Some prominent universities implicated in the admissions scandal swiftly announced new layers of oversight. Dozens more did the same out of public view.The college admissions fraud scandal, which cast a spotlight on coaches accused of selling slots reserved for recruited athletes, has caused scores of institutions, some quietly and some publicly, to introduce stricter regulations to their athletic recruitment procedures.Prominent universities like Yale and Stanford, which had coaches implicated in the scandal, swiftly announced new layers of oversight, but a more furtive effort to enact additional safeguards has occurred out of public view.Interviews with a handful of conference commissioners overseeing more than 70 institutions, from major universities to small colleges, revealed that a majority had already imposed more stringent athletic recruiting policies. The commissioners requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the actions of member institutions, and because the colleges did not want to be perceived as having been negligent in the past.“People looked closely at what was in place, and even when they found nothing lacking, most decided to add a little more supervision just to be safe,” one conference commissioner said.More widespread vetting may be on the horizon. With the college academic calendar coming to a close this month, athletic administrators across the country will soon convene for a series of annual meetings that are expected to prompt even more regulation.“It’s the institutions’ responsibility, and I do believe there will be more scrutiny across the board,” said Bernadette V. McGlade, the commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference, whose athletic directors, coaches and administrators are meeting next week. “I don’t think there will be wholesale restructuring, but we’d be foolish not to examine the topic.”For all the recent intense examination of the recruited athlete admissions process, no new fraud cases have been announced or confirmed by institutions. Harvard began an investigation into its longtime fencing coach last month after learning that he had sold his house at a vastly inflated price to the father of a current Harvard student, shortly before the student was admitted. And federal prosecutors have informed a new set of parents that they are under investigation in the admissions fraud inquiry.In another case, the family of a Chinese student admitted to Stanford paid $6.5 million to William Singer, the college consultant at the heart of the college admissions scandal. The family has not been charged, and the student has said her admission was the product of hard work.The scandal unfolded on March 12, when prosecutors described the biggest case of admissions fraud they had ever investigated, charging 50 people in a scheme that involved paying bribes to coaches and to people who monitor admissions procedures in order to get the children of wealthy patrons into some of the nation’s elite c
film d'aziofilm d'azione completi in italiano,completi,azione,film italiano,film in italiano,film completo,nung group filmne completi in italiano,nung group film,
Some prominent universities implicated in the admissions scandal swiftly announced new layers of oversight. Dozens more did the same out of public view.The college admissions fraud scandal, which cast a spotlight on coaches accused of selling slots reserved for recruited athletes, has caused scores of institutions, some quietly and some publicly, to introduce stricter regulations to their athletic recruitment procedures.Prominent universities like Yale and Stanford, which had coaches implicated in the scandal, swiftly announced new layers of oversight, but a more furtive effort to enact additional safeguards has occurred out of public view.Interviews with a handful of conference commissioners overseeing more than 70 institutions, from major universities to small colleges, revealed that a majority had already imposed more stringent athletic recruiting policies. The commissioners requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the actions of member institutions, and because the colleges did not want to be perceived as having been negligent in the past.“People looked closely at what was in place, and even when they found nothing lacking, most decided to add a little more supervision just to be safe,” one conference commissioner said.More widespread vetting may be on the horizon. With the college academic calendar coming to a close this month, athletic administrators across the country will soon convene for a series of annual meetings that are expected to prompt even more regulation.“It’s the institutions’ responsibility, and I do believe there will be more scrutiny across the board,” said Bernadette V. McGlade, the commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference, whose athletic directors, coaches and administrators are meeting next week. “I don’t think there will be wholesale restructuring, but we’d be foolish not to examine the topic.”For all the recent intense examination of the recruited athlete admissions process, no new fraud cases have been announced or confirmed by institutions. Harvard began an investigation into its longtime fencing coach last month after learning that he had sold his house at a vastly inflated price to the father of a current Harvard student, shortly before the student was admitted. And federal prosecutors have informed a new set of parents that they are under investigation in the admissions fraud inquiry.In another case, the family of a Chinese student admitted to Stanford paid $6.5 million to William Singer, the college consultant at the heart of the college admissions scandal. The family has not been charged, and the student has said her admission was the product of hard work.The scandal unfolded on March 12, when prosecutors described the biggest case of admissions fraud they had ever investigated, charging 50 people in a scheme that involved paying bribes to coaches and to people who monitor admissions procedures in order to get the children of wealthy patrons into some of the nation’s elite c
0 Comments