Feature Article: A Sad Commentary, Perhaps with a Silver Lining (The Varsity Blues Scandal)

Tuesday, March 12th. I was traveling in Northern California, meeting with new clients, asking questions about my students’ interests, fears, goals, reviewing preliminary survey documents to help them better understand what colleges they are a good fit for, even if they don’t know what those schools are yet, along with fielding their questions and concerns about the coming college selection and application processes… you know, just another day at the proverbial office for me. And during this time, my phone, resting comfortably in my left pocket, was blowing up. CNN pushes. Texts from my wife, my cousin, several former clients… all about this bombshell of a scandal, released from the Department of Justice, detailing how over 40 high net-worth individuals, along with college staff and coaches, all using their power and influence to manipulate test scores and admission decisions at some of the nation’s most elite colleges and universities (including my alma mater), had broken a system that was already teetering on the edge of credulity.

In responding to one of my former clients, I could only muster two words: “Absolutely nauseated.” And that is how I felt for about three days. It’s not like I didn’t already acknowledge just how unfair the system is. Heck, I am part of that unfair ledger. How many kids can really use the help people like me provide that simply cannot afford it…or even know it exists? But there is a huge difference between purchasing time from a counselor who simply has the best intentions for his students, versus unscrupulous parents who throw obscene amounts of money into obvious illegal and immoral operations to better their children’s futures, along with the ‘masterminds’ who planned this dastardly deed out.

I can say I was also pleased at the swift action taken by the schools exposed in this controversy, especially those here on the left coast (UCLA, USC, Stanford). I believe the system, as a whole, was unaware this particular event was going on. That said, here’s part of the statement released by UCLA Chancellor Gene Block: “UCLA is absolutely committed to ensuring that every applicant is considered purely on their merits without any consideration of financial, political or other benefits to the university, in keeping with policy set by the University of California Board of Regents. UCLA cannot and will not tolerate anything less.

Honesty, integrity and fairness are core values at UCLA and admission to UCLA is a notable accomplishment that cannot be bought by any individual, no matter how wealthy, prominent or powerful. Once here, our students work extraordinarily hard to fulfill the highest standards of academic and athletic excellence.”

While there is certainly some truth to what Chancellor Block has told us, there is also a hint of blind faith in a system that is, by its nature, not always on an even level of meritocracy. I have said time and again that colleges are businesses, and if we start treating them as such, we can ultimately understand their motives and behaviors. They can be counted on to follow the money and the trends, like those listed as noteworthy values in things like the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings and the Forbes College Rankings, and those schools are more than aware of just how competitive the college admissions landscape is. Remember, there are some 2,000 of them and only one of each of you.

Let’s also acknowledge the blatant ignorance of the Chancellor’s statement. How many times has a wealthy family, who played by the rules, gained an admission or scholarship advantage over those who could not play those same cards, simply because that wealthy family has the dollars that could be donated down the road to a hungry college or university? It happens all the time.

Families who make significant donations to an athletic fund, a building naming fund, etc. have had opportunities that few others can claim. Even families who simply have the potential to be donors can influence admission decisions and scholarship offers. Colleges are not stupid. There are fewer and fewer potential wealthy donors each year, and this is a zero-sum game. If a donor’s child is captured by Stanford, that family is unlikely to contribute monies to other colleges/universities.

…We flash forward to March 29th. Late that evening I received a text message with an LA Times article attached from a friend in the industry. The article was titled, “Responding to college admissions scandal, California lawmakers propose sweeping reforms.” What I found in the article caused a whole new level of frustration and concern, as a scandal usually brings out the best overreactions from politicians seeking to right a wrong (and this is certainly no exception).

Six different proposals from Democratic members of the state legislature aim to make radical changes to the way the UC and CSU systems operate. Among those proposed changes we find: barring special admissions to state universities without the consent of three UC school administrators signing off; the regulation of private admission consultants; auditing the UC admissions process; and radically changing the role and procedure for SAT and ACT in the state (from both an admission and an administrative perspective).

According to the proposal on special admissions, those exemptions would only be allowed for in-state students who are eligible for in-state tuition discounts (basically ending athletic recruitment outside of CA). This in and of itself shows the shortsightedness of these bills. Part of the allure of a UCLA or a UC Berkeley are the NCAA Division I athletics programs that these schools bolster. As a matter of fact, UCLA is the winningest NCAA Division I program in the history of the NCAA. You can kiss that goodbye if this bill passes.

The bill on regulating private admission consultants is, from my biased perspective, an absolute cash grab, as upstanding counselors would be forced to register with the Secretary of State’s Office (which you know isn’t going to be free), which would be posted in an annual registry, and I am quite certain NO ONE in that office has any idea or way of separating the good guys from the crooks, let alone understand the myriad of ways independent counselors aid families through the college application, admission and financial aid processes. It’s honestly insulting, but not altogether surprising.

The SAT and ACT issue is one I expected would come to a head in the next 10 years or so, but given the link to rampant cheating in domestic testing facilities for both exams (and the history of international cheating in this arena), Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D - Sacramento) has pushed up that timetable and is forcing the light to be shown upon what is a notoriously weak link in the admissions chain.

His proposal encourages a study by the CSU and UC systems to determine the true value (or lack thereof) in these high-stakes admission exams and possibly phasing them out of the admission decision entirely. While I am more than happy to look at alternatives, I think the large public systems we have in California require standardized testing as part of the current system of admission. How else will the CSU system get through the 650,000 freshman applications in a given year (and that doesn’t count the 280,000 or so transfer applicants)? Are they going to start requiring an essay (or two)? Will the list of extra-curricular activities become part of the admission process, and if so, how will they be counted? There’s just no way, in the short-term, the admission reps can get through the material fast enough. While I think the case can be made for the upper echelon of the UC’s to ultimately abandon the SAT and/or ACT, I still see value in standardized tests to help differentiate students of varying abilities, at least in one small measure.

For a glimpse at this latter article, please follow this link: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-college-admission-cheating-california-legislature-bills-20190328-story.html

So what silver lining can you find in this narrative? I find a few strands of good that will come from this. First, it will force college admission and athletic offices to double down their efforts to keep things above board. It won’t draw away many donor families, but it should, in the near-term, prevent more of these schemes from happening.

I also think there’s another, less possible silver lining, one that I am certainly rooting for. The idea that families will look at the desperate actions of these wealthy and influential families and realize just how silly the pursuit is. There are famous and powerful alumni from nearly every college in America. Great actors, politicians, business owners, entrepreneurs, physicians, lawyers, etc. Those titles are not the ownership of the collegiate elite. The more we see examples of silly people doing really stupid things to gain entry into colleges and universities that seem to give their alumni a leg up in the world, the more opportunity there is for us “normal” folk to see just how many excellent trees there are in the college forest.

I’m not here to tear down the families who got themselves into this mess. There are plenty of news outlets who have taken care of that for me. Here’s one such example. I’m actually thrilled that the ‘Hollywood Factor’ was involved – otherwise, I think the story would have blown over rather quickly, as so many pseudo-news organizations would never have covered the story. As far as I am concerned, as long as justice is served, I have no complaints. But I do hold out hope that the world will be smarter and better off for the knowing…