COLUMN: Admission Standards, Moral Absolutes and Megabucks

From Gabriele Marcotti's "Land of the Stoopid," Fall '94 From Gabriele Marcotti's "Land of the Stoopid," Fall '94In a few short weeks, high school seniors nationwide will begin to nervously check their mailboxes in eager anticipation of that hallowed piece of university letterhead informing them they've been accepted into the upper echelons of higher education. Many attained admission through hard work -- years of parental coaching, teacher attention and rigorous study -- while others, who might just be more intelligent, simply happened to do very well, but put forth little effort. Either way, both categories had the goods (high grades) to get into top-notch schools. There is also a third category of people. These are individuals who have lower GPAs, lower SATs and took easier classes but still get into top colleges, because they are "special cases." As a matter of fact, at the University they make up about 12% of each incoming class. Or to look at it differently, a cynic might say that over one in nine students on this campus does not deserve to be here, because they are subpar academically compared to the rest of the class. According to Lee Stetson, Dean of Admissions, the University has four categories of "special cases" -- athletes, under-represented or disadvantaged minorities, alumni children and "development cases". The admissions office has a certain academic band (or range) that applicants need to fall into in order to be admitted. This band takes into account grades, admissions essays, the whole shebang we were all told about in high school. Stetson says that a "high percentage" of the class is admitted based on these criteria -- the rest are "special cases" and are treated somewhat differently. For those lucky applicants, the University lowers its standards and admits them even though they rank below the rest of the class. Development cases are kids whose parents have given, as Stetson says, "great service" (or donated lots of money) to the University over the years. Each spring, 15 to 20 development cases who do not meet standards are offered admission. Alumni kids also have an easier time getting in. The rationale here is that alumni are more likely to feel loyalty towards the school and make hefty donations if their kids also attend dear old Penn. Stetson estimates that 60 to 70 students who are children of alumni benefit from the lax standards. The number is about the same for disadvantaged and under-represented minorities. These include blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, as well as whites from traditionally backward areas, such as Appalachia or upstate Pennsylvania. As for athletes, one-third, or roughly 110 students, are admitted even though they do not meet the academic band. Add the numbers up and you get the 12% figure mentioned above. These facts should not be surprising. As Stetson is quick to point out, just about every school employs similar criteria. Ideally, this University would be a bastion of moral integrity and students would be admitted based on merit alone. Reality, of course, is much different. The world is a very harsh place -- to survive and prosper you sometimes have to look the other way and hide a few skeletons in your closet. To a certain extent, taking subpar students in exchange for large sums of money or "great service to the school" (as Stetson puts it) can be justified. This is essentially what happens with some alumni children and "development cases". Sure, a couple of dummies get in, but the University benefits in the long run. Alumni donations help provide need-blind admissions, build state-of-the-art facilities and pay faculty salaries. Ultimately, the University must make a judgment call whether the financial benefits of admitting a particular student outweigh the drawbacks of his or her academic ineptitude. It would be foolish to take the moral high ground and blast the admissions office for not being a pure meritocracy. As for disadvantaged or under-represented minorities, there are many arguments in favor of such a policy. Diversity is something everyone values, from Bill Clinton to U.S. News and World Report, and it makes for a much better educational experience to have a multicultural campus. If students suffer because of ethnic biases in academia or poor college counseling (applying to college is a very different experience for somebody at, say, Andover and someone in an inner city high school), then the University should reach out for them, as long as it sees potential. But it should also realize that once it admits someone, it has a responsibility towards them. The retention rate for black males, for example, has been extremely low for many years, despite recent improvements. Many minority students also suffer because they are perceived to have been admitted solely by virtue of their skin color or ethnic background, despite the fact that the vast majority got in without the benefit of the admission office's "special consideration". It is hardly surprising then, that many black and Latino students feel uncomfortable at this University when many other students feel that they do not deserve to be here. The "special consideration" policy is much harder to defend when it comes to athletes. Stetson says that "in order to compete at a Division I level, you have to reach out to those athletes who would not be on the same level as the rest of the class." While a successful athletic program is nice, the average student does not benefit from a winning sports team, which begs the question, "Why do we need to compete at a Division I level?" The only sport that pays for itself is Men's basketball -- on the whole, the athletic program costs loads of money, even without counting newly appointed athletic director Steve Bilsky and his $200,000 plus salary. As for school pride, most students couldn't care less about any sport that isn't football or basketball, so why relax admission standards to build, say, a golf or squash dynasty? Furthermore, Penn already has a built-in advantage by virtue of the fact that its academics are lower than other Ivies. As Stetson himself put it, "When you reach for athletes, you can only reach so far, based on your admit profile. Because Princeton's profile is higher, they can't reach as much as us." What it all boils down to is integrity. If the University wants to compromise its standards a little to admit someone who will benefit the University community as a whole, they are free to do so. Blindly taking the moral high ground on this issue is foolish. The greater good of students is worth the inconvenience of admitting some subpar individuals. What is questionable is whether the University should continue admitting athletes who might not be academically qualified, especially since they do not benefit the University or its students. Gabriele Marcotti is a junior Communications and International Relations major from Milano, Italy, and Editorial Page Editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. Land of the Stoopid normally appears alternate Mondays.