Robert NaylorNews Editor
College
debt is one of the greatest deterrents for the average college student,
averaging at roughly $37,172, according to debt.org.
When faced
with this reality, the college admission scandal that has recently been exposed
reveals that there is a double standard to how individuals approach higher
education.
Reaching up
to $500,000 per applicant, the college admission scandal indicates that
prominent celebrities such as actress Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are
able to manipulate the college admission process to the benefits of their
children.
If you are
still unaware of how this scandal creates an unfair paradigm between the rich
and the poor, allow me to explain the full context behind what this college
admission scandal entails. Parents – without the knowledge of their children –
submitted their children into a program organized by the now notorious William
Rick Singer.
Singer,
based on the promise that he could help anyone reach elite universities, was
able to manipulate SAT testing sites as well as college sports programs to
admit students with lacking resumes. Although the students were mostly unaware
that their parents had enrolled them into this “easy” way through college
admission, it shows a greater issue within our education system that has laid
mostly dormant until this recent exposure.
Wealthy
families are able to propel the prominence of their children, mostly through donations
vastly higher than the average tuition rate, which in turn creates an uneven
admission process. This occurs nationwide, and details why some (not all)
college buildings are erected with family names as their identifier.
The
question is, is this unfair to families who are unable to procure such vast
large swaths of wealth? On a simple moral basis, the answer is yes, naturally.
That said, is the difference between the traditional donation strategy, versus
this newfound “cheat” system any different? My stance to your surprise is yes,
there is a massive difference between these two strategies that manipulate the college
admission hurdle.
Without
donors to support universities, many of the buildings that we see throughout
American higher education would likely never have been built. This may seem
unfair, but at the macro level it allows for college students to have access to
buildings in which education is practiced.
The college
admission scandal is abhorrent because it only aids the individual families
that spend large swaths of money. Simply by paying “Rick” you are able to forgo
the regular college admission process, allowing your child to earn admission
into ivy-league caliber schooling. Students who worked hard to bolster their
resume to apply to schools through traditional means are suddenly shoved aside
by individuals who lined the right pockets.
To summarize
my stance, manipulating the college admission process is always morally
corrupt, but when done to the benefit of others it can be passed as acceptable.
When we observe the wealthy forgo this “socialized” donation process, we cannot
allow for it to take root in our society. Each spot at a high-level institution
is special, and when the process of earning placement at these renowned
institutions becomes corrupt, we welcome a process that makes higher education
even more unaffordable.