The WSJ article, "College Admission Scandal Draws Scrutiny in Washington" by Michelle Hackman dissects the University scandal dubbed "Varsity Blues" that has resulted in an intense amount of media coverage over the past week. To summarize, the scandal is far reaching with more than 50 admissions consultants, college athletic coaches, and wealthy parents indicted on charges of illegal bribery and racketeering charges at schools that span from USC, Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and Wake Forest. Wealthy actresses like Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin have been arrested and released on bail for paying between $15,000 and $500,000 to illegally have their children accepted into prestigious universities. There seem to have been a wide variety of ways that students were cheated into the system, either from falsified mental illness diagnoses to allow for solo SAT/ACT testing where proctors could change answers on these exams to having children admitted as athletes in college sports, some having never played the sport in their life.
Moreover, this admissions scandal has caused lawmakers in Washington to take a deeper look at the ways in which wealthy parents can legally have their children accepted in prestigious colleges. The article cites that "tax - deductible donations and binding early decision practices" are the main culprits. Senator Ron Wyden argues that these donations allow the federal government to "[perpetuate] the system by awarding tax breaks to these contributions [...]" and others claim that ED schools offer an unfair advantage to wealthy students who do not have to consider different financial aid packages from other universities.
Above all, I think this scandal really highlights the inextricable link between inherited wealth and human capital as we have discussed in class. Combined, both legally or illegally, these inputs of income and status have a huge impact on inequality in society. On one hand, one can argue that of course parents should be able to do everything in their power to help their children succeed. Yet, alternatively, is a charitable donation really out of the good of someone's heart if it is in actuality a transactional practice to allow their child entrance into the University? What happens to low income students or students from minority backgrounds in these cases? Representative Bonamici stated that
"This [scandal] shows we have to focus even more on equity." I am curious if this scandal will really have an effect on policies about the admission to universities, or if the wealthy parents and contributors to these scandals will face lawsuits and fines to quell the public outrage, really only a bandaid to this systematic issue.
Article Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-admission-scandal-draws-scrutiny-in-washington-11552654841
3 comments:
I would have expected there would be some bribery going on in the colleges, but that's still a shocker. Very much an insult to those who persevere to get admitted to prestigious institutes. I hope these incidents lead to stricter policies in admissions.
It's not exactly a fair starting point for everybody, because some people will be born from affluent parents, and they are spoiled with injustice. At least colleges could work on the equity aspect by adjusting their admission policies to be not exploited by the wrong people.
I too immediately thought of our class discussion about the relationship between inherited wealth and human capital. Even though financial aid is offered to low-income students, there is still large gaps between what they can afford to pay and what the government or school decides to provide as aid. Financial aid tries to factor in many aspects of a person life in order to determine how much money can be provided, but this might not consider every issue. The fact that there are legal means for wealthy parents to be able to get their children into more expensive and prestigious colleges where decisions about financial aid never even come up, is clearly creating a disadvantage for those from lower-income families. Now that this scandal has brought to light the inequality that has been present but somewhat overlooked, it will be interesting to see what, if any, steps will be taken by lawmakers in the future.
I doubt that anything drastic will be done. University's love having donors who shell out money whenever there is a need from the school. University's don't want to make donors angry and letting in a legacy doesn't really matter to them. Most likely this student will be paying full price for admission compared to a lower income family who may receive aide from the school in order to attend. From a business perspective the University's it is in their best interest to take students from higher income families. This also helps ensure donations later because these legacy families are happy.
Post a Comment