Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
Students

For Admissions Officials, Texas Controversy Highlights Dangers of Clout

By Eric Hoover February 16, 2015
Everybody does it, the president of the U. of Texas at Austin said last week after a report detailed how his office had intervened in admissions decisions regarding well-connected applicants. Was he right? Not quite, say admissions deans at nearly a dozen selective institutions.
Everybody does it, the president of the U. of Texas at Austin said last week after a report detailed how his office had intervened in admissions decisions regarding well-connected applicants. Was he right? Not quite, say admissions deans at nearly a dozen selective institutions.Eric Gay, AP Images

Admissions offices don’t operate in the clouds, above the muck of competing motivations, beyond the reach of powerful hands. Although the deans and directors who select applicants wield great influence, each has something pretty much everyone else has: a boss.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Admissions offices don’t operate in the clouds, above the muck of competing motivations, beyond the reach of powerful hands. Although the deans and directors who select applicants wield great influence, each has something pretty much everyone else has: a boss.

On colleges campuses, as anywhere else, bosses tend to get their way, as an independent report on admissions practices at the University of Texas at Austin released last week reminds us. William C. Powers Jr., the university’s president, intervened on behalf of well-connected applicants, sometimes overruling the admissions office to grant “must have” students a spot, the report found. Mr. Powers said in each instance he had acted in “the best interest of the university.” He described the process as similar to those “at virtually every selective university in America.”

Mr. Powers is right—and wrong. Yes, high-profile colleges admit some applicants each year for reasons that have nothing to do with their accomplishments—and everything to do with connections. (Anyone who’s shocked should find the nearest chapter of Pollyannas Anonymous.) But, typically, presidents themselves are not directly involved in such decisions, according to admissions officials at nearly a dozen selective public and private institutions. On that point, they say, Mr. Powers is off the mark.

Insulating the Admissions Office

The way colleges consider special-case applicants varies from campus to campus. Many have procedures designed to curb intervention by presidents, trustees, or administrators, thereby insulating the admissions office from direct orders like those apparently given at Texas. Although people who run campuses might have the authority to admit applicants by decree, some admissions leaders say it’s a bad idea to do so.

“The smart ones keep their hands off,” says the dean of admissions at one private college. “It’s better for them to take the high road, and figure out ways to deal with disappointment when it happens.”

The same dean says he meets a few times a year with the heads of the development and alumni-affairs offices to discuss handfuls of specific applicants. “There’s no reason to involve anyone else,” he says. During those meetings, his colleagues identify the students in whom “there’s the greatest institutional interest.”

Those meetings inform the dean’s decisions. Still, he says, it’s well understood that he has the final say over admissions. Some of the applicants discussed get offers, some don’t. “When the meeting is over,” he says, “nobody feels wonderful.”

The dean of admissions at a private college in the Northeast describes a similar process on his campus. Regular “information sharing” meetings with officials in the alumni and development offices, he says, allow for give-and-take when discussing specific applicants. Those who work with donors get to say who’s a top priority; the dean gets to say which applicants are “nonnegotiable” because their subpar academic credentials suggest they would struggle.

“It forces us to make sure that where there are negotiations, they are not one-sided,” the dean says. “We all want to do what’s best for the university, but we have to protect the individual students, and make sure we’re not setting them up for failure.”

The president does not participate in those meetings, which the dean thinks helps preserve the balance of power among participants. “No one stakeholder,” he says, “is going to run roughshod over the process.”

Pressure on Public Colleges

An applicant’s clout or family wealth may well carry more weight in admissions decisions made by private colleges (especially those that are highly dependent on tuition). Yet some admissions officials say the issue’s becoming more pressing at public institutions as they rely more and more on benefactors amid dwindling support from states. In 2009 a Chicago Tribune investigation revealed that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign had admitted hundreds of applicants at the behest of trustees and state legislators despite objections from admissions officers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some universities have confronted the issue publicly. Nine years ago, for instance, the University of Washington’s Faculty Senate, which exercises control over admissions policies, passed a resolution stating that the integrity of the process “depends upon the unbiased determination of the appropriate merits of each applicant.” Attempts to influence admissions decisions “by use of a person’s university or community stature, promise of financial donation (or threat to discontinue financial donation), or any other means that do not directly address the merits of the applicant are inappropriate and an affront to the status of the university.”

Yet deans at other public institutions describe longstanding procedures for ensuring that at least some well-connected students get a second look. That could mean someone in the president’s office presents the admissions dean with a prioritized list of very-important applicants. Generally, there’s an understanding that the dean has discretion over the decisions, and only some of those applicants will get a spot.

“You’re bending more in some cases than in others,” says one admissions dean. “It’s easier to digest moving someone from the wait-list to an admit. Admitting someone who’s been denied, that would be harder to swallow.”

A key question is why a student’s name ends up on a list in the first place. Because her father helped fund the new science building? Because her mother is an influential state legislator? Like it or not, admitting such a student can benefit a college.

ADVERTISEMENT

But what if the student’s just the daughter of the president’s favorite fraternity brother or golfing buddy? Confusing institutional interests with personal interests, experts say, is one danger of granting an administrator too much control over admissions decisions.

Complicating the Narrative

Once again, the discussion of who gets in and why is complicated by secrecy. Although Texas officials last week described their process nonchalantly, deploying an everybody-does-it defense, the university appears to have gone to great lengths to keep it hidden. When representatives of the president’s office and admissions met to discuss applicants, they ensured there would be no paper trail, the report states.

Maybe they figured that publicizing the process would flood the university with even more requests for favors. Or maybe an institution that’s received immense scrutiny of its admissions policies sought to avoid more publicity.

Other institutions aren’t exactly eager to discuss their own practices. Each of the admissions officials contacted by The Chronicle declined to speak publicly about how and why their institutions make room for some applicants who would not get in otherwise. There’s no way around it: Describing the role that clout plays inevitably complicates the glowing narrative about how college admissions is supposed to work.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Students getting in for no good reason other than some kind of special influence, it stands in stark contrast to everything we’re saying in our public-information sessions,” says Louis L. Hirsh, former director of admissions at the University of Delaware. “It messes up your relationship with high-school counselors, their message to students that there’s a reward for working hard and getting good grades. It completely undermines everything we’re saying about the value of learning.”

The Texas report underscores that the admissions process isn’t fair, at least not for everyone. The supposed meritocracy of the system is riddled with compromises and exceptions. Some just seem to make us more uncomfortable than others.

Mr. Hirsh considers himself lucky. The presidents he worked for, he says, did not try to influence admissions decisions. “I have to wonder myself: Could I have withstood the pressure? What do you do when your boss tells you to do something?”

Even if one appreciates why colleges often weigh factors beyond an applicant’s academic record, such practices raise important questions, says David A. Hawkins. In an email, Mr. Hawkins, who is executive director of educational content and policy at the National Association for College Admission Counseling, suggests that those who stand atop any hierarchical system “feel that they are to be afforded certain privileges.” Like steering acceptances to favored applicants.

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps that’s just human nature, the way the world turns. But there’s a cost. “We all idealize higher education as a means to a better life,” Mr. Hawkins writes, “and when we see that it is exposed to the same grubby influences as politics and industry, we lose some of our optimism.”

Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He’s on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Eric Hoover
About the Author
Eric Hoover
Eric Hoover writes about the challenges of getting to, and through, college. Follow him on Twitter @erichoov, or email him, at eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo-based illustration of a mirror on a green, patterned wallpaper wall reflecting Campanile in Berkeley, California.
A Look in the Mirror
At UC Berkeley, the Faculty Asks Itself, Do Our Critics Have a Point?
illustration of an arrow in a bullseye, surrounded by college buildings
Accreditation
A Major College Accreditor Pauses Its DEI Requirements Amid Pressure From Trump
Photo-based illustration of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia obscured by red and white horizontal stripes
'Demanding Obedience'
How Alums Put DEI at UVa in the Justice Dept.’s Crosshairs
Colin Holbrook
Q&A
‘I Didn’t Want to Make a Scene’: A Professor Recounts the Conversation That Got Him Ejected From Commencement

From The Review

American artist Andy Warhol, posing in front of The Last Supper, a personal interpretation the American artist gave of Leonardo da Vinci's Il Cenacolo, realized 1986, belonging to a series dedicated to Leonardo's masterpiece set up in palazzo delle Stelline; the work holds the spirit of Warhol's artistic Weltanschauung, demystifying the artwork in order to deprive it of its uniqueness and no repeatibility. Milan (Italy), 1987.
The Review | Essay
Were the 1980s a Golden Age of Religious Art?
By Phil Christman
Glenn Loury in Providence, R.I. on May 7, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Glenn Loury on the ‘Barbarians at the Gates’
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin
Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin