, doctors, media executives and even celebrity actors:
- Actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin paid to have their daughters’ SAT scores fixed.
- Hot Pockets heiress Michelle Janavs paid for both exam cheating and fake athletic recruitment for her daughter.
- PIMCO CEO Douglas Hodge paid bribes for four of his children.
- Bill McGlashan, founder of TPG Capital, paid $250,000 to get his son into USC as a fake football recruit.
Many of these parents paid between $250,000-$500,000 per student accepted. They generally deducted these bribes as charitable donations.
How Test Cheating Worked
Singer had corrupt test administrators on his payroll. They allowed bribed proctors to secretly take tests for students, correct their mistakes after the fact, or substitute corrected answer sheets. Clients paid up to $75,000 for this exam cheating.
This involved bribing test supervisors in Houston and West Hollywood. They would allow a shill test taker to pose as the student, or simply correct wrong answers later. Singer helped students get diagnosed with fake learning disabilities to allow extended time for their tests.
For example, Felicity Huffman paid $15,000 to have a proctor boost her daughter’s SAT score by 400 points. Another parent paid $50,000 to have someone take the ACT for their son – scoring a 35 out of 36.
Fake Athletic Recruitment
The other angle was bribing college coaches to designate unqualified students as athletic recruits. Coaches in sports like soccer, tennis, water polo, pole vaulting, crew team, and more took payments upwards of $100,000-$400,000 per student.
Singer fabricated glowing athletic profiles complete with fake credentials. Photos of students participating in sports were Photoshopped. This got them preferential admission as recruited athletes, despite having little or no experience in the sport.
For instance, Lori Loughlin paid $500,000 to have her daughters designated as crew team recruits at USC – despite never participating in crew. Many students had no idea their parents were passing them off as top athletes.
Who Got Caught?
In March 2019, federal prosecutors filed charges against over 50 people involved. Singer cooperated and pled guilty to racketeering, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He received a prison sentence of 3.5 years.
College coaches from Yale, Stanford, USC, Georgetown and other schools pled guilty to accepting bribes. They got sentences ranging from probation to over 1 year in prison.
Over 30 parents were charged with fraud conspiracy. Most pled guilty and received fines, community service, or 1-6 months in prison. Others like Lori Loughlin fought the charges and received longer sentences. She got 2 months in prison plus a $150,000 fine.
Some critics argued the privileged parents got off easy. Prosecutors said they considered how much parents paid in bribes when determining sentences. For instance, Douglas Hodge paid over $850,000 in bribes for multiple children and got the longest sentence at 9 months.
Aftermath and Implications
The Varsity Blues scandal shed light on the corrupt influence of money in college admissions. It gave an extreme example of how the wealthy can buy access to elite institutions. However, there are more subtle advantages money can provide throughout the process.
Hiring private tutors, consultants, essay editors and college coaches can all give a leg up. Even basic things like SAT prep courses or visiting campuses for tours aren’t financially feasible for all families. Critics say the entire admissions system favors the privileged few.
In response to the scandal, colleges vowed to scrutinize athletic recruitment and audits of donations more closely. But systemic inequity remains an issue. The advantages of coming from a wealthy, connected family are hard to overcome.
While Varsity Blues exposed illegal bribery, legal donations by wealthy alumni often sway admissions. Colleges are hesitant to bite the hand that literally feeds them. Reformers say admissions should focus more on merit and socioeconomic diversity – not just rewarding donors.
Ultimately, the scandal revealed uncomfortable truths about money, privilege and corruption in higher education. It highlighted advantages available to the ultra-rich that others don’t have. Even if what Singer did was illegal, buying access through hefty donations remains standard practice. As long as college admissions are subjective, wealth will have an upper hand.