The Herald spoke with Daniel Golden, author of "The Price of Admission," on Sept. 29.
Herald: Your book just came out a few weeks ago on Sept. 5. How do you feel it is being received?
Golden: I think it's being received wonderfully - I've gotten glowing reviews, it's been selling pretty well, people with influence are paying attention to it. I'm delighted.
The book examines the way the college admission process works today. Can you compare it to your own experiences growing up? By what criteria do you think you were admitted?
The college admissions process has become much more intense and much more demanding. The elite colleges have become much more selective. Someone with my record would never get into Harvard today. The reason is the elite colleges have not increased their body size in the past 30 years, even as the applicant pool grows. When I went to Harvard, it took maybe one in five applicants. Now, it's down to maybe one in 10. This has caused a kind of anxiety and panic among families and also prompted much more of the abuse that I talk about in my book. At the same time, fundraising is much more intense than it used to be. The result is that colleges are receiving many more huge donations. ... In return they feel beholden to these donors and give their children an edge.
Your book examines how admissions officers give preference to the children of the rich and famous. Can you give an idea of what percent of an incoming class receives this preferential treatment? Do you consider this number substantial?
At the typical elite university, the proportion of alumni children is about 10 to 20 percent. The next category would be preference for development applicants - non-alumni children whose parents can give money to the university. This represents about 1 to 5 percent. Then there's the athletics. There's all these college sports that are rarely played in public high schools. ... I would say athletes in those sports make up another 5 to 10 percent of class. And then there are faculty children, who make up 1 to 3 percent of the class. You're talking altogether about a third of the average incoming class. It's not likely that a great number of these students would have been admitted if they were unconnected. I do think it is substantial. Imagine a world where there are not these preferences. You'd be opening up a fourth or third of the class to students who are unconnected, but who'd create a stronger and more vital student body than the current system.
Which of the preferential admissions policies outlined in your book bothers you the most?
Probably the preference for children of non-alumni who are big donors or celebrities. You can argue that alumni are a part of the university community. Athletes at least bring something to the table. But there's really no reason to give non-alumni children preference except to raise money for the university. Colleges take the greatest pains to conceal it. They may be need-blind, but they are certainly not wealth-blind. They pose as a meritocracy, and the development admits are the biggest proof that that's just (public relations). It's the practice that most goes against the American value of fair play.
Universities seem to face a bit of a Catch-22. To act with complete moral integrity, they should accept only the most intelligent, well-qualified applicants. But without excellent resources, which are provided by adequate funding, they will never convince the best students to apply. How can they get around this?
I think universities can raise money without compromising moral integrity. You can look at the excellence (the California Institute of Technology) has achieved without giving any preference to children of the wealthy. At least it proves there's another way. Admissions officers say there's a problem with letters from angry alumni if they don't accept their kids, but alumni are angry because they know there's a preference. If the alumni understood that the same standards apply to everybody, they would be willing to accept a rejection. There's going to be a transition period, but if you can convince the alumni that fairness is key, I think it would make that transition possible.
What if a college admits one wealthy child, the parents make an enormous donation, and the donation is used to provide scholarships for 12 underprivileged kids who wouldn't otherwise have been able to come?
I think they should raise the money some other way. There's other kids who are being rejected to take the wealthy kid's spot. If you were enlarging the student body, it would be OK. How do you explain to the kid who got rejected, "We know you're a stronger student, but we needed a big donation from the rich kid's parents." It's simply not fair on a very basic level.
You mention Cal Tech as a university that raises money the right way. Can you elaborate and discuss what you feel are appropriate methods of fundraising?
The Ivies raise money by saying "please give money because you had a wonderful time in college, and maybe soon you'd like your child to come." Cal Tech says "we have one of the best engineering programs already. Please support this research that will change the world." It's a whole different mindset to fundraising. Colleges can raise money based on the quality of research, based on the niche they occupy.
Let's also imagine a school eliminates legacy and an alumnus' child is let down. They may give less money to one school but more to another that the child actually attends. The amount as a whole would even out. People would give less as alumni, more as parents. Schools could probably endure a slight decline in giving.
Your book also discusses the higher standards to which admissions officers hold Asian applicants. How should admissions officers weigh the need for academic fairness against the desire for racial diversity on campus?
I interviewed one young Asian-American student who said she went to an information session where they said they were looking for racial diversity, and she said she knew she wasn't going to get in. It's very unfair that admissions officers hold Asians to higher standards. For groups that they're not giving preference to, they have to hold those groups to the same standard. White and Asian students should be competing against each other on their merits alone. If you want underrepresented groups admitted though, you do have to let some in, even if it's on lesser standards.
What I believe is that there shouldn't be affirmative action for the wealthy or advantaged. That opens up spots to students who have the greatest achievement or the greatest potential. They're disadvantaged and haven't had the chance to show potential yet. ... The university should admit them. I think that they also have merit in the truest sense. In that sense, I'm looking for admission on merit, but I don't think that limits it to upper middle-class kids with great grades.
What reservations - if any - did you have about releasing the actual names and test scores of students currently enrolled in the universities you discuss? Were you worried about affecting their reputations?
I am always concerned about privacy. ... Most of the time, I mention students who've already graduated from college. Also, I often fuzz up test scores a bit - like say "in the 1300s" instead of an actual number. Also, if I'm going to say a student is below average for a school, I'll also find someone to say something nice about him or her. At the same time, I think it's important to release test scores because for so long colleges have tried to cover it up. They've hidden behind secrecy to pretend they're a meritocracy. I needed to give numbers to expose the secrecy. If colleges had been more transparent, there would be no need to give these numbers. But there was a problem festering below the surface. No one can read my book and say this doesn't happen.
Turning to Brown, your chapter on the University claims the Office of Admission uses celebrity admits to turn Brown into a "hot school despite a lagging endowment and blue-collar surroundings." But if the school were so mediocre, why would celebrities come in the first place? And why would the most intelligent students want a place here?
I think Brown is a terrific university. I've visited many times ... the students have been uniformly bright and creative and interesting. My chapter on it isn't to denigrate Brown as an institution. Obviously we're not talking about a huge number of students. But my portrayal of the admissions policy is accurate. There is a large proportion of students whose parents are in the entertainment industry. Did they need to admit them? I think it would have been a great university anyway. I think in the beginning it was inadvertent that they admitted so many. Brown started the open curriculum; that attracted creative students who might be surrounded by the entertainment industry or anything else. Then (John F. Kennedy Jr. '83) was admitted, getting Brown tons of attention. This has reaped some dividends for Brown ... like a modest rise in the endowment. My quarrel with that is that I think Brown could've flourished or raised money in other ways.
