California Lawmakers Propose Reforms in Admissions Process. Other States Could Follow.

Tony Webster, Wikimedia Commons

The news that dozens of parents, coaches, and test administrators had been charged in a bribery-based admissions scheme has captivated and horrified the country and involves students at colleges in multiple states. But much of the drama has taken place in California. That’s where many of the implicated families live and where the organizer of the alleged scheme, William (Rick) Singer, was based.

Seeking to solve some of the problems exposed by the scandal, a group of California legislators has proposed reforms in the college-admissions process. Some of the bills would apply only to the state’s public-university systems, while others would touch any college that accepts Cal Grants, a state student-aid program.

Most of what Singer is accused of doing for the families is already illegal. Prosecutors say he paid college coaches to accept his clients’ children onto their teams, even when they didn’t play the sport. He is also accused of paying proctors of college-entrance exams to help the students cheat, sometimes without those students’ knowledge.

Admission Through the ‘Side Door’

Dozens of people, including famous actors, college coaches, and a university administrator, have been charged by federal prosecutors for their alleged roles in an admissions-bribery scheme involving Yale, Stanford, and other elite institutions.

• One Year After College-Admissions Scandal, 3 Questions About What (if Anything) Has Changed
• 5 Questions to Consider in the Wake of the Admissions Scandal

But the scandal has also brought to the fore some perfectly legal practices that benefit wealthy students. Singer allegedly told parents about a “back door,” in which they could donate millions of dollars to a university to give their kids a boost in the admissions process. (He was allegedly offering a “side door” that used bribes but was less expensive and offered more of a guarantee.)

And the scandal has renewed debate over preferences that the children of alumni receive in the admissions process.

The bills in California will probably be watched by legislators in other states. Here are some ideas in those bills:

A ban on preferential treatment in admissions for the children of donors and alumni. This would apply to both public colleges and universities and private institutions that receive Cal Grants funding.

Scrutiny for the SAT and the ACT. The lawmakers proposed asking the California State University and the University of California systems to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the college-entrance exams.

More oversight of “admissions by exception.” The state’s public colleges are allowed to accept some students who do not meet their admissions criteria, such as a particular academic standard. This bill would ensure that a minimum of three administrators are involved in approving the acceptance of those students.

A registry of private admissions firms. Private admissions consultants who earn more than $5,000 a year would have to register with the secretary of state’s office.

Audit admissions fraud. The state auditor would review the admissions process, particularly how it plays out for athletes and other special admissions applicants.

Admissions counselors said some of the proposed ideas could bring welcome change. Others were likely to be less effective, they said.

Emmi Harward, executive director of the Association of College Counselors in Independent Schools, said that the most interesting proposal is the call to review standardized tests.

“Such a study is timely and could also be a way to increase access to a broader range of Californians,” she said.

Harward said she would also be paying attention to U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposal to strip the tax benefits of donations to a college made while the donor’s child was applying to it.

Some of the proposals could cut colleges off from major sources of funding. Harward said states should “take action to balance the scale by increasing funding to public institutions.”

Mark H. Sklarow, chief executive officer of the Independent Educational Consultants Association, said that when exceptions are made to admit students who do not meet regular admissions criteria, multiple people should be at the table. Those decisions could be about whether to accept a student who is connected to a donor who has given the university a multimillion-dollar building.

“There ought to be people that come together and make a determination: Will the benefits of this building accrue to all the students?” Sklarow said. “Is it worth giving up a spot?”

He was less sure about the requirement that private counselors register with the state.

“All you’re doing is asking people to submit some paperwork,” Sklarow said. “That is meaningless.”

Sklarow added that he’d heard from legislators in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey about potential reforms of college admissions in their states.

“It’s very early,” he said. “But they called to brainstorm ideas to ensure some level of equity.”

Nell Gluckman writes about faculty issues and other topics in higher education. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.