Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Daniel Golden sparked a spirited debate when he spoke Saturday at the Brown Bookstore about his new book, "The Price of Admission." The book, subtitled "How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates," describes what Golden calls "unfair" admissions policies at several universities, including Brown, and the implications of such practices.
About 20 community members gathered to hear Golden speak. Though his book scrutinizes Brown's Office of Admission, Golden began by saying he was "glad to be back at Brown." He added that he hopes readers take his criticism as it is intended: for constructive purposes.
Golden elaborated on his view of what he perceives as questionable admissions practices. He said the admissions process gives an unfair advantage to children of alums or faculty, students with extremely wealthy parents who can be expected to donate generously as well as students who play "blue-blood" sports like squash and polo.
"Development preference (for children of wealthy non-alums) can make up for 300 to 400 points on the SAT," Golden said, adding he believes such a preference can benefit privileged students more than affirmative action policies help less privileged students in the admissions process. Altogether, Golden said about one-third of an incoming class at an elite school would have had an unfair advantage in the admissions process.
Though a school's admissions "unfair" policies are not illegal, Golden said "there's something about these policies that violates what America stands for in terms of upward mobility."
In referring directly to Brown, Golden cited the case of Chris Ovitz, son of Hollywood mogul Michael Ovitz. Chris' pre-college academic record, Golden said, was far inferior to that of the average Brown student. However, after "behind-the-scenes battles" between the admissions office and University administrators, Chris was admitted to the University, Golden said. The younger Ovitz dropped out after one year, but Golden said the administration still got what it wanted: access to his father's client list.
"But other people were not admitted to make room for him," Golden said. "It's not really a 10-percent admission rate for the unhooked student." He said acceptance rates are probably closer to 5 percent, or even lower, for many students.
"Colleges have institutionalized backdoor entrances for the wealthy," Golden said. Because of this, he said he does not blame wealthy parents or alums for the advantages conveyed upon their children.
According to Golden, altering admissions standards for fundraising purposes is unethical.
"I question why they can't raise money without corrupting the admissions office," Golden said. He cited the California Institute of Technology as an exemplary fundraiser, explaining that administrators there have looked beyond alums for donations and instead cite groundbreaking research when soliciting financial support.
After his speech, Golden fielded questions from audience members, several of whom turned the event into a debate about the importance of a meritocracy. One attendee asked how Golden views preferences for economically disadvantaged applicants, citing Harvard University's new policy of waiving fees for any student whose family's income is less than $60,000.
Golden said he approves of such policies, calling them "long overdue." But he added that middle-class applicants tend to lose out as a result of Harvard's policy. Harvard does not, Golden said, reduce the number of legacy and development admits to make room for low-income students. Rather, he said, "They're pitting lower-income students against the middle class."
When asked how colleges and universities that are not considered "elite" are responding to the resulting influx of bright students who aren't accepted at more prestigious schools, Golden said he thinks these universities will eventually improve.
"I hope one message parents would take away would be instead of facing one in 20 or one in 30 odds (at an elite school), they might look somewhere else," he said. He added that admitting under-qualified applicants may be a "self-defeating policy for elite schools" because it gives other schools an opportunity to advance.
One attendee said private colleges and universities have every right to accept whom they please simply because they are private institutions. Rejected applicants, he said, can get a decent education at "second-tier" or state schools. Golden replied that private universities are nonprofit organizations and receive many benefits from the government, so they do have a "social mission."
"I don't see how it benefits the community to admit someone whose best quality is their wealth," Golden said.
After the last question, Golden signed copies of his book. In an interview following the event, he said he enjoyed the crowd and thought the controversy was "fun."
"It's a very emotional topic," Golden said. "I'm not trying to end a discussion. I'm trying to begin one."
