I must admit, the college admission scandal that rocked the airwaves this week didn’t surprise me a whole lot. Any student or parent who has gone through the process knows that college admissions at elite schools has become outrageously competitive in recent years. So, it isn’t a surprise to find out how far some people are willing to go to ensure admission. My hope is that the scandal will reveal the false notion that college admissions are a meritocracy. They are not. While the families and administrators that were involved in the DOJ investigation are accused of committing criminal acts, the system is rife with legal ways that favor the rich and connected. Children of donors and alumni (legacies) receive preferential treatment that is widely known and accepted. Unlike recruited athletes or students with unique or exceptional talents, the special treatment that legacies receive has absolutely nothing to do with merit and yet it is perfectly legal. Harvard revealed in 2017 that even though its overall acceptance rate is only 6%, the acceptance rate for legacies is over 34%. A truly shocking factoid!
To me, this is further evidence that the ongoing assault on affirmative action in college admissions is ridiculous. The best colleges understand that the community experience students receive at a four-year college is every bit as valuable as the academic one, and a focus on diversity is one of the best ways to enhance that experience. I’ll admit that on the surface college admission policies based on race seem unfair. It feels odd to say that a particular college should have fewer Whites and Asians… but, I believe that it IS appropriate for colleges to strive to create a student population that reflects our society and that brings a diversity of experiences and perspectives to their campuses. The thrust behind affirmative action is essentially that everyone does not start at the same place and some additional consideration should be given to people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Perhaps an imperfect solution but nonetheless a reasonable one in my view.
I am glad the DOJ finally focused some attention on wealthy people who broke the law with impunity by trying to rig the system even further in their favor. Wasn’t it enough that their kids attended the best high schools, have access to private tutors, employ SAT coaches, etc.? Do people from privileged backgrounds really deserve the added advantage of legacy biases? I personally don’t think so, but there is no real challenge to that policy at this time. That said, later this year the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the latest legal effort to completely abolish the practice of giving even a small preference in college admissions to people of color who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. I don’t get it…
NAHREP shares data at conferences to build a more accurate narrative about the Latino community from an economic perspective. Sharing that data with attendees, influential business leaders, and media at the event helps achieve that goal while arming them with information that can give them a competitive advantage with their businesses.
Terms like “great, genius,” and “world-class” are overused, perhaps because they mean something different to everyone. Greatness is subjective. Some might say you must be great just to be employed in the film business or to play professional sports, but I don’t think Will Smith or LeBron James think that way. The concept of being great also requires context. You could be a great high school athlete but only an average college player.
Regardless of political persuasion, most people think the rhetoric of politics has gotten out of control. If you believe that, as I do, there IS something you can do about it. You can ask yourself whether you are helping or hurting the situation. I like to say that there are two types of people in the world: people who add stress and people who relieve stress. I think similarly, some people are adding to the political spectacle in the country, and others are at least trying for something better.