I think it is important to note that most "elite" or "top tier" colleges have too many qualified students applying for the spots they have anyway. The chances of getting in vary by college but with a 25% acceptance rate (at many more competitive schools) the chances of a qualified student being rejected for no other reason than space is likely. Take out those with admission advantages and the number is even less than the published percentages.
We should never forget that at many of the more well off colleges the scholar/athlete is often lower performing and deserving of a spot only based on their ability to play a sport--- that also takes spots away from deserving high performing students who can't compete.
Legacy students may or may not be deserving of a slot and it depends on who they know, who they interviewed with and the families relationship with the college. This is also taking away spots from deserving students.
None of us can say with any assuridity that the students (whose families were involved) in these scandals are not smart. We don't know. It seems that they may be more average performing students based on the SAT/ACT scores we have seen but a low SAT/ACT score does not mean that one is not smart.
Colleges set out a minimal profile of a student that they hope to attract. The colleges also set out a minimal profile of an athlete they hope to attract. High schools create a profile that explains the rigors of the school (including numbers of AP/honors etc) and the demographic of the school. The HS profile accompanies the student's application. In truth, an A at a less rigorous high school shouldn't be seen as equal to an A in an elite, private high school-- because it is not. There is a secret way that colleges factor how they rate students given their profile and the high school profile. College counselors work to read the tea leaves and develop working relationships in order to ascertain a student's chance of the college's golden ticket.
Just think of it this way-- if colleges had the same standards across the boards regardless of legacy and athletics, March Madness would be filled with lower tier schools and community colleges-- no Duke, no Clemson, n0 whatever school. A question that most are not asking is why does USC need a champion crew/rowing team? Or, tennis team? None, if any of these students, are going to become professional tennis players at this point in their development. Why does the water polo team need to be part of a rubric that accepts lower performing students? This is why the side door was able to be opened by Singer. Yes, there are students who play these sports in order to gain a lower academic admit. Now one could argue that these students spent lots of time on these sports and maybe their grades suffered so why not give them an edge. But, let's be honest, colleges know they would have to give up the bye they give their basketball, football and track/field scholar/athletes for lowered standards if they let go of the scholar/athlete favored status for less competitive sports. This is a discussion that all in the higher ed field should be having. Not too long ago the NCAA had to raise its minimum GPA for acceptances and hold colleges accountable to ensure that a D1 football/basketball/whatever player actually could get a degree (and not just a recreation science degree) within a six year period.
In this scandal, yes, the parents (and the students in some cases) are cheaters and lack a moral sensibility that deserves a consequence-- legal and academic. However, the colleges made the scheme of a side door option possible and it was only a matter of time that the already corrupt system (lower performing students with different admissions guideline) was one that could be gamed by a shrewd huckster. I agree there are other aspects of this that need examination. If we allow everyone to focus on just this type of system gaming, I am confident we will miss the other potential scandals that are out there.
Fair disclosure: I was a college soccer player (D3) and gave up the option at a D1 school based on 4 and 6 year graduation rates of the team.
Ok. I reviewed your post when I was less distracted. I don't know much about the admissions process. But a lot of stuff to consider in your post.
I think that at least with athletes they have a talent of some kind. A skill. It's not contrived. And it provides value to the community who enjoy sports. It also brings revenue to the college because people pay to attend sporting events, buy college sports tchotchkes, etc.
I mean we can debate whether sports should play such an important role in our culture or educational system but at the least, those admitted to a college due to sports have shown they are hard workers and are committed to their skill/talent. Which actually exists.
Then there's the thing about an A at a private school not being the same as an A at a public high school.
I'm not sure how you're meaning that (like that colleges view the candidates differently based on grades and schools?) but yeah. There's a difference.
But in what way? And is it in a way that should give the students from a private school a better chance at admission in the few slots?
For example, the A's that a child who has had every advantage in life from the time they're in utero, with the best health care, no economic stressors, the best access to enriching extracurriculars, private tutors, etc., aren't those A's comparable to a middle class kid who works hard and is super bright and has parents who ensure they're maximizing their potential?
Also, some of those A's at private schools are obtained the same way there's rich kids got accepted - by cheating, parents doing homework or hiring someone to do it for their kids, bribery, etc.
And what about poorer kids who grow up in challenging conditions and attend overcrowded, subpar schools, without any economic advantages, and with lots of stress that living in a depressed, economic area brings? If such a kid who may have to worry about navigating crime in the neighborhood, maybe gangs, drugs, who has to deal with parents working 2-3 jobs, sometimes having utilities shut off for non payment, or not enough always to eat. Not the best foods, etc. - If such a kid perseveres and gets great grades, graduates, but maybe doesn't have top test scores because their schcool didn't focus on that and because they didn't have thousands for fancy test prep, shouldn't all of those struggles and perseverance be a consideration that mitigates the low test scores?
I mean I think I'd rather have that kid one day be my doctor than someone who had it all handed to them and never knew struggle. Because the kid who faced challenges and got to college has a determination and likely an intellect unmatched by many rich kids who get accepted to top-tier colleges.
So when those kids are given special consideration in the admissions process, THAT I'm for. Because there shouldn't be a set criteria for admissions that favors only one way of looking at achievement.
I think the bottom line is that elite colleges should make room for a diversity of students and look at things holistically. Maybe A's from a regular, bright kid who worked hard and had honest, hard working parents who ensured they met their potential, and A's from a lower income kid who struggled but survived and achieved, should be given equal weight to A's from a richer kid at a fancy private school, who had every advantage handed to them, despite a disparity in test scores.
Especially now that we've seen those test scores can be bought.
