When the college scandal broke out a couple of weeks ago, people were infuriated to learn that the wealthy elite paid large sums of money to get their kids into prestigious schools like the University of Southern California (USC)–to the detriment of students who were actually put effort into their applications, but lack the opportunities of these more privileged peers. However, one thing that flew under the radar of many was the distinction between donating money to a school and outright bribing college employees to secure a student’s spot. Prosecutors in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, led by United States Attorney Andrew Lelling, stated that there is a difference between “donating a building” and donating “a large sum of money,” a statement that clearly condones the legality of bypassing the traditional college application process. In short, if one donates enough to significantly improve the economic and financial status of the college, their kid stands a greater chance of being admitted into that college without as heavy scrutiny paid to their grades or extracurricular activities.
The truth is, as much as higher education has been praised as a tool for economic mobility, they are businesses that need to be sustained– except in the case of public schools funded by the government. The financial needs of the college come before the needs of academia. This is why many colleges allocate a very small sliver, around 5 percent, of their endowment toward the development of specific academic departments. Considering the large endowment of schools like Harvard (which has 39.2 billion USD), one would think that even 5 percent of that number would be more than sufficient to fund academic department. However, this money is also used to pay for faculty, facilities, the renovations of dorms and academic building, food services, clubs, and organizations as well as financial aid. When all this adds up, the funds in higher education are either barely enough or not sufficient.
To further strengthen their financial standing, many colleges hire a financial team to invest in stocks, companies, and land–in essence, to try to raise money for the college through other exterior means. All of this points to how much college operate under business models, leaving one to question how much value the administration places on the quality of academic programming.
All this talk regarding financial development leads to the main discussion that has taken center stage: student admissions. The easiest way for colleges to make money and add to its financial strength is through admitting students with money. With rising tuition costs, students who pay full or even half of tuition provide colleges with extra funds beyond their endowment.
Even though colleges and universities admit students who work hard to earn merit and even provide them financial aid, this is a mandatory public relations move. Colleges needs to cultivate a public image that attracts intelligent and active students. Applicants who are able to pay full tuition, have parents who donate large sums of money, or have legacy students who are able to bypass the scrutiny of an admissions team. Thanks to the lack of legal restrictions on how the college admission process is conducted, colleges are empowered to accept students based on the funds they are willing to provide, rather than solely on their academic merit. This is not to say that students who have money and are admitted do not meet the requirement to make it into the new class of students, only that the college is heavily influenced by the financial aspect as well.
Legacy admissions are another big aspect of the college application process. A legacy student is a student who has a parent or family member who is an alum of the college. Colleges are attracted to legacy students because research suggests that legacy families are far more willing to donate to their college.
The financial motivations of college admissions lead one to ask: how much space is left for the student who does not have the funds, does not have family members who have graduated from said college, but does have the exam scores, the extracurriculars, the active personality, and the ambition to go to said college? The answer to such a question? Not a lot. This is where the problem really manifests itself, as one has to wonder: does merit have any value if one is able to easily bypass it through connections or finances? It is when this question arises that a potential student becomes demoralized, cynical and even more stressed on top of everything regarding grades and academia. Such a mental state is not good for students–and we can see this in the rising rates of depression and stress in our youngest generation.
If the recent college admissions scandal has done any good, it is that it has shown how deep-rooted inequalities impact admissions decisions. In a world where places of higher education value money over merit, one cannot continue to believe in the age-old notion that hard work alone brings success, as it clearly does not. To make admissions more equitable, the government needs to step in and remind colleges why they were created in the first place: to inform, develop and unite, not to profit.
