#william singer

The deep story lies in what characterizes higher education today and how, through suspect achievement tests like the SAT and ACT, and inflated grades, students arrive on campus to be funneled through to graduating a specialist without the liberal (meaning broad and deep) educational background their predecessors from 1900 through 1970 experienced.  The SAT and ACT alone favor parents wealthy enough to spend from $500 (bare minimum) to $5-8,000 and more on test preparers who will use workable strategies to boost test scores, not I.Q. or aptitude, test scores, and it’s all legal if grotesquely unfair to the majority of poor to middle class students--the MAJORITY of students!  In Colombia students are rising up

“...calling for the recognition of higher education as a universal, inalienable right, for greater autonomy and self-government for students, professors, and administrators and for the production of scientific, humanistic, and artistic knowledge, with the aim of overcoming the legacy of decades of violent conflict and reducing aberrant levels of inequality.”  Perhaps American higher education should set such a standard rather than producing a nation of student debtors worthy of a novel by Charles Dickens.

With regard to the universities caught up in the latest scandal:  USC, UCLA, Stanford, Yale, and several more, they were easily duped, just as most large institutions would be.  Notice that these schools are, with exception, all private universities.  Also appreciate that each thus far has identified solely department malefactor/criminals guilty of participating in racketeering.  Recently, a sports writer for the Los Angeles Times, Dylan Hernandez, in an expansive mood described the actions of a few USC athletic department members as showing the “depths of the school’s decline.”  The University of Southern California is hardly in decline notwithstanding the criminality of two wanton physicians and rogue coaches and families. In the #MeToo era we have learned that misogyny riddles the whole culture, rich to poor, irrespective of race, that cheating characterizes too great a portion of collegiate and professional operations.   

A handful of super rich malefactors involved in a legitimate racketeering operation is a juicy “social impact” story but hardly qualifies as a having a major impact nationally given the inequities characterizing SAT and ACT test preparation described above, truly a pay-to-play exercise that favors the upper middle classes to the rich, for it is they who can afford to pay test preparers and testing coaches the thousands of dollars necessary to raise the scores of beneficiaries enough to qualify for entrance to university.

More on USC, some wish to lay all the blame on athletic director Lynn Swann on up to the President of the University, an interim president.  None of the higher ups in this case, nor on the others, Mike Garrett, Pat Haden, in past and recent past should be singled out.  In this case a top Athletic Department administrator, Donna Heinel, operated from the "top" down including water polo coach Jovan Vavic who apparently was funneling cash to assistant coaches who possibly were not paid well enough.  Nevertheless, Vavic produced 16 championships between women's and men's water polo--16!  This is surely one of the great NCAA feats of all time in any sport.  He did it with help.  How much did he take personally, not yet known.  As for Reggie Bush, that's on the Bush family and Reggie.  This writer never liked Pete Carroll's libertine approach to discipline even as he can appreciate Carrol’s abilities.  One shouldn’t lay the Bush fiasco on Carroll and his staff.  Then there's Tony Bland who worked with a member of De'Anthony Melton's family unbeknownst to USC basketball coach Andy Enfield. 

AFRICANGLOBE – On Monday, Felicity Huffman and 12 other defendants—plus one former tennis coach—agreed to plead guilty to federal fraud and conspiracy charges. Two years ago, Huffman paid $15,000 to employ William Singer, a college admissions counselor who bribed test administrators to doctor SAT results for Huffman’s daughter.

“Getting in to the college of your choosing will be a formidable challenge. As the number of students applying to the top schools steadily increases, the quality of the candidates has ramped up. Differentiating one perfect application from another has become more difficult than it has ever been before. As a college applicant, it is no longer enough to be an excellent student, you need to stand out from those you are competing with - A personal brand is essential.

Personal branding is a tool to cultivate a professional presence that informs the world of what you stand for and what you have to offer. In a blink, it tells the story of your expertise, experiences and endeavors. Your brand will authenticate your passion and show your genuine and unique qualities. Just as we purchase products from brands we trust, colleges invest in the students who will offer them the best credentials.

Rick Singer’s, Personal Branding will take you through the simple step-by-step process of creating, curating and sharing the powerful brand called YOU.”

- From the back cover of Rick Singer’s book Getting in: Personal Brands

I would like to do a deep dive into the higher education admissions scandal eventually, but I’ll wait for more to come out. There are so many facets to this developing story and they are all juicy and ripe for analysis, but the one that jumped out at me right away was the exploitation of people’s feelings about exclusivity and power. 

Many people were involved in this thing, but Rick Singer has been dubbed the ringleader or mastermind and he does not shy away from motivating people through their irrational fears surrounding education and identity.

Knowing what we know now, how are we to make sense of his claim that “it is no longer enough to be an excellent student?” I guess a wise man always takes care to leave some truth in his falsehoods. 

It is well known that college admissions boards look for something more or special in those they pick, but to what extent are they overlooking the primary criteria (knowledge) and focusing on x-factors that allow con artists like Singer to fabricate a backstory that legitimizes the illegitimate?

Hnng