One of the biggest determinants of whether or not you attend/will attend a top 20 school is coming from an affluent family (that includes both upper middle class/wealthy). People with financial resources can provide all kinds of assistance to their kids - from something as basic as living in a good school district right through donating millions to junior’s college of choice. It’s just the way it is.
I have to admit that one of the main reasons I moved to a specific suburb was to have my kids in a good school district. However, the purpose was never to get them into a good university, rather, it was to ensure they received a good education. Frankly, how good of an education they got largely settled on my kids and on us. We are solidly middle class. I am blessed that we were never encumbered with an obsession that our kids attend a top 20 university. My oldest D did apply to a couple but it wasn’t with the idea that acceptance was necessary for future success or any kind of self actualization (hers or ours). It was primarily as an option if she did. The application process was comparatively stress free. That someone would spend 10s of thousands of dollars to ensure their children get into a specific school is beyond my ken.
All of this is to say that while it would be nice to have more money I wouldn’t trade my current situation if it meant being obsessed with only what money would buy. It also leaves me free of concern of what others do, have or think.
1 Like
But should the schools have known? I think they should have had better controls over their admission rules and their employees. Maybe they shouldn’t let the coaches/AD have so much pull in admissions. Maybe the school should be watching budgets better and know where contributions are coming from.
USC was probably the worst. An assistant athletic director was involved and thus involved many teams. Women’s crew, lacrosse, men’s water polo, I think there were some soccer players, and the coaches weren’t benefiting, the athletic department was and the Asst AD personally. The school did get donations thru Singer’s 501c3. Lori Laughlin gave something like $500k, and that shouldn’t go unnoticed as her 2 kids, VERY active on social media, were accepted.
I think schools should get to admit anyone they want to, they just need to own it. If they want to admit rich kids, do it. If they want to admit athletes, do it.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Elite schools try to pretend that admissions are a meritocracy but, in reality, they are not. Instead of pretending significant preferences aren’t given to donors’ kids, athletes etc, just be up front about it.
2 Likes
Do they? Or is that just the general urban legend that’s been promulgated over the decades? I’d say they’re pretty upfront about how admissions works in that every year they give admit preference to donor kids, athletes, politically connected/heads of state kids, celebrities, and then accept a certain number of people who can pay full tuition without needing FA, and more recently kids who check certain boxes. Who defines what is meritorious and deserving of admission? If our kids are accepted we are happy with the system, when they aren’t then we’re critical. Wealth and influence have been around since ancient times and people have been complaining about it for just as long.
I think all the people who were a part of varsity blues should be held to account through jail time and fines.
However, money, connections and influence will continue to play some role in admissions because colleges are businesses. Colleges are not altruistic. They need a certain amount of money to operate and endowments aren’t a slush fund. There are many restrictions on how, where and when the funds may be spent. And all those donors and full pay students enable those who need FA to attend those schools. And ultimately the number of students that “cut the line” through scams like varsity blues to attend elite schools is incredibly small and isn’t moving the needle. If you want to complain about spaces taken I’d say athletes are a much bigger problem over a wider swath of the higher education system.
4 Likes
I have to admit I seriously considered doing this. When the pandemic hit, we had to send kid emergently to live with his 23 yr old (but not very mature) brother, and honestly, we didn’t know at the time whether we’d ever see him again. We gave the older brother temporary guardianship for medicolegal reasons, but I did consider the option of going to court to give true legal guardianship to older brother, for the purpose of making the kid eligible for fin aid. Didn’t do it, but did consider it.
1 Like
Absolutely - I totally agree with @twoinanddone and @vpa2019! Schools should be able to admit whoever they want (at least private schools should, public schools are perhaps a different story if they are funded by taxpayer money). Who gets to define what is meritorious and deserving of admissions is the issue. What I see is that people have their own definition of what is meritorious and object if the schools’ admissions policy doesn’t line up with their definition. Otherwise, why would there be so much objection to the admission of athletes? The schools in question have identified that athletic skills (and the hard work and dedication that went into building those skills) are deserving of admission. Complaints are from people who disagree and think that only academics or tests scores should count as meritorious. So great, those people can go ahead and start their own schools and then they can admit whoever they want based on their definition of meritorious 
But I also agree with others that however reprehensible the behavior of the parents involved in varsity blues, I’ve always taught my kids too that “life is not fair” and you should focus on the things that are within your control.
2 Likes