Bribery scandal inside admissions office
Schools and their admissions officials are not the target of the conspiracy investigation embroiling testing proctors, SAT/ACT tutors, college athletic coaches and parents, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Admissions officers and deans of admissions appeared to be the victims in this case. That is hard to believe. After years of working in an Ivy League admissions office where I handled the recruited athletes’ applications and being a dean of admissions at a small liberal arts college, I know better.
No matter how much influence the indicted individuals had, we are overlooking the fact that none of them signed off on admissions decisions. Every single student who was admitted under false pretenses received their offer from the admissions office signed by the dean or another highranking member of the staff.
Let’s be clear: It is the responsibility of the admissions office to verify applicants, their applications and their viability to succeed at the institution.
When I worked in the Undergraduate Admissions Office at the University of Pennsylvania, we used to warn student-athletes who were getting recruited that even if the college coach assured them of admission, the decision rested with our office. We wanted students to know that it was up to us – not a college coach or any other influential individual – whether a student was admitted.
It was our job to make sure that all applicants, athletes and nonathletes alike, met the academic standards for admission. This meant every applicant had to reach a minimum standard to be admitted.
In reality, the only students who scraped the bottom of the applicant pool based on grades, curriculum and test scores were the students “tagged” as special applicants: recruited athletes, children of generous donors, students with influential connections to the board of trustees or other key members of the university community. It seems obvious, but there is a reason why these students and their parents sought creative and powerful ways for their children to get admitted.
Admissions officers and deans of admissions are some of the most intuitive human beings in our workforce. As a former admissions officer and dean myself, I can speak to a student in a matter of a few minutes and be able to assess their authenticity, academic curiosity and integrity. And when it comes to reading and evaluating a student’s application, we are trained to read between the lines and ensure that the student is able to back up their intended major, choice of activities and application as a whole.
It is hard to believe that no one in the admissions offices at these targeted colleges picked up on the inconsistencies in the applications at the center of this scandal.
Lori Loughlin’s daughters were allegedly admitted as crew recruits to the University of Southern California. Crew at USC is a Division 1 sport, the highest level of competition in collegiate sports. The team routinely goes to the NCAA championship. Knowing how impressive a crew recruit is for a Division 1 program, what was going through the admissions officers’ minds when they reviewed Loughlin’s daughters’ applications?
How does a Youtube star have time to become an elite rower, which requires a tunnel-vision commitment in terms of time after school and on weekends to attend national regattas and train for hours each day?
The same befuddlement comes up again when we consider Felicity Huffman’s daughter’s meteoric rise in SAT scores – a 400-point increase from the PSAT to the SAT. While PSAT scores are not reported to colleges, admissions officers pay attention to everything and are suspicious of everything.
Regardless of what they tell prospective families, officers are looking for a reason to deny students because it reduces the amount of time they spend on an application and it allows them to have a clear conscience about ending a
student’s aspirations. Huffman’s daughter’s very strong SAT score would need to be corroborated by other pieces of her application. The rigor of her curriculum, grades, essays and her recommendation letters would need to suggest that she is the type of student that would get the score she received.
If not, admissions officers often go down a dark hole of suspicion.
Many have asked whether certain students get special treatment in the admissions process. The answer is “yes” at virtually every college in the country. Exceptions are made for students who are important to the institution. But this doesn’t apply to students who have no connections at elite colleges.
One “B” in an academic class senior year can be enough for an admissions officer to not recommend admission for a student without a “tag.” One typo in an essay. One set of check marks on a teacher recommendation form that lists the student as “excellent” but not “outstanding.” This is enough for kids not to get admitted, unless, of course, they know someone.
In the end, it is up to the admissions offices and their staff to decide who is deserving of admission. When the dean of admissions signs off on the acceptance letters to well-connected yet weaker students, they must stand by their decision and believe that it upholds the integrity of the process and the institution. This scandal shines a bright light into the darkest corners of this secretive process.
Unfortunately, as this “side door” to elite admissions closes, others will open. Without major changes in accountability and transparency, this flawed system will continue to be gamed by the privileged to the detriment of the unconnected.
Sara Harberson is a private college admissions counselor and the founder of Admissions Revolution.