Bribing Their Way Into College

Is it just me and my Canadian perspective or does no one else see the irony between the March 13th story, “How ‘Medicare for All’ Would Work (or Not Work)” and the March 14th piece, “Bribing Their Way Into College”? In the ‘Medicare for All’ piece, Margo Sanger Katz seemed to say that a single payer (government) health care system would be a tough sell in the US for several reasons, not the least of which involves a majority of Americans who aren’t sold on the notion that quality health care is a right for all. Flipping that position, the corollary would seem to be that Americans are okay with the idea that citizens are entitled to the best health care they can afford. The rich, by extension should receive the best care while the poor should expect little or nothing. Contrast that with the March 14th story, “Bribing Their Way Into College” which focused on bribery and college admissions. Here, the rich are condemned for using their wealth and influence to gain admission to elite schools for their young. So, it would seem to be okay for the rich to use their wealth to buy top notch medical care but not okay to gain admission to a top notch school. In other words, inequality in health care is okay but inequality in education is not. Ironic?

I hope the people who are always blathering on about "meritocracy" will take a minute to think about the fact that it is cases like this that ought to attract their ire, not reparative programs like affirmative action.

One of the reporters interviewed in today's podcast suggests that this entire "Varsity Blues" operation was borne out of the Philip Esformes/Medicare fraud investigation, which ultimately snagged UPenn's former head basketball coach (now with the Boston Celtics) for accepting bribes. I thought of that case as soon as the "Varsity Blues" news broke, and some journalists (Inside Higher Ed, among them) noted the similarities as well. I'd like to see more reporting from the Times on this, since I gather they in fact were directly related. One other aspect, that probably seems minor in the grand scheme of things, but IMHO is worth looking into, is how some of these bribe-accepting coaches had already benefited from legacy/staff/coach "tips" for their own children while also accepting payoffs. So their kids getting a leg up over other - possibly more qualified - students wasn't enough. They wanted cold, hard cash too. UPenn's coach (and his assistant coach, who has also been implicated in the Esformes investigation and has now been suspended from his Auburn coaching duties) were also teammates on Penn's basketball team in the mid-90s and, I believe, Wharton classmates. It seems entitlement breeds greed.

How much faith in their children's own ability to get accepted to the schools of their choice did these parents have? Zero faith. This is yet another form of parental abuse -- and these selfish people will pay the price of being scorned by the very offspring they wanted so desperately to succeed. Most likely, education was never stressed in their households until the last minute -- so mommy and daddy thought they would buy and bribe their daughters way into the scholarly environment of academe. But from the looks of it, these hardly serious young women would never have made it past their first semester, anyway -- unless, of course, mom and dad lined the pockets of their respective professors. And after this,I wouldn't put it past them, either. The shame, the embarrassment, the far-reaching falsifications, the total package of their crimes will be talked about for years. Good show, Hollywood.

One of the reporters wonders aloud why parents would break the law to get into schools like the University of Texas at Austin, which she suggests are easy to get into compared to the “elite” colleges involved in this scandal. The student whose parents allegedly paid a bribe to the University of Texas tennis coach came from California. Given UT’s apparent “cachet” deficiency in the eyes of your journalists, it is not clear why the student might have wanted to enroll there, but if you check the applicants/admissions percentages, I think you’ll find that it is easier for a California high school student to get into UCLA, Berkeley, or USC than it is for that student to get into the University of Texas at Austin, which in the fall of 2018 had a 11.6% out-of-state admission rate.

Our US college and university systems have a great advantage over systems in other countries; they are not run by a central government. This makes our colleges and universities more competitive which makes them try harder to be great and results in better, more creAtive and more diverse programs. We should leave our colleges and universities alone to run their institutions as they want. We have a great system and risk ruing it with a lot of mandates from the outside. While taking bribes is obviously wrong, favoritism is natural and may benefit the institution and thus all their students, including those not paying extra to get in and those on scholarships. Let the schools admit whoever they wish. Good schools with good students will do well. It would be impossible anyway for someone to come up with an admission system that is fair to everyone.

Great interview overall, but had to chuckle a little to myself when the reporter suggested that UT Austin doesn't hold much "cachet" with people in elite circles. Presumably, at least in cheating moneybags' circles, the Longhorns hold a lot of cache -- enough to go to federal prison over. Don't get me wrong -- as a non-UT grad living within the burnt-orange bubble I'm up for taking UT down a peg whenever and wherever possible. But I'm not sure how one measures this illusive "cachet" in this instance. It seems more likely that this is just shorthand for biases against certain schools. This is compounded by the loose talk about "eye-popping elite schools". I'm sure it's just an accident that the two schools singled out for cachet-less-ness in this piece are in flyover states, but the NYT staff might want to think on how helpful wading into a "cachet" debate really is, being that you are all just disengaged coastal elites sipping expensive coffee (see how this unconscious bias thing works?). On the upside, UCSD alums must be happy NY Times journos approve of their cachet! Tap another keg Tritons! In closing, I can't believe you forced me to defend tea sips NY Times Daily, but otherwise keep up the good work on the podcast.

The tip of the iceberg: Student are claiming a race/ethnic group that do not reflect reality to trying to game the system to get admitted. I have been told many of the private admissions counselors parents hire suggest this. I was at an information session last April at a top 5 college where they said 40% of the student were of color. I walked on the tour and thought maybe 7-10%. But I recalled how the admissions staff kept repeating "as self reported." So even the admissions staff knew students were lying. The tour guide told us how she claimed she was going to be ROTC to get admitted but decided when she started to not do ROTC. We have created a group of students who lie and cheat their way into elite colleges. They learned from their parents very well!

As a former junior faculty, It is fascinating to me that this is "news" when in fact everywhere we look the narrative is always the same Money is Power. I did some post graduate training UPENN and had the opportunity to interact with ivy leagues students as a part of my training . The power commodity is no strange to them. Has never been. Most recently became a junior faculty in one of the schools mention in this article...same narrative. I honestly never even thought it was illegal. "you know how it is.." i once heard from a colleague. I agree not punishing the students that did not know about the scam. But how much accountability, i wonder, should be on the admission staff shoulders. My wild guess is 100%. We are only seeing the surface i am afraid.

Jennifer Medina contributes to the problem when she remarks that Wake Forest isn't much of a college. It's that kind of judgment that makes parents and students compete in the worst way.

How can College Board and ACT not see a red flag when the same proctor repeatedly offers to fly to the same Texas school (apparently at his own expense) to proctor extended time exams where only one "disabled" child is scheduled to participate? There is not enough media coverage of the failures of ACT and College Board. My child who is a freshman at one of the Ivies says that they are all very upset over this particular aspect of the cheating. The athletic recruiting scheme affect a small portion of their classmates, but EVERYONE takes these tests.

This podcast offers a wonderful summary of a stunning con, but I will offer a caveat: the commentators suggest, on more than one occasion, that the parents had no faith in their children's abilities to achieve legitimate admission to these colleges. That comment minimizes the competitiveness of admissions and disparages kids who were victims, too (my understanding is that most of the students had no idea they were part of a fraud). Getting into the most sought after institutions in the country is not about ability--not entirely, anyway. Class valedictorians with perfect scores and rounded extracirriculars receive notices of rejection all the time because there are simply too many qualified candidates. Admissions is an inscrutable process. You need good grades, sure, but you need more. You need the stars to align. These parents found a way to manipulate the heavens.

In wondering "why" privileged parents, whose children's financial security does not depend on going to an elite school, or really, any college, the answer is simple. Why did these parents do this? Ego. Status-consciousness. And, possibly, guilt in not being there enough for their kids. If you have so much money, power, and influence, it's cost you something. Time, perhaps a sense of self, not to mention reality. It's a problem that is particularly painful in college admissions, where kids are involved, but it's also a larger problem of where our country is today (and for the past several years).

If you look at acceptance rates to top universities from private schools vs. public schools, you will see that children who attend private high school are admitted to prestigious universities at a higher proportion than students from public high schools. Is it legal? Of course it is, but it's the first way children of people with means buy their way into prestigious universities.

As a master degree level career counselor who has helped many disabled students gain legal access to college, I have long since been aware of these scams. My own career began in 1968 in Ohio and ended in 2000 in California. During those 32 years I observed countless students gain access to universities through favoritism and bribes. Many of these bribes were contributions to the parents alma mater. Only complete naïveté could cause Americans to deny the existence of this legal and illegal favoritism!