<p>"The turmoil falls against the backdrop of a state investigation of a shadow admissions system that gave preferential treatment to students with ties to trustees, politicians and deep-pocketed donors. About 800 undergraduate applicants had their names placed on clout lists, known internally as Category I, at the Urbana-Champaign campus during the last five years, a Tribune investigation found. Dozens more received special consideration from the law school and other graduate programs."</p>
<p>hhmm, Illinois, I guess that is not a surprise.
I doubt the the undergraduate admits really take anyone’s spot, with thousands of freshman vs 800 over 5 years. It is the story of law school admissions that is so disturbing.</p>
<p>What scandal? This is considered normal practice at elite private universities. Why should elite publics work under a different standard, especially as states cut back their aid to their public U and force them to raise money privately?</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, what’s happening at the state level with UIUC is also happening locally at the Chicago public schools, where strings are being pulled, clout exercised, rules flouted, etc., when it comes to admissions into the city’s elite public high schools. And this is with a rule that allows prinicpals to sidestep normal admissions procedures for 5% of their kids. It’s still apparently so corrupt that the Feds are investigating. </p>
<p>That’s even worse I’d think, because while there are a lot of strong universities around for Illinois high schoolers to aspire to, the number of strong Chicago public high schools is much more limited. </p>
<p>I’d think that with principals given some discretion – unlike my hometown where enrollment at specialized high schools is strictly by how well you do on a test – they could manage to avoid this sort of corruption. But you have to give it to 'em out there in the Windy City. Somehow they’ll find a way to screw it up.</p>
<p>Admissions Review Commission issues final report</p>
<p>The Admissions Review Commission, appointed in June by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn to examine admissions practices at the University of Illinois, issued its final report and recommendations late yesterday afternoon.</p>
<p>The independent, fact-finding group was formed in response to media accounts that began in May about special treatment for some applicants, based on information largely provided through responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.</p>
<p>The difference between public and private is that the scandal isnt at the school level, it is at the politico level. Privates can treat people as development case, etc, becuase they want donations, revenue from sports etc. Publics want our tax money. That is OUR money. Not right.</p>
<p>I really have trouble getting worked up over this. If the voters of Illinois demand that the trustees be fired, that’s OK with me, but I have bigger fish to fry. They were doing what they thought was in the best interests of the school…and it probably WAS in the best interests of the school. It really isn’t their job to think about the best interests of Illinois taxpayers as a whole.</p>
<p>I am. Unfortunately. Our public flagship has sufficiently low requirements for instate students that most politicians’ kids can manage admission without string-pulling. Enrollment is exploding, big shortage of dorm space, faculty hiring freeze in effect–in short, the perfect time to establish higher minimum requirements and limit enrollment, but noooooo.</p>
<p>At least admissions doesn’t have to deal with dispensing favors. (A lot of politicians’ kids do attend the public flagship, including the governor’s sons.)</p>
<p>Actually, as a practical matter it’s not the politicians’ children who create this sort of problem. Any university administrator with an IQ over 80 knows that you make certain that the governor’s kid gets admitted, and without anyone asking about it. The problem comes up because no one knows how to identify the idiot nephew of the Senate Majority Leader’s biggest contributor. For that, you need phone calls, memos, lists.</p>
<p>They should work under different different standards because of two key words: “public” vs. “private.” It’s the same reason why private country clubs can legally keep certain people of their choosing out of the club and off the golf course and public golf courses can’t. Public vs. private.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether the UCs have a “clout list” too, but if they do the Regents should all be fired.</p>
<p>midmo, I think most States are somewhay similar to my State Florida where it’s not difficult to get into a State school but it is pretty difficult to get into the top school U.F. The UF people as much as admitted to giving special favors when they said they do not give special consideration during the regular admission process but they do consider appeals where it appears clout makes a difference.
Personally, I think its absolutely wrong and I am glad Illionois is setting an example. I hope States like Florida are watching this. Interesting thing in Florida is that it seems that most of the chancellors are retired politicians.</p>
<p>I agree this likely occurs everywhere, just like all forms of political corruption, but that does not make it right. I think it is a worse sin with public schools because:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>They they receive tax money on the basis of giving all taxpayers’ kids equal consideration on the academic merits (athletic scholarships, URMs and ECs can be debated separately).</p></li>
<li><p>Neither they nor the politicians involved disclose the separate channel for the politically connected, so that all taxpayers could ask their legislator for help.</p></li>
<li><p>It shows that many politicians essentially secretly shake down schools for improper favors by threatening the funding the school needs and schools bribe the politicians who do not extort them by doing favors for the politicans to get something they otherwise would not be entitled to.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My daughter(a recent college grad) is currently looking for a job – what we hear over and over is “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” and “network, network, network”. Why is this acceptable when job hunting but unacceptable when applying to college? She doesn’t really have any political or business connections that will help her with her job search. Believe me, if we had them we we would use them! I found my first job out of college through a friend of my father’s. I was qualified for the job, but who’s to say someone else who applied wasn’t even more deserving? Colleges today keep saying the admissions process is “holistic” – maybe that includes family connections? Like others who’ve posted, I have a hard time getting upset about the Illinois “scandal”. It just seems that’s the way things work, like it or not.</p>