The College Admissions Scandal Sheds Light on Preferential Treatment
Words and Illustrations by Kia Thomas
On March 12, 2019, the Massachusetts federal court charged 50people for their involvements in a nationwidecollege admission scam, including celebrities such as Lori Laughlin andFelicity Hoffman. The people accused were parents, coaches, and schoolofficials, all of whom worked in tandem to create fake admission profiles andcheat on standardized tests.
WilliamRick Singer, the CEO of a company called “The Key” that offers lifecoaching and college counseling services, is considered the primaryorchestrator of the scheme. Singer used his charitable foundation, “KeyWorldwide Foundation,” as a front to disguise bribe money as donations to charity.
One of the college admission scams involved bribing coachesand school officials to admit students based on false athletic credentials.Lori Loughlin paidapproximately $500,000 to have her daughters admitted as recruits on theUniversity of Southern California crew team, despite them having never rowedcompetitively.
Singer also facilitated cheating on the SATs and ACTs. Hehired MarkRiddell, a well-known test whiz, 2004 Harvard graduate, and director of IMGAcademy, to either take tests for students or proctor exams for them. After proctoring, Riddell would correct theanswers on the tests. Singer bribed proctors to allow Riddell to take tests forstudents.
Actress Felicity Hoffman was involved in the standardizedtesting scam, paying $15,000 to Singer’s foundation to have her daughter’s examadministered by one of Singer’s contacts.
The colleges involved in the scam were big names such asUniversity of Southern California, Stanford, and Yale. Many were shocked thatIvy League schools would be involved in such a controversial scandal. Otherswere less surprised, citing a well-known history of colleges favoring affluentfamilies.
Latanya McKenney, a psychology major, was not fazed by thesituation. “I’ve known that it’s always been going on, and I’m not surprised orshocked. It’s about time these people are held accountable for other people’schildren who are missing opportunities.”
Many wonder why influential people would have to bribecolleges to admit their children. McKenney said, “This is what they do! They goaround, they get free meals, they get free hotel rooms, why wouldn’t they getfree rides for their kids in college?
McKenney believes that parents pay for the college name. Shesaid, “If the kids were actually about anything, they would have worked to getthere. I think it's the prestige, because any college is good as the other.”
A “legacy”refers to a student whose family member attended the college they are attendingor applying to, usually parents. Ivy leagues and top private schools takelegacy status into consideration when assessing an applicant. Often, thesestudents are given “preferential treatment.” Sometimes schools will designate acertain percentage of the incoming freshman class to legacies.
One of the factors in considering legacy students aredonations. Legacy students are more likely to commit to that school, whichmaintains a high level of offer acceptance – which leads to affluent familieswith legacy children likely to donate to that school.
The US Attorney of Massachusetts Andrew Lelling said,"We're not talking about donating a building, we'retalking about fraud.” Clearly, it is illegal to bribe school officials throughfaked charitable donations. However, is donating a building entirely different?Where is the line drawn? If donations from families is already an incentive forcolleges to admit legacy students, how does that differ from these acceptingbribes from non-legacy parents?
The scandal sheds light on the deep-seated inequities ofthe college admission process. When comparing what is legal versus what is not,the line becomes blurred and it becomes clear just how easy it is for richparents to get their children into elite schools.
Many Ivy League colleges with extensive and generationalalumni networks reserve more space for legacies, reducing the chances ofnon-legacy students to attend the school. Ivy League legacy families areusually affluent, which makes them less likely to admit students who are bothnon-legacy and poor or middle class. If these schools have such a huge monetaryincentive to accept legacies, why would they open their doors to other kids,who need financial aid and can’t offer new buildings?
One argument is that those students are expected to haveexcellent admission profiles alongside their status as legacy. However, how canpeople be sure that these profiles are excellent, and by what standards? Thegeneral public would not know. According to NPR, “it is still unclear exactly how each school useslegacy in their admission process.”
The legacy system has a history of racial preference. Mostcolleges, especially Ivy Leagues, were designed to not be an option for manymarginalized racial, immigrant, and religious groups, up until recently.Narrowing their admissions pool to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and theirchildren led to the makeup of legacy families in prestigious schools to be,obviously, mostly white men, as most Ivy Leagues were men-only colleges.Further, standardized testing is knownto be catered towards upper-class families who can afford the expensivetutoring and materials it takes to get high scores.
Another argument is that admittingaffluent legacy kids, whose families can pay full tuition and donate to theschool, can keep tuition costs low for families who earn under $150,000 a year. With rising student debtand college tuitions skyrocketing, this aspect seems largely non-impactful.However, alumni donations do provide the funds for better college facilities.
Ironically, colleges UC Berkley andUSC, both of whom are implicated in the admissions scandal, do not take legacystatus into consideration.
As a public university which wasfounded as the Free Academy of the City of New York, CUNY students do not haveto struggle with admissions fraud or legacy status like those applying for andattending private institutions. Most CUNY students come from diversebackgrounds, largely working class.
However, students can use this scandalto continue to question the integrity of their schools, where their funds arecoming from, and where they are going.
