The Only Surprise in the Admissions Scandal Is That Anyone Is Surprised

So it turns out some wealthy people have been lying, bribing, and cheating their children’s way into some of the most prestigious universities in the country, including Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and the University of Southern California — or so it is alleged in several dozen indictments filed by federal authorities in Boston.

The only thing surprising about this news is that anyone would find it surprising.

It is true that the crimes alleged in this case are particularly egregious. They include cheating on standardized tests, bribing coaches, and even Photoshopping the head of one student onto the body of a different, more athletically adept one.

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
• The Bribery Scandal Revealed Holes in Admissions Oversight. Now Some Professors Want to Take Back That Role.

Crimes of this magnitude are most likely not widespread. And there is no evidence so far that university leaders were aware of the scam. But the fundamental assumption underlying this scheme — that wealthy and powerful people can use their wealth and power to gain admission for their children into prestigious colleges — is widespread indeed and has a pretty firm basis in reality.

The people charged with these crimes were not inventing a new game or new rules, but were bending the rules further than the law allows. In other words, they were doing what many others do, but with more malice and less art.

For me, the most telling and chilling statement in the court filings comes from William (Rick) Singer, the founder and operator of the consulting company that ran the scheme, who notes the following: “What we do is we help the wealthiest families in the U.S. get their kids into school. … There is a front door which means you get in on your own. The back door is through institutional advancement, which is 10 times as much money. And I’ve created this side door in. Because the back door, when you go through institutional advancement, as you know, everybody’s got a friend of a friend, who knows somebody who knows somebody but there’s no guarantee, they’re just gonna give you a second look. My families want a guarantee.”

In other words, the novelty of this scheme comes not from the fact that money is buying admission, but from the fact that money is buying a guarantee of admission, whereas the “back door,” or simply writing a big check, is no guarantee because there are always others who might be prepared to write a bigger check or who have a more influential connection.

The evidence that money “buys” admission to the most prestigious colleges in a general sense has been compelling for a long time. At present, the child of a Stanford alumnus is about three times more likely to be offered admission than the child of a non-alumnus. And at many of those prestigious colleges, the percentage of students from the top 1 percent of income earners is larger than the percentage from the bottom 60 percent.

But sometimes money buys admission much more literally: not through a better high school or tutors for standardized tests or the ability to pay full tuition, but through an actual check written after consultation with what Singer calls “institutional advancement.” Virtually everyone who works in the world of college admissions or fund raising knows this to be true.

Let me be clear: At the overwhelming majority of colleges, this “back door” to entry does not exist. First, because the majority are not selective; second, because the majority do not have the brand prestige to justify, in the mind of a prospective donor, a large gift; and third, because the majority find the practice unethical and distasteful.

But there are more than a few colleges at which the back door exists. They know who they are, and I am betting that they are taking a close look now at their practices and asking if the money is worth the reputational risk.

I am not overly idealistic about the way of the world or dismissive of the notion that colleges need to pay attention to the bottom line during the admissions process. I see nothing wrong with soliciting wealthy parents after their children have been fairly admitted. I do it with some regularity and with no sense of guilt. Most colleges, moreover, are “need aware” in admissions, making it more likely that an applicant coming from wealth will gain admission to more colleges than one without means.

What is maddening, though, is that the colleges most likely to be given large gifts in return for an offer of admission are the ones that are most prestigious, selective, and wealthy — in other words, the ones that need the money least. I would actually be pretty sympathetic if a struggling college were tempted by such an offer, but those offers tend not to be forthcoming.

Is there an easy fix? This is like asking if the average person will ever have the same chance as a billionaire to get tickets to the Super Bowl. No. The most important changes will necessarily be slow, incremental, and difficult. More investment in public schools, more equitable distribution of wealth through higher wages, less racism. Honestly, I’d rather spend my time focusing on these changes than on the question of whether someone with an eight-figure annual income made a seven-figure gift to influence an admission decision.

Still, as someone who wants to work in an ethical business, I wish the practice would stop. If there is anything good that comes out of this unsavory story, it might be that the next prestigious university tempted to offer admission in return for a big check might, at least for a moment, hesitate.

Brian Rosenberg is president of Macalester College.