Last week, in their Capitalism & Wealth class, I had a conversation with a group of High School students about the role that wealth should play in admission to our school.
Should families who are prepared to pay more than the stated tuition and fees be given preference in admission? Is it ethical? I’m not talking about admitting a student who wouldn’t otherwise be admissable… I’m just talking about moving the “preferred” student to the top of the list if there are more acceptable applicants than spaces.
The initial response from the students was a resounding, “No!”
However, for most international schools (especially those without need-based scholarships, which is most of them), wealth already plays a defining role in who gets to attend the school: most people already can’t afford the tuition and fees. So whether a company is paying, or a government, or the family itself, wealth has already played a role in gaining admission to the school.
If our school is full (whether entirely or only certain grades), the law of supply and demand says that we are not in equilibrium and we should raise prices. If that isn’t obvious enough, prospective families floating offers of “transformational gifts” during the application process (if not outright suitcases of cash), are good indicators that demand may exceed supply. But for some reason, while we seem to be ok charging an amount that is beyond the reach of the majority of humanity, or accepting post-admission donations (to the Annual Fund, etc), we balk at the ethics of opening up admissions to some form of bidding.
In 2018, Harvard University was sued for alleged anti-Asian-American admissions biases. As described in this Forbes article, court proceedings revealed a system where the admissions rate for general applicants was 4.6%; however, if you were on the “Dean’s Interest List” (a list of applicants whose admission would almost certainly lead to imminent hefty donations to the university), your chances of admission rose to 42%. So while being on the list doesn’t guarantee your acceptance, it certainly improves your odds.
As someone who originally got into Advancement in order to raise funds for need-based scholarships, I’d like to propose that perhaps the only unethical (or perhaps, untenable) position in considering wealth in admissions is to not be forthright in the role it plays. To not develop a stated policy because we want to assume that, “It goes without saying,” is asking for trouble… depending on who you ask, you’re equally as likely to hear, “It goes without saying that we don’t consider wealth in admissions,” as you are to hear, “It goes without saying that we should give preference to those who can help us achieve our financial goals.”
Non-profit does not mean non-professional, and it certainly doesn’t shield the school from the competitive landscape. Show me a school that says it has aspirations but doesn’t need money, and I’ll show you a school with no aspirations. We may aspire to have economic diversity in our schools, but the tuition for a scholarship student still has to come from somewhere. In order to attract full-paying students, we must have the best teachers, programs, and facilities. We need money, and we need to methodically consider the ability of prospective families to help us fund our aspirations.
Let me reiterate at this point that this doesn’t mean that the school should accept any and all students. If the fit isn’t right, or we don’t have the resources to make that student successful, then there’s no amount of money that should change the equation. It also doesn’t mean that we accept students solely based on the family’s ability to make transformational gifts; diversity of student body should be a goal.
So, how might we develop a coherent policy? I think we can start by taking what we know about Harvard’s policy. Right now, at many international schools, Trustees have to deal with friends and acquaintances asking them to “put in a good word” for them with the school. Is it ok for them to do so? We should be aware that agreeing to be a Trustee is not without risks: they often have a very real concern that failure to get a friend’s child into the school will have an adverse effect on their livelihood outside of school. Having a real policy may (although not always) help Trustees to navigate this minefield. Similar to Harvard, having a “Trustees’ Interest List” seems to be an efficient way to collect the names of applicants who need a second look. In the way I’m envisioning this, the Admissions Director evaluates all applicants as usual; if an applicant who is on the Trustees’ Interest List is to be rejected, a note in the file means that the application will be handed to a committee (made up of Trustees, the Head, etc) for an additional look. If the applicant is a “no” under all circumstances, at least the family can receive a special call from the recommending Trustee (or Head, etc) with the news. If the rejection was due to a lack of available resources (for learning support, for example), a discussion can be had about the worthiness of perhaps adding support, etc.
There is of course another step in this: having a development process to ensure, as far as possible, that those who were on the Trustees’ Interest List and who were admitted do end up becoming donors. This speaks to the close, enduring relationship between the Advancement Office, the Admissions Office, the Head of School, and the Trustees.
I am going to leave you with one final thought on the role of wealth in admissions… just a little idea that came up while speaking with the students. At most international schools, there is a “Capital Assessment Fee” (or similar) which is paid by new students: it’s a one time fee which is paid regardless of whether the student will be staying one year or ten. It’s usually a fixed fee of anywhere between $1500 and $10,000. What if, during the application process, the amount of the Capital Assessment Fee was set at a minimum, with the option for the applicant to pay a higher amount? What if that family is willing to pay $20,000? What about $1,000,000? To be clear, I don’t know of any school that is considering this, but it’s intriguing.
As private schools, we are very often able to set our own policies and procedures around admissions. However, we are also communities; families choose our institutions not only because of our academics but our professed ethics. They understand that more money means a better learning experience, but whatever policies we decide to institute, we should be comfortable with complete transparency around the role that wealth plays in the admissions process.
Thank you for your provocative contribution to a topic that receives too little attention. Private, independent schools, except those few with substantial endowments, are essential in the retail business. But most school people seem inclined to avoid the implications of being in retail and pretend that we are somehow above matters of, as a faculty member I know once called it, "filthy lucre."
The late Jacob Needleman wrote a book entitled, 'Money and the Meaning of Life,' wherein he counter-intuitively argues that we often do not take money seriously enough; therefore, we ignore the role that money (or inheritance) plays in, say, families or religious communities. Perhaps you are suggesting that we make conversations about money overt, however uncomfortable that may be, and stop with the pretense about it not really mattering.