‘Hidden Rules’ of College Admissions in the US
Published in Southern Weekend
(China) on 6 December 2013
by Huixiang Li (link to original)
(China) on 6 December 2013
by Huixiang Li (link to original)
Translated from
by Jingwei Qian.
Edited by Jane Lee.
The admissions process of the universities in the U.S. is intricate, complex and perplexing. China and most other countries are using the concise and direct college entrance exam system. But the universities in the U.S. ask students to submit their SAT score, Test of English as a Foreign Language score (TOEFL, nonnative speakers should provide), a senior high school transcript, two academic references, a report from the academic adviser (submit once, update twice), a personal statement and a history of extracurricular activities. With so many materials requested, the students would only be notified of the admissions decision with a simple “yes” or “no” in December or April, without any explanation.
Yes, the admissions process of many elite universities and private universities in the U.S., including Ivy League universities, is highly subjective and not transparent enough. Generally, the school board and each department of the public universities, except for only a few military academies, can decide most of the important matters such as appropriation budgets, the appointment and dismissal of the president, faculty recruitment and the construction and development of the educational system and disciplines. The government merely acts on legislating the principles on which the universities operate and nominating the members of the school board. The private universities are veritable private companies.
However, the corruption in college admissions is not common and never escalates into a public concern or a social problem in the U.S. What is the reason?
Harvard University is a microcosm of college admissions in the U.S. Harvard receives thousands of applications each semester. In the reviewing process, each application will be read carefully by at least two members of the admissions committee. Then the applications will be discussed and recommended by voting before a final decision is made. But there could be risks or hidden troubles associated with the process. In fact, the scandals of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign — unqualified students were accepted by UIUC through a “backdoor” by pulling strings — were the consequence of the “secret admissions process.”
After all, the “benefit-risk ratio” of corruption in school admissions is too low. Unlike the universities in China that “work for the public,” the universities in the U.S. are more like “a household responsibility system.”* Professional managers (the mode of China) tend to “make a killing and go away,” while entrepreneurs (the mode of the U.S.) have to think over “whether it is worth the cost or not.” Note that after the scandals at UIUC were exposed, the president, vice presidents and nine members of the school board resigned actively or passively in succession. Involved in the case, a few local politicians almost forfeited their political lives.
Furthermore, the universities make an exception for some applicants for nothing but two things: money and personal relations. In the U.S., to meet the two needs, the universities prefer aboveboard ways rather than “backdoor.” Every year, at Ivy League universities, around 40 percent of students are admitted as “special cases” and are given “special consideration.” Someone holds another view that the bottom 25 percent of the students in academic performance are “special cases” of the university admissions.
Apart from a few students skilled in music, sports or fine art and some people of color, the “special cases” are mostly reserved for big donors and alumni.
The students in the top universities of the U.S. are generally very rich. Among the students admitted to University of Michigan in 2003, more of them come from families that earn more than $200,000 annually than from the families below the median income. The disparity is even more evident in some other private universities. If you could sponsor Harvard University for at least $1 million, you would be qualified for membership on Harvard’s Committee on University Resources. Harvard accepts less than 10 percent of undergraduate applicants. Over half of the applicants with perfect SAT scores would be rejected by Harvard. But it is estimated that among the sons or daughters of the 424 COUR members, at least 336 are Harvard students.
The fundraising offices of almost all the top universities in the U.S. have a roster of “development projects.” On the top of the roster are the prospective students whose parents have sponsored the universities or probably make big donations. What if the applicants are at the bottom of their high school in academic performance? Or what if they have SAT scores that are 300 to 400 points lower than those students who have been rejected? It does not matter at all. Plenty of money would allow them to defeat other applicants easily. A land agent in New Jersey sent his disappointing child into Harvard by paying $2.5 million to the university. Duke University even required the admission committee to look for rich kids, not only for the sake of short-term donations, but more importantly to avoid financial decline in the long run supposing they admit too many students from low-income families, which would make alumni increasingly poor and reduce the donations.
Also, the alumni (especially the elite alumni) cannot be offended. The admission policy of Harvard implies that the chances of being admitted would be enhanced greatly if the parents of the applicants are alumni of Harvard. In other words, the school authority would give special consideration for this. Recent research on the admissions of 30 famous universities showed that the chance of being admitted by the universities where the applicants’ parents had studied was seven times as high as the chance of being admitted by the universities with which the applicants never had a relationship at all.
Take the Roosevelt family for example: Both of the two presidents — Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt — graduated from Harvard University. Franklin Roosevelt, who broke records and served for four terms, had four sons. Three of them went to Harvard. Theodore Roosevelt’s family maintained the family tradition better. At least five generations in his family were Harvard alumni. Both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, father and son presidents, graduated from Yale University. From “grandfather” Senator Bush to the daughters of George W. Bush, at least four generations in the Bush family are Yale alumni. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, his wife and their four children all graduated from Harvard University. Theoretically, this should happen once over 10,000 years, according to the less-than-10-percent admission rate of Harvard. The children in the Kennedy family, who even had difficulty graduating from high school, mostly went to Harvard. Even Joseph, who had extremely poor academic performance, went to nearby MIT.
In the U.S., it is an aboveboard “hidden rule” for almost all of the universities to enroll some children from wealthy families (whose parents can sponsor the construction of libraries or classroom buildings) and some children of alumni (which would satisfy alumni), plus some children with the highest SAT scores and some slam dunk (otherwise the university would be uncompetitive and lose attraction in academics). Compared to some black case deals between power and money, “partly marketized” education could be regarded as a feasible way to realize equity, morals and profits at the same time.
In the U.S., how can the children from ordinary families go to good universities? African-Americans can take advantage of affirmative action. As for Chinese-Americans, the only way is to strive, strive and strive.
*Translator's Note: A "household responsibility system" was the most popular agriculture production system in China in the 1980s.
Yes, the admissions process of many elite universities and private universities in the U.S., including Ivy League universities, is highly subjective and not transparent enough. Generally, the school board and each department of the public universities, except for only a few military academies, can decide most of the important matters such as appropriation budgets, the appointment and dismissal of the president, faculty recruitment and the construction and development of the educational system and disciplines. The government merely acts on legislating the principles on which the universities operate and nominating the members of the school board. The private universities are veritable private companies.
However, the corruption in college admissions is not common and never escalates into a public concern or a social problem in the U.S. What is the reason?
Harvard University is a microcosm of college admissions in the U.S. Harvard receives thousands of applications each semester. In the reviewing process, each application will be read carefully by at least two members of the admissions committee. Then the applications will be discussed and recommended by voting before a final decision is made. But there could be risks or hidden troubles associated with the process. In fact, the scandals of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign — unqualified students were accepted by UIUC through a “backdoor” by pulling strings — were the consequence of the “secret admissions process.”
After all, the “benefit-risk ratio” of corruption in school admissions is too low. Unlike the universities in China that “work for the public,” the universities in the U.S. are more like “a household responsibility system.”* Professional managers (the mode of China) tend to “make a killing and go away,” while entrepreneurs (the mode of the U.S.) have to think over “whether it is worth the cost or not.” Note that after the scandals at UIUC were exposed, the president, vice presidents and nine members of the school board resigned actively or passively in succession. Involved in the case, a few local politicians almost forfeited their political lives.
Furthermore, the universities make an exception for some applicants for nothing but two things: money and personal relations. In the U.S., to meet the two needs, the universities prefer aboveboard ways rather than “backdoor.” Every year, at Ivy League universities, around 40 percent of students are admitted as “special cases” and are given “special consideration.” Someone holds another view that the bottom 25 percent of the students in academic performance are “special cases” of the university admissions.
Apart from a few students skilled in music, sports or fine art and some people of color, the “special cases” are mostly reserved for big donors and alumni.
The students in the top universities of the U.S. are generally very rich. Among the students admitted to University of Michigan in 2003, more of them come from families that earn more than $200,000 annually than from the families below the median income. The disparity is even more evident in some other private universities. If you could sponsor Harvard University for at least $1 million, you would be qualified for membership on Harvard’s Committee on University Resources. Harvard accepts less than 10 percent of undergraduate applicants. Over half of the applicants with perfect SAT scores would be rejected by Harvard. But it is estimated that among the sons or daughters of the 424 COUR members, at least 336 are Harvard students.
The fundraising offices of almost all the top universities in the U.S. have a roster of “development projects.” On the top of the roster are the prospective students whose parents have sponsored the universities or probably make big donations. What if the applicants are at the bottom of their high school in academic performance? Or what if they have SAT scores that are 300 to 400 points lower than those students who have been rejected? It does not matter at all. Plenty of money would allow them to defeat other applicants easily. A land agent in New Jersey sent his disappointing child into Harvard by paying $2.5 million to the university. Duke University even required the admission committee to look for rich kids, not only for the sake of short-term donations, but more importantly to avoid financial decline in the long run supposing they admit too many students from low-income families, which would make alumni increasingly poor and reduce the donations.
Also, the alumni (especially the elite alumni) cannot be offended. The admission policy of Harvard implies that the chances of being admitted would be enhanced greatly if the parents of the applicants are alumni of Harvard. In other words, the school authority would give special consideration for this. Recent research on the admissions of 30 famous universities showed that the chance of being admitted by the universities where the applicants’ parents had studied was seven times as high as the chance of being admitted by the universities with which the applicants never had a relationship at all.
Take the Roosevelt family for example: Both of the two presidents — Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt — graduated from Harvard University. Franklin Roosevelt, who broke records and served for four terms, had four sons. Three of them went to Harvard. Theodore Roosevelt’s family maintained the family tradition better. At least five generations in his family were Harvard alumni. Both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, father and son presidents, graduated from Yale University. From “grandfather” Senator Bush to the daughters of George W. Bush, at least four generations in the Bush family are Yale alumni. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, his wife and their four children all graduated from Harvard University. Theoretically, this should happen once over 10,000 years, according to the less-than-10-percent admission rate of Harvard. The children in the Kennedy family, who even had difficulty graduating from high school, mostly went to Harvard. Even Joseph, who had extremely poor academic performance, went to nearby MIT.
In the U.S., it is an aboveboard “hidden rule” for almost all of the universities to enroll some children from wealthy families (whose parents can sponsor the construction of libraries or classroom buildings) and some children of alumni (which would satisfy alumni), plus some children with the highest SAT scores and some slam dunk (otherwise the university would be uncompetitive and lose attraction in academics). Compared to some black case deals between power and money, “partly marketized” education could be regarded as a feasible way to realize equity, morals and profits at the same time.
In the U.S., how can the children from ordinary families go to good universities? African-Americans can take advantage of affirmative action. As for Chinese-Americans, the only way is to strive, strive and strive.
*Translator's Note: A "household responsibility system" was the most popular agriculture production system in China in the 1980s.
Next article![]( "Obama’s Speeches Are Beginning To Lose Their Shine")
