It's been quite the week to work in college counseling.
I've been riveted to this unfolding story and have felt shocked -- not at the concept that the wealthy are purchasing their way into college, but that they are doing so on top of the conditions that already exist which make these places more accessible to them than to the traditional applicant. This week has shown that corruption and dishonestly can exist anywhere. I have what feels like an endless list of philosophical and pragmatic questions about how and why a family would go this route, but for now I'm going to comment on a few things that are on my mind right now.
- At first glance, I wondered why these families would opt to do this when they could instead make connections with the Development Office and make legal donations to the college in exchange for a seat in the class. This kind of thing happens at every campus. But, the more I learned about this case the more it became clear that these people wanted to buy a seat, but they wanted to do it at a discount. The fees Singer charged are still significantly below the size of the donation that it takes to enter a school as a Development special interest. (For context, in the late 1990s, Jared Kusher's admission to Harvard came with a $2.5 million dollar donation.)
- To me, beyond the fraud and the ethics and the morality of what these people did, the issue really boils down to a problem of access and equity. In a universe where wealthy students already have systemic advantages like: going to the best schools, being able to afford tutors and test prep, having parents (and grandparents, and great grandparents . . . ) who attended college, and having the financial means to pay tuition at any college and graduate debt free. With all of this, these people still felt the need to rig the process. Simultaneously, we see Supreme Court cases (like Abigail Fisher in Texas and the current Harvard case) aimed at eroding Affirmative Action. Yet, there have been no such cases aimed at eroding legacy admission, athletic admission, and donor admission.
- I'm so sad that students exploited disability status as a vehicle to cheat. I knew, intellectually, that this happened but to see it in such stark detail and with such sinister intentions is upsetting. There are disabled students who are going to be hurt by this and I hope we can all be united partners in being their advocates.
- I am comforted that, at least so far, there appears to be no involvement within the Offices of Admissions. These bribes when to Athletic Departments and it seems that the admissions side was unaware of the hoax. While this absolutely brings up the flaws in the current system (where recruits are not vetted for athletic ability by anyone other than the coach), I would feel so much worse if I knew that my colleagues on the admission side were included in the indictments.
- I think this story lends itself to ideal dinner time conversation for families. It is a moment to talk about ethical behavior and a time to reinforce that the brand name of a school is not equivalent to automatic success. It is also an opportunity for parents and guardians to remind their students that their love is unconditional: being rejected from a top school would not change that bond and getting a low test score under honest conditions would not change that bond.
- As much as it doesn't always feel this way, admissions is a consumer product where the power is with the consumer. When you go visit a college, be open and bold about asking the Admission's Officer presenting at the info session about what percent of their admitted class is comprised of recruited athletes. (Note: ask this in the info session, not the tour. I wouldn't think many tour guides would know the accurate answer to this question. Frankly, some staff might not know, but don't let them wiggle out of the answer, let them go look it up after the session ends). This information is well known among college counselors, but I think students and parents would be shocked to learn how many slots are off the table before the application is even filed. (For reference, recruited athletes at Harvard have an 86% chance of admission. Unhooked applicants have a 6% chance). Let me also say that I'm not arguing that athletes are the villains here (the villains are the ones who fake it in exchange for money). The vast majority are being recruited for their talent and we've had recruited athletes from ElRo. They are absolutely bringing something of value to the campus. My issue is more around the idea that schools should be more open about this process so applicants can better understand the landscape.
- Reflect on why certain schools appeal to you and think about if that appeal is connected to the 'elite' feeling of the place. If the place was exactly as it is today but ranked 120 instead of 20, would you still like it? Why or why not? Open your mind to the concept that the ability to go to any quality college, not just the top handful, is a phenomenal privilege.
This article from Bloomberg
This article from Vanity Fair
Image
Posts
