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
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • 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
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • 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:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Review

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

By Brian Rosenberg March 13, 2019
The Only Surprise in the Admissions Scandal  Is That Anyone Is Surprised 1
Michael Morgenstern for The Chronicle

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.

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

The Only Surprise in the Admissions Scandal  Is That Anyone Is Surprised 1
Michael Morgenstern for The Chronicle

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.

Collage of admissions-bribery scheme, March 2019, w/o caption
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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

A version of this article appeared in the March 22, 2019, issue.
Read other items in Admission Through the ‘Side Door’.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Admissions & Enrollment Leadership & Governance Finance & Operations Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Brian Rosenberg
Brian Rosenberg is president emeritus of Macalester College and a visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He is the author of ‘Whatever It Is, I’m Against It': Resistance to Change in Higher Education (Harvard Education Press, 2023).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Confessions of an Admissions Officer
Breaking Open the ‘Black Box’ of Elite Admissions

More News

Illustration showing a letter from the South Carolina Secretary of State over a photo of the Bob Jones University campus.
Missing Files
Apparent Paperwork Error Threatens Bob Jones U.'s Legal Standing in South Carolina
Pro-Palestinian student protesters demonstrate outside Barnard College in New York on February 27, 2025, the morning after pro-Palestinian student protesters stormed a Barnard College building to protest the expulsion last month of two students who interrupted a university class on Israel. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP) (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
A College Vows to Stop Engaging With Some Student Activists to Settle a Lawsuit Brought by Jewish Students
LeeNIHGhosting-0709
Stuck in limbo
The Scientists Who Got Ghosted by the NIH
Protesters attend a demonstration in support of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025, in New York.
First-Amendment Rights
Noncitizen Professors Testify About Chilling Effect of Others’ Detentions

From The Review

Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky
Photo-based illustration depicting a close-up image of a mouth of a young woman with the letter A over the lips and grades in the background
The Review | Opinion
When Students Want You to Change Their Grades
By James K. Beggan

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • 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