<p>Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal has a new book out.</p>
<p>The author has an endless stream of provocative examples of rich, well-connected students who are generally unremarkable but get into top universities ahead of hundreds of better qualified but less "important" kids. He names lots of names and contrasts students side by side. In at least one case, he even gets internal admission office dirt. Apparently, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's son Harrison was given the lowest rating by Princeton's admissions office for academic achievement (on a 5 point scale). Needless to say, he got in. There is also some racial provocation: Golden thinks Asians are the "new Jews", facing de facto discrimination because there are too many of them. This might be old news to some people, but it is still intereseting to see it documented in a hard, journalistic way.</p>
<p>Admissions offices always weasel by talking about how complicated each case is. That may be so, but the examples in this book make it hard not to feel that something dirty is going on. Golden forcefully rejects the argument that this selling of spots to well-connected or rich people is just something colleges have to do to survive. He points to Caltech, among other places, as a top notch school which doesn't have to resort to development admits or alumni stroking to reach excellence.</p>
<p>It's quite an angry book in some places, but it will be interesting to see how many people share Golden's outrage.</p>
<p>I like that phrase. It describes sooo much of what goes on in admissions, the huge gap between public pronouncements and actual practice, whether it be the rich, legacy, athletics, economic diversity and so forth. </p>
<p>Frist may not be the best example, though, as the Frists are multigeneration alums, and fame carries even more weight in admissions than money.</p>
<p>Asians? This is a surprise? And, it is so easy to raise the bar for them. Just take courses and ECs that are most popular with asians, then lower their weight. Ever wonder why athletes have an easier time? Ever wonder why musical achievement isn't worth much? Ever wonder why debate is? It's all part of that famous "forming a class".</p>
<p>The Frists have given big money to Princeton as well -- the student union is named after one of them, I think. So no surprise that Sen. Frist's son got in.</p>
<p>Hold the presses! Children of rich, powerful alums have a leg up in the admissions process! Asians not admitted in proportion to SAT/GPA success!</p>
<p>This isn't even dog-bites-man news. This is dog-barks-at-postman news.</p>
<p>It's worth remembering that these things are dynamic. When I applied to college, Jewish quotas were barely a thing of the past -- a couple of years in the past at one well-known New Jersey Ivy -- and colleges were patting themselves on the back if they had 10% students of color -- any color. Development admits -- not called that, then -- and legacies represented a far higher proportion of HYP classes than they do now. A generation before that, many elite colleges were struggling with the question whether to allow any Russian Jews in under the Jewish quota, and there were more blue moons than non-white students. A generation from now -- when my grandchildren are applying to college -- the notion of an Asian quota will appear quaint, and there will still be the occasional development admit, and the children of the President and the Senate Majority Leader will still be accepted at their parent's alma mater.</p>
<p>So what's new? If you research the history of admissions processes at colleges this is nothing new. How many private schools were once exclusive feeders to the top universities? How rare was it to be admitted to a top school if you didn't attend an exclusive prep academy?</p>
<p>Admissions were liberalized at many universities in the late 1890s and early 1900s due to the prevalence of graduates from public high schools. In fact, I know from my own research that many schools like Notre Dame and Cornell College (Iowa) had their own preparatory schools to educate high school level students. Not every small town had a high school and many families in the midwest sent their students east to attend a preparatory school.</p>
<p>The rise of public schools caused another issue - Jews had the highest graduation rate among immigrants in New York. Who remembers that not only Jews experienced discrimination, but so did the Irish and the Italians. Take a look at the New York Times from the 1920s - the articles about European immigration mirror many of the immigration concerns of today. </p>
<p>In 1922 Havard announced they would limit the number of Jews they would admit. At the time of the policy change about 20% of their students were Jewish. Many other colleges and universities did the same - only not publicly. In many instances this discrimination did not end until the 1960s.</p>
<p>What Dan Golden describes is nothing new - admissions has always been able to pick and choose the students they want based on criteria that is private. Universities are a business and like any other business they have to consider business connections and how they are going to pay for new buildings. They didn't get to be a top university and stay a top university by ignoring the politics involved in admissions.</p>
<p>Really who honestly believes that admission is fair? I don't and I never did. This isn't something new its been going on for ages. Maybe one day the playing field will become even but I personally doubt that it ever will.</p>
<p>Let's see.... my next door neighbor's kid can't graduate as a pre-med or bio major from our state U in four years 'cause he's shut out of Organic Chem and has to take it next year. It's basketball that makes news so by golly, we've got basketball. To hell with giving the children of the middle class (taxpayers all) access to higher education at a reasonable cost. That's so 1970's.</p>
<p>I'm supposed to care about Frist's kid? I wish people cared as much about institutional decisions which impact tens of thousands of kids and stopped worrying about a couple of develpment admits at Harvard and Princeton. I guess Golden can't find anything newsworthy in Rutgers recent budget cuts....</p>
<p>Speculation on my part: Golden is no slouch and is well aware that the children of the rich, famous and well connected used to be admitted in higher proportion than they are today to schools such as HYP. He is well aware of both the Jewish quotas and the glass ceiling facing Asian-Americans. So why is he publishing this book now about AA for the rich? I suspect he wants to redirect the public discussion which has focused on AA for URMs by reminding readers that there is AA--for the rich.</p>
<p>" the huge gap between public pronouncements and actual practice, whether it be the rich, legacy, athletics, economic diversity and so forth."</p>
<p>I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you saying that colleges claim that they do not want a mix of rich/poor, legacies, athletes, non-legacies, non-athletes? (I have not heard that.) Or are you saying that one cannot be rich, or a legacy, or an athlete, or impoverished -- but be a brilliant & accomplished student at the same time?</p>
<p>I beg to differ. Depending on the achievement, it can be worth a great deal. (And has in cases that I know.) It's just not a stand-alone asset, unless one is applying to a music program or conservatory. Combined with national recognition, a music e.c. can be highly valued by a college.</p>
<p>epiphany -- I think the statement you quoted means that colleges often say nonsense like "everyone who is admitted is qualified" and will never admit to applying lower standards to some grous even when it's overwhelmingly clear that they do.</p>
<p>Hmmm... I would say there is no abstract moral law that says making admissions easier for the rich and well-connected is a problem. Colleges can do what they want. But ultimately, public pressure by people who view a system as unfair changes minds and policies in the long run. It seems that is what Golden hopes for.</p>
<p>Ben, the question that I raised is still not being answered directly, including by you. Are you saying that college interest in including particular economic, legacy, activity categories (those with hooks) excludes or compromises high standards? ("Lowers" standards?)</p>
<p>Because if you are saying that, you are simply wrong. I can name particular examples I know of personally that do not indicate such mutual exclusivity or compromise, whatsoever. They are further validated by students who have PM'ed me regarding their economic status but have achieved enormously in the academic arena.</p>
<p>Of course I think it is possible to admit some poor/minority/alumni/whatever students who are stunning on every dimension. It is just that a substantial portion of those admitted to serve a "university need" (diversity, money, etc.) do not meet the standard that the average Joe has to meet to get in.</p>
<p>But these never WERE colleges for the average Joe, so why should they be now? If only 3% of the population has the income to support paying $180+k for a college education for little Joey over four years, and more than half the college population at many of these schools are within that 3% (making most of these schools LESS economically diverse than they were 25 years ago), what possible difference does it make in the world if a portion of those are large donors in the present rather than the future? It's not like anyone is being denied the benefits of a college education.</p>
<p>Now what is happening in state universities today, THAT is cause for concern.</p>
<p>I always thought the assumption that admitting students for "development" purposes is less valid than admiting students with other hooks, was quite flawed. In general (though not always) large donations benefit a student body at least as much as having a strong soccer team, or high quality orchestra, etc. </p>
<p>Everyone admitted has something to give (a diverse perspective from living overseas, a talent with the bassoon, real academic brilliance, 10 million dollars). All of these enrich the college community.</p>
<p>I think, that if I worked in a powerful position at a highly sought-after university, I might considering simply auctioning off a spot or two or five in each entering class. Maybe I'd place some general academic criteria, but maybe I wouldn't. Still, how much money could, say, Harvard raise by just auctioning off one or two spots each year? 1 million/ year? 5 miilion? 20? 100?</p>