1

The Pennsylvania State University

Money or Merit: Leveling the Playing Field of College Admissions

Caroline Camp

ENG 138T Section 011

Professor Babcock

14 April 2019
 2

Abstract

This most recent scandal regarding college admissions, “Operation Varsity Blues”, shines

a light on the role of wealth, privilege, and corruption surrounding the current college admissions

system. It is not the only example of this broken system, but rather sensational news that

highlights prevalent, systemic injustices that have existed in society and the educational process

for years. The problem is that money plays an undue influence in the college admissions process.

Power, wealth, and privilege all taint a system that, in an ideal world, is a meritocracy based on a

student’s ability. This occurs through privileges afforded to students from wealthy families,

including private schools, college entrance exam preparatory courses, private tutors, fancy

extracurriculars, pledging large donations, and legacy admissions. While a complex problem

with no easy solution, responses at the institutional level, private sector level, and federal level

can attempt to level the playing field. Academic institutions should critically evaluate their

admissions criteria and identify points of inequality that benefit wealthy students over low-

income students. Private corporations should evaluate their testing accommodation policy. The

federal government should invest in school counseling departments and establish a grant

program for affordable test preparation.

 3

MONEY OR MERIT: LEVELING THE

PLAYING FIELD OF COLLEGE ADMISSIONS
A N E X A MI N A T I O N O F T HE R O L E O F MO N E Y A N D P R I V I L E G E I N T H E C U R R E N T S Y S T E M F O R C O L L E G E
A D MI S S I O N S , I D E N T I F I C A T I O N O F WH O E ME R G E S A S WI N N E R S A N D L O S E R S , A N D R E C O MME N D A T I O N S
F O R E S T A B L I S H I N G A MO R E E Q U I T A B L E P R O C E S S

The public was shocked and outraged when Lori Loughlin, who played the beloved Aunt Becky

from the classic childhood television show Full House, was one on the 50 people indicted on March 12,

2019 on racketeering charges for her alleged role in an extensive fraudulent college admissions scheme.

Masterminded by William Singer, the scheme dates back to 2011 and involves Singer’s college

admissions counseling company known as The Edge College and Career Network. It is reported that some

wealthy parents went through this company and paid anywhere from $200,000 and $6.5 million to

guarantee their children acceptance into some of the most prestigious universities in America. Parents

who opted to cheat the system and use Singer’s service typically followed one of two routes. Firstly, they

could use Singer to help their children cheat on the ACT or SAT, guaranteeing them a particular score.

Singer did this by having the families secure a testing accommodation giving their child double time over

multiple days, and then he would arrange the testing location and proctor to facilitate the cheating. Each

test score cost the family between $15,000 and $75,000. Or, with the second route, parents would go

through Singer to bribe college athletic coaches to designate their children as recruits when, in actuality,

they have never played the sport in question. Furthermore, Singer would arrange payment for others to

take, or retake, a class on behalf of a student with the understanding that this grade would be a part of

their college application. An ironic detail of the scheme is that a charitable organization with the supposed

goal of helping disadvantage youth was used to cover up the bribery. The colleges impacted by this

include Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, Boston University, Northeastern, UCLA, USC, University of Texas

at Austin and Wake Forest.

 4

This scandal shines a light on the role of wealth, privilege, and corruption surrounding the current

college admissions system. It is not the only example of this broken system, but rather sensational news

that highlights prevalent, systemic injustices that have existed in society and the educational process for

years. While celebrities and CEO’s purchasing their child’s spot in an elite institution seems outrageous,

the fundamental assumption underlying the scheme, that wealthy people use their money to exert power

and benefit themselves at the expense of others, is not far from the reality of social structure today and is

actually extremely widespread.1

THE PROBLEM

Money plays an undue influence in the college admissions process. Power, wealth, and privilege

all taint a system that, in an ideal world, is a meritocracy based on a student’s ability, regardless of how

much money their parents make or what school district they come from. Alia Wong of The Atlantic

comments that “most methods of admissions subterfuge rely on money, savvy, or some combination of

both.”2 While the scandal represents an illegal way of using money to gain admittance into a prestigious

university, there are perfectly legal avenues of accomplishing the same that people follow every year,

including pledging large donations.3

1
Rosenberg, Brian. “The Only Surprise in the Admissions Scandal Is That Anyone Is Surprised.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 Mar. 2019.
2
Wong, Alia. “Elite-College Admissions Are Broken.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Oct. 2018.
3
Stancil, Will. “Ignorance Was Bliss for the Children of the College-Admissions Scandal.” The Atlantic, Atlantic
Media Company, 18 Mar. 2019.
 5

In the lifetime of children who

grow up in the top 1% of

American wealth, they are

afforded benefits that culminate

in making their college

applications stand out, including

but not limited to, private

FIGURE 1: PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF ROLE OF WEALTH IN EDUCATION
IMAGE BY YOUGOV.COM schools, college entrance exam

preparatory courses, private tutors, and fancy extracurriculars. Firstly, if a family has the financial means

to make a sizable donation to a school, that can guarantee their child a spot in the incoming freshmen

class. A notable example of this is found in the story of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of and senior advisor

to President Donald Trump. His acceptance to Harvard came just after his father, an extremely wealthy

developer, pledged $2.5 million to Harvard.4 Private, college preparatory school is also something that

only the very wealthy can afford, and even if a student does not attend private school and instead a highly

ranked public school in an affluent area, the family pays for that premium in the form of a higher house

price.5 In terms of college entrance exams, only the wealthy can afford test prep services and tutors,

which can cost anywhere from $500 to $3,000. With this comes an emerging field of college application

consultants who charge over $200 an hour for help writing essays, securing letters of recommendations,

and filling out applications. If the college admissions system is a game, only the rich can afford to hire

consultants to help them win the game.

4
Guynn, Jessica. “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Wealthy Parents Use Their Privilege to Game the College
System. And It’s Perfectly Legal.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 14 Mar. 2019.
5
Stancil, Will. “Ignorance Was Bliss for the Children of the College-Admissions Scandal.” The Atlantic, Atlantic
Media Company, 18 Mar. 2019.
 6

Two avenues of admission shed further light on the advantage wealth provides: athletic recruiting

and legacy admissions. Athletic recruiting, specifically within sports such as lacrosse, crew, sailing, and

water polo, is a preference largely conferred on well off students who could afford the coaching and

training in these sports in high school. For example, the demographic of the crew team at the University

of Virginia is virtually all white and affluent. Even outside of sports traditionally thought of as upper-

class sports, urban schools are cutting varsity sports and athletic programs due to limited budgets.6

Students benefit from legacy admissions when they are awarded preference in the applicant pool due to

the fact that someone in their family attended the institution. A 2005 Princeton study found that being a

legacy was the equivalent of adding 160 points to your SAT score.7 The idea underlying legacy

admissions, rewarding birth rather than merit, seems inherently un-American, going against ideals of

equality and the ability to pursue the American Dream. Yet, at the same time, it is a trend observed only

among American universities. Richard D. Kahlenberg,

director of K–12 equity and senior fellow at The

Century Foundation, calls legacy admissions

“affirmative action for the rich” due to the fact that it

disproportionately benefits white, affluent students.8

Examining the process for securing testing

accommodations on the SAT and ACT, there exists

FIGURE 2: LEGACY ADVANTAGE AT SELECTIVE
potential for people with money and resources to COLLEGES. IMAGE BY MICHAEL HURWITZ

exploit the system by paying for expensive evaluations by a psychologist to say their child has a learning

6
Golden, Daniel. The Price of Admission. New York, Three Rivers Press, 2007.
7
Espenshade, Thomas J, and Chang Y. Chung. “The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite
Universities.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 86, April. 2005, pp. 293-305. EBSCO,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00303.x.
8
Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Affirmative Action for the Rich.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company,
10 May 2013.
 7

disability that they do not. It is a delicate balance when designing a system for allowing testing

accommodations between protecting the students who actually need them and those who are just working

the system.

Some of the specific policies set in place by the universities also inadvertently favor the wealthy.

Firstly, early decision applications are when students apply to their top choice university early in their

senior year with the understanding that if they are accepted, they will go there. It is a binding application.

Because decisions are released so early in the year, they still have time to apply elsewhere should they not

be accepted. This has become an extremely popular way of applying to one selective, prestigious

university as acceptance rates are usually a little higher among early decision applicants. However, this

process of applying is really only feasible for high income families because you are agreeing to attend the

school and pay for it before you know how much, if any, merit or need based financial aid they may be

granting the student.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

How did we get to this point where the college admissions process has become so incredibly

competitive and selective, the point where parents feel the need to carry out elaborate schemes to buy

their children into school? Part of this can be explained by the idea in American culture that success in

your lifetime requires a college education. Specifically, a degree from an elite institution guarantees you a

high paying job, a ticket to prosperity. Whether this is true or not, it is the perception in society, and

subsequently, “in the past 15 or so years, most of the country’s colleges and universities have seen a

steady surge in the number of freshman applications received, but the trend has been particularly

pronounced at elite institutions.”9 Moreover, it appears that the prestige of the name of the university on

your resume matters to students selecting where to attend college. The UCLA’s Higher Education

9
Wong, Alia. “Elite-College Admissions Are Broken.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Oct. 2018.
 8

Research Institute conducts a survey on incoming freshman every year, and in 2016 they found prestige to

be a top priority for two thirds of respondents.10 Society focuses so much attention on acceptances to Ivy

League and other elite institutions, and this attention only furthers the power and influence these colleges

have to shape the norms regarding the definition of success.

WITH THE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED, I WILL NOW PROPOSE A VARIETY OF RESPONSES TO

MITIGATE THE INEQUALITY AT THREE DIFFERENT OF LEVELS OF IMPLEMENTATION:
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

POTENTIAL RESPONSES: ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

Universities have the greatest capacity to affect change in this matter and take steps to level the

playing field among applicants to their college. In response to the latest scandal, the admissions

department of every school, those involved and not involved alike, should critically evaluate their

admissions criteria and identify points of inequality that benefit wealthy students over low-income

students. Eric Hoover of The Chronicle of Higher Education explains, “as deplorable as this current

scandal is, the silver lining may be that colleges take an even more rigorous approach in examining the

inequities that exist in their respective processes and procedures.”11 Admissions departments have the

chance to correct existing policies and shape new policy that can reduce the influence privilege has on the

application process and chance of acceptance. They get to determine what they value in the process, and

how student’s resources play into these values.

How should admissions departments achieve this overhaul of their practices to ensure equality?

There is no simple answer, and responses will likely vary school to school. One way to reduce the

financial disparities is for all colleges to be need-blind when it comes to admissions. Need-blind

10
Eagan, M.K., Stolzenberg, E.B., Zimmerman, H.B.m Aragon, M.C., Whang Sayson, H., & Rios-Aguilar, C. “The
American Freshman: National Norms Fall 2016.” Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2017.
11
Hoover, Eric. “Admissions Officers Didn’t Cause the Scandal. But They Helped Shape the Culture That Spawned
It.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 Mar. 2019.
 9

admission means that an applicant’s ability to pay for their education will not factor into the decision to

admit or deny. Around 100 universities already have this policy, and clearly it is very positive that one’s

financial situation, whether or not they can pay full tuition all four years, is not considered and instead

just their merit. Taking it a step further, some schools have a policy to meet 100% of demonstrated

financial need. This is an extremely positive policy, as well, because it ensures that students from fewer

resources can apply early decision without worrying about their ability to pay. Of course, as desirable as

need-blind admission and meeting 100 percent of demonstrated need are, it is not possible for all

academic institutions to adopt these policies. They simply do not have the funds to meet the need of every

student and depend on those who pay the full price of tuition for four years. While need blind admission

is easier to accomplish, meeting 100 percent of demonstrated financial need requires an ample

endowment or other source of funds.

Maybe universities should adapt a more radical approach to leveling the playing field, and to that

idea, Alan B. Morrison and Richard Kahlenberg propose a policy of complete transparency in their

commentary for The Chronicle of Higher Education. They suggest requiring all colleges that receive

funds from the federal government to disclose statistics regarding how many students benefited from

legacy preferences, and among these beneficiaries, their racial breakdown. They want it to be public

knowledge if a family member pledged a large donation in the years surrounding a student’s applications.

Furthermore, they propose a public record of the percentage of students admitted within each quintile of

family income so as to have data to compare promises to increase enrollment of disadvantaged applicants

against and hold them accountable to their stated goals.12 This unprecedented transparency from within

admissions departments could push them to make more equitable evaluations of candidates as they are

now subjected to public scrutiny.

12
Morrison, Alan B, and Richard Kahlenberg. “Admissions Policies Lack Credibility. The Cure: Radical
Transparency.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
 10

Another approach would be to move to less of a dependence on SAT and ACT scores due to

unequal access to test preparation and testing accommodations. Many schools have already made the

move and are deemed as “test optional”. This change would eliminate the need for affluent families to

hire expensive tutors and pay for costly preparation courses. By lessening the degree to which test scores

influence college admissions, there would not be the pervasive cultural idea that the highest score is a

measure of success, and it should be pursued no matter the cost.

POTENTIAL RESPONSES: PRIVATE CORPORATIONS

Given that one of the ways the families in the most recent college admissions scandal were able

to cheat on the SAT was through securing fraudulent testing accommodations, there should be appropriate

action taken on the part of these private companies that administer college entrance exams, specifically

the College Board, responsible for the SAT, and ACT. Focusing on the SAT, the College Board states on

their website that they are “committed to making sure that students with disabilities can take tests with the

accommodations they need. All reasonable requests are considered.”13 The current process the College

Board has in place for securing extra time on the SAT involves submitting proper documentation form a

professional in the form of a recent medical evaluation or cognitive and academic achievement testing

scores. If approved, they can be granted time and a half or double time. The majority of people work

through their schools to submit these requests, but they can be done individually.14 The process can be

expensive, with an evaluation costing up to $1,000, so low income students with legitimate learning

disabilities may not be able to secure them. Meanwhile, affluent families can essentially buy themselves

extra time with the right doctor and enough money. The issue becomes how to ensure that the students

who actually need accommodations get them, and students who do not, but have the resources and

13
The College Board. The College Board, www.collegeboard.org.
14
Ibid.
 11

motivation to go through the evaluation process, do not get them. Recently, the College Board has

delegated significant power to school’s IEP teams to decide what accommodations are appropriate, but in

order to regain greater control over the process, they should bring all of the decision-making back within

their company. Schools have varying resources in their guidance departments, so ensuring a singular

entity has control over the accommodations will make it more equal. Furthermore, the College Board

should look into employing a force of psychologists who complete their own, unbiased evaluations of

students who need extra time to ensure family doctors are not providing biased results. The drawback, of

course, with making accommodations harder to secure is, while it can eliminate cheating or playing the

system, it can also make it harder for deserving students to get the extra time they need to succeed.

POTENTIAL RESPONSES: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

What role does the federal government have in leveling the playing field of college admissions to

ensure low-income students have just access to college? They play a role in promoting equality in all

other sectors of the economy and society, so this should be no different. One method they can pursue is

greater investment in public schools, specifically in the counseling departments of low-income schools.

Research has shown “that counselors who work in schools that serve a high percentage of low-income

students have higher caseloads and dedicate less time to college planning and support.”15 So, students

who need the most support, especially during the college admissions process, are receiving the least.

Greater investment in counseling would demonstrate that, as a country, we are committed to creating

equal opportunity in college applications. Until legislation is passed to correct school-counselor funding

and support and reform these programs, affluent school districts will always have an advantage.16

15
Savitz-Romer, Mandy, and Steve Desir. “School Counselors Not Shocked by Admissions Scandal.” The
Hechinger Report, Teachers College at Columbia University, 14 Mar. 2019, hechingerreport.org/opinion-
not-shocked-by-scam/.
16
Ibid.
 12

In addition to greater investment in school counseling in low income school districts, the federal

government should also establish a grant program to provide funding for students who cannot afford the

cost of SAT or ACT prep courses or even prep books. Many students qualify for free or reduced lunch at

their public school, so these students should also qualify for assistance paying the immense price of the

college admissions process. Testing fee waivers already exist for low income students, but schools should

also have funding to pay for the courses that help affluent students get even further ahead. Money from

the federal government, either paid to the school districts or through an application from the student

themselves, will make test prep courses more accessible and thus level the playing field a bit.
 13

Bibliography

Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Whang Sayson, H., & Rios-

Aguilar, C. (2017). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. Los Angeles: Higher

Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Espenshade, Thomas J, and Chang Y. Chung. “The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at

Elite Universities.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 86, April. 2005, pp. 293-305. EBSCO,

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00303.x.

Golden, Daniel. The Price of Admission. New York, Three Rivers Press, 2007.

Guynn, Jessica. “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Wealthy Parents Use Their Privilege to Game the

College System. And It's Perfectly Legal.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information

Network, 14 Mar. 2019.

Hoover, Eric. “Admissions Officers Didn’t Cause the Scandal. But They Helped Shape the Culture

That Spawned It.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education ,

13 Mar. 2019.

Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Affirmative Action for the Rich.” The New York Times, The New York

Times Company, 10 May 2013.

Morrison, Alan B, and Richard Kahlenberg. “Admissions Policies Lack Credibility. The Cure:

Radical Transparency.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher

Education.

“Need Blind Admission.” Brown University, Brown University.

Rosenberg, Brian. “The Only Surprise in the Admissions Scandal Is That Anyone Is Surprised.” The

Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 Mar. 2019.

 14

Savitz-Romer, Mandy, and Steve Desir. “School Counselors Not Shocked by Admissions

Scandal.” The Hechinger Report, Teachers College at Columbia University, 14 Mar. 2019,

hechingerreport.org/opinion-not-shocked-by-scam/.

Stancil, Will. “Ignorance Was Bliss for the Children of the College-Admissions Scandal.” The

Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 Mar. 2019.

The College Board. The College Board, www.collegeboard.org.

Tuttle, Brad, and Kaitlin Mulhere. “The College Admission Process Is Already Rigged to Favor the

Rich. Here's How.” Money, Meredith Corporation, 13 Mar. 2019.

Wong, Alia. “Elite-College Admissions Are Broken.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14

Oct. 2018.

Yellin, Deena. “Growing Number of Students Seeking Accommodations for SAT.” North

Jersey.com, USA Today, 26 Jan. 2017.