Questions & Background

The starting point and inspiration for our deep-dive into corruption and corruption-adjacent actions within the US college admissions system was “Operation Varsity Blues,” a massive scandal that took place in 2019. From 2011 to 2019, families nationwide paid a man named Rick Singer a total of 25 million dollar to guarantee admission for their children into elite schools such as Stanford, Yale, University of Southern California, and Georgetown. Singer operated a college counseling business where he worked with wealthy families hoping to help their children gain admission to top schools. The parents would pay a large sum of money to Singer, usually between 250,000 and 400,000 dollar, which Singer would then use to bribe college coaches and athletics administrators. These individuals would then designate the children as “recruited athletes” as a way of granting them easier entry to the school, even going so far as to create fake images with Photoshop to add credibility to the designation. 53 people were charged with crimes related to the scandal, from conspiracy to commit fraud to money laundering to conspiracy to defraud the United States, with many of the implicated parents being high-profile celebrities. Most of the parents pleaded guilty and nearly all were sentenced to pay fines and/or forfeit assets, but many served no jail time at all. Singer himself was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison and ordered to pay more that $19 million in fines. While the scandal did result in some schools making changes to their admissions processes, such as donation monitoring and improved athletics verification, it served to reveal the numerous issues and opportunities for corruption within the US college admissions system.

When considering how this case and its greater implications regarding the US college admissions system’s functionality as a whole connect to themes of corruption that we have studied, the main recurring themes that we noticed were related to the role of social knowledge in corruption, the language of corruption, and the gray area between illegal corruption and legal-yet-immoral action. Rick Singer’s pivotal role in the scandal required specific knowledge on how to navigate the complex system of bribery in the college admissions world — he knew who to pay, how to go about doing this, and how much, in order for the desired act to be accomplished. The parents only possessed the capital and none of this knowledge, so without him acting as a conduit, they could not commit the actions for which they were charged. These charges, however, bring up another important point regarding the language of corruption: implicated individuals were only charged with crimes such as «conspiracy,» «fraud» and «money laundering» rather than bribery because of specific US legal regulations related to that charge. It also provoked the question of what constituted bribery versus a gift, and whether keeping money given by Singer versus using it on the school’s behalf changed the level of corruption (or whether such a thing is quantifiable at all). This demonstrates the blurred lines between corruption and actions that are legal but morally questionable.

All of this made us consider the potential corruption present in legacy admissions, a practice that has come into questions especially after the Operation Varsity Blues scandal. Our research and investigation into legacy admissions brought up two important questions for us:

What are the legal, social, ethical, and systemic implications of opportunities for influence within the structure of U.S. college admissions?

How does the blurred line between corruption and legal yet morally questionable action affect the allocation of responsibility?

Survey Data

Survey Results

Analysis

Many schools – including the University of Virginia – offer generous admissions policies for legacy students, often with the goal of securing donations from alumni. While not illegal, some view this practice as immoral because of the unfair advantage it offers to students with familial connections to higher education institutions. The “Operation Varsity Blues” case drew attention to this practice and the ways in which the college admissions process is inherently unfair and susceptible to corruption. Multiple universities have also come under fire for apparent connections between admissions and large donations. There is a fine line between corruption and the seemingly acceptable forms of gaining advantages in the admissions system. Identifying an exchange as a gift versus a bribe, or an interaction as nepotism versus networking, changes the way it is evaluated ethically and gives it a different meaning. Context based on locality and general circumstances must be considered. Certain practices common within US college admissions, like legacy admissions, large private donations, and other forms of networking based on familial connections, if framed within a context aligned with nepotism, could seem corrupt.

There is also the matter of how effects of legacy admissions have lasting impacts in the lives of students. This practice enables a student to turn social capital into the cultural capital of a diploma, and then use that cultural capital and turn it into the economic capital of a high paying job, granting them a significant lifelong advantage that others may not have access to. This shows the broader societal implications of practices like legacy admissions in solidifying inequity in many forms throughout young people’s lives. Being able to use that initial social capital sets certain students on a successful path early on, while others do not have that same opportunity.

The American public’s common understanding of the college admissions process is that it is meritocratic, in which anyone has the capability–with enough hard work, good grades, and luck–to get into the “elite” universities. In reality, each year some students gain acceptance because of the family into which they were born, their capital, and their connections. As examined by Daniel Golden in The Price of Admission, the children of ultra-wealthy donors get significant preferential treatment in the admissions process at elite institutions.. This contradicts greatly with the idealized view of contemporary college admissions, resulting in a public outcry.

Yet, the relationship of UVA ,or any college for that matter, with its alumni is vital for the institution. The participation and marketing of the institution by the alumni, the consistent application and enrollment rates of legacy students, and the flow of minor to major donations are all incredibly important parts of the university ecosystem. The creation of an alumni network, and the imposition of ideological ties to universities all interact to create a sort of kinship relation between the university and alumni. This aligns with the aim of legacy admissions and all of the services associated with it- one’s own child is given a leg up in regards to entrance into the school that their parent(s) attended. With a legacy parent’s children likely associating with the children of their former classmates, it serves to keep the composition and affiliation of that university strongly tied to the same group over generations; a group which is also likely significantly composed of people with an economic advantage over non-legacies. In the case of UVA’s admission policies for legacy students, it’s difficult to allocate responsibility because of the blurred lines between what can be considered corrupt and what are fair steps for a parent wanting the best for their child to take. Would it be fair to blame either the university for continuing friendly relationships with its alumni? Or alumni for taking advantage of these opportunities for their younger family members? Additionally, there is the question of whether it makes sense to reform the alumni donation system when, since those funds go towards building new infrastructure, it technically benefits the greater good of the university. These donations and gifts are legal and are generally seen as an act of philanthropy.

Furthermore, the sentiment of UVA students is split. While many recognize the benefits of such a practice, there is clearly much concern relating to the inevitable inequity that the system involves. While legacy admissions and the implications that come with it will likely remain a presence at UVA for the foreseeable future, it is important to reflect on its continuing effects on our lives and the lives of our peers.

Works Cited

1. “Rick Singer Sentenced in ‘Varsity Blues’ College Admissions Bribery Scandal.” NPR, 4 Jan. 2023, www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146837418/rick-singer-sentenced-varsity-blues-college-admissions-bribery-scandal.
2. “Operation Varsity Blues: What the College Admissions Scandal Means for Higher Education.” Best Colleges, 24 Mar. 2021, www.bestcolleges.com/blog/operation-varsity-blues-college-admissions-scandal/.
3. Nicas, Jack, et al. “The College Admissions Cheating Scandal: Full List of Those Charged.” Insider, 13 Mar. 2019, www.insider.com/college-admissions-cheating-scandal-full-list-people-charged-2019-3.
4. “Every Charge and Accusation Facing the Parents in the College Admissions Scandal.” Profmex, www.profmex.org/cronicasinfin/noticias/Every_charge_and_accusation_facing_the_parents_in_the_college_admissions_scandal.pdf.
5. Perna, Laura W. “The College Admissions Scandal: What Have We Learned?” Journal of College Admission, vol. 246, 2019, pp. 6-12, doi: 10.1353/jca.2019.0026.
6. Zhong, Raymond. “The ‘Unusual Skill Set’ of Yusi ‘Molly’ Zhao.” The New York Times, 2 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/yusi-molly-zhao-china-stanford.html.
7. Weyland, Kurt. “Legacy Applicants Admitted to at Nearly Two Times the Rate of Non-Legacies in 2018.” Cavalier Daily, 19 July 2018, www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2018/07/legacy-applicants-admitted-to-at-nearly-two-times-the-rate-of-non-legacies-in-2018.
8. Reeves, Richard. “Stop Pretending You’re Not Rich.” The New York Times, 10 June 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-not-rich.html.
9. Eligon, John, and Kate Taylor. “Inside the Admissions Bribery Ring That Ensnared Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman.” The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-massimo-giannulli.html.
10. Graham, Ruth. “Why We Ended Legacy Admissions at Johns Hopkins.” The Atlantic, 22 Jan. 2020, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/why-we-ended-legacy-admissions-johns-hopkins/605131/.
11. Golden, Daniel. “How the Z-List Makes the A-List.” In The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates, 23–48, n.d.