In this entry I hope to address the issue of how important
wealth is to admission. Some of what I write should surprise no one, but the
issue is far more complicated that a simple binary that divides the haves from
the have nots.
The Haves
In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Price of Admission, Dan Golden provides names, data, and a take
no prisoners approach to the way elite schools cater to the rich and famous. The Economist, perhaps looking to find a
reason to undermine the reputation of US ‘s system of supposed meritocracy,
summarizes the book succinctly:
“Mr. Golden shows that elite universities do everything in
their power to admit the children of privilege. If they cannot get them in
through the front door by relaxing their standards, then they smuggle them in
through the back.”
The data contained in the book does not lie, but it cannot
tell the truth, certainly not the whole truth, to paraphrase Jacques Lacan.
Instead, data can be useful to help to persuade us of how to interpret the
world around us --as the much more accessible thinker, Richard Rorty, would put
it. Being the son or daughter of an Ivy
graduate increases the chances for admission significantly. But being the son
or daughter of a billionaire or of a media star (or, in some case if the
student is a media star himself or herself) outweighs the advantage of being a
legacy by several orders of magnitude.
The data demonstrating how much the odds favor legacies
coupled with the names of the Hollywood moguls whose kids get into top schools
make for great headlines that then help to raise the outcry against the unscrupulous
actions on the part of elitist institutions.
There is no question that some students are offered admission because a college
or university hopes to gain significant economic contributions or some sort of
networking advantage by admitting well-off or well-connected students. (Most of
these families are both).
In an ideal world this would not be the case. However, as I
have argued in Part I and II of this entry, the world is anything but
ideal. Schools use a pragmatic approach
to admission and taking a few wealthy students is a part of the process. Should
schools that practice this form of special admission receive unadulterated
condemnation? Here is a thought experiment.
If a school offers admission to a student who would not have had much or any
chance if it were not for his wealth, is this action always ethically wrong? What
if enrolling the student translates into a new science building or a new dorm
or a new line for a star professor to come in and teach? Is it worth sacrificing one space in hopes
that the result will be a student who graduates and achieves success; more
importantly, what if the building or money received from parents positively affects
the academic opportunities of hundreds if not thousands of students over the
years to come? It is better to stand on an ideal principal or better to
recognize that some give and take on issues like this is the way the world
works and not only works but works well. Should education be ‘pure’ in an
imperfect world in which dollars are needed for the benefit of a university and
the students?
Those who have enough to donate a building or something that
costs millions are few and far between. Just what percentage of students who
enter elite schools are rich? Part of the answer to this question depends on
how one chooses to define rich. The NewYork Times defines the have this way:
“At Harvard, despite a recent increase in the number of such
students, 53 percent of this year’s freshmen come from families making at least
$125,000 a year, and 29 percent from families making at least $250,000, according
to a survey by The Harvard Crimson student newspaper.”
Income levels cited here put the majority of students in the
top 10% in terms of family income, and the 250,000 figure puts them in the less
than 1% group. My question, however, is whether either of these figures is all
that useful to determining just how many rich kids get into Harvard or any
other elite school because of special admission. My experience in education and
my conversations with others convince me that students who come from
backgrounds in the income levels named here benefit because the students attend
great schools, public or private, have educational opportunities outside of school
and over the summer. But income levels, even in low millions are not going to get a
student special consideration in the admission process at the Ivies.
One example might help. A number of years ago I spoke with a
college counselor from a very well known school. One of his students was the
child of billionaires and the child wished to attend an Ivy. The Ivy did not
immediately open up its doors. In effect, they said ‘show us the money’. Even
then the student was not immediately admitted. Instead the student was asked to
enroll after a year (The reason for this is that the student would not raise as
much outrage from other parents and students at the same school, may of whom
were wealthy and connected but whose admission decisions were not good. After a
year, these issues are largely unimportant as most students from these kinds of
schools are attending places that are great by any measure).
I mention this as the number of special
admits, those students whose credentials are significantly weaker than most admitted,
who get in because of money is actually very small. Part of this is basic math.
There are just not that many billionaires or multimillionaires with college age
children. Only those with wealth that
puts them in the range of billionaires boys club typically get special
treatment that is more than a slight plus. The legacies admitted to most
schools are very strong students. They may not be quite as strong as some other
applicants but they are not weak by any means. In sum, the number of rich and
famous students admitted to elite schools that would have had no chance of
being admitted without wealth and power mostly falls into another 1%.
To think that a family of 4 living in a major metropolitan
area on $250,000 has millions lying around to give to schools when the schools
themselves cost over $60,000 (when all is said and done) does not add up. These
kinds of students do not get special consideration from admission committees. They have
earned their spots. I think it does a great disservice to education to pit
families like these against those who have limited economic means. Families with high income but are not millionaires are not taking a private jet, and not jet setting anywhere. They
are spending a great deal of their own money to support their children’s
education. To place them into a category in which money is seen as the reason
the student was admitted to an elite school is misleading and causes increased
tension between economic classes over issues of ‘fairness’.
The Have Nots
If elite schools supposedly cater to the rich, are those at the
bottom end of the economic ladder left out?
The list of articles, books, and blog posts etc. that assume this to be
true would fill a book itself.
But assumptions, like data, are not always accurate and
never complete. Something is always left out of context. Many of the most elite
schools in the US have made exceptional efforts to recruit and enroll low-income
students. Some have had great success. Two top 25 ranked universities in the US News rankings have student bodies
enrollments composed of higher percentages of students at the very lowest end
of the economic spectrum that those at the very highest. Nearly 40% of their
students enrolling at these 2 schools are eligible for Pell Grants. Pell Grants
are available only to those very low on the income scale.
I am certain that almost all the readers of this blog will
be familiar with the two schools. After all, top universities, which enroll
such an astoundingly high percentage of students at the lowest income scale,
are held up again and again in the press as models of success. Or are they? Can
you name the schools? Do you have any idea that there are top schools that have
accomplished this? If you don’t have a clue about the schools, don’t feel bad.
The sentence about the schools being held up in the media for success is
anything but accurate. There are almost no stories covering the success of
these schools. Why?
Here is where things get messy. In the next part of this
examination of students, schools, and income I will name the schools and
explain why few know the answer to the questions of who they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment