Editor’s note: This commentary is by Steve May, who is a licensed clinical social worker working in addiction medicine for the last 15 years, treating addicts, alcoholics and their families in a variety of settings. He was a Democratic candidate for the state Senate in the Chittenden District in 2018.
Here we go again.
The rich and powerful are playing by one set of rules while those of us who shower before and after we go to work just try and hold on.
In case you missed it, wealthy Illinois families are emancipating their children to be able to argue that they lack the financial resources to afford college tuition, room and board. Those resources they seek are intended to help working class students. This comes on the heels of the paid athletic scholarship scandal from the spring, where wealthy parents paid athletic directors and coaches to place their children on athletic rosters in spite of their demonstration of little or no athletic skill or interest in the athletic endeavor.
Parents bought their children an admissions spot in a given class at an institution of their choosing. This has a name, it’s called bribery.
What’s most troubling about this isn’t the fact that parents acted to give their child every advantage. Instead, every parent would be expected to give their child any edge possible to advance their careers. Admission into prep school, college and graduate schools are all about advancing career opportunities, social networks and access. Parents and their children are subject to inherent inequity in a system which on one hand attaches systemic advantages on the basis of class, wealth and pedigree and on the other has perverse inequities based on how much one can spend for test prep, tutoring and consultants. To expect otherwise is simply unrealistic.
Parents are always going to believe that their child is worthy of a second look or has that intangible thing which can’t be held by the four corners of the printed page. Expecting parental objectivity is asking too much. In that universe, the idea of fairness is beyond fantasy.
When we are failed by our human nature, it is the role of government to protect us from ourselves and from one another. Because the stakes are so high, the penalties for this kind of fraud must be at least as high to provide a meaningful deterrent. Vermont must lead. Let’s act together, to be certain that this kind of fraud is never rewarded in the future. Nothing less than the fundamental fairness we owe each and every Vermont family is at stake.
It isn’t simply enough to attack the underpinnings of this crisis. Vermonters expect education to be treated like a public good not a commodity, and it’s not unreasonable to have a public policy consensus both in fact and in deed that reflects that reality. So long as wealth drives admissions decisions at Vermont’s elite private day and boarding schools, colleges, graduate schools and universities, we need to explore the role it has in affecting Vermonters. Therefore, we must prohibit alumni preferences and financial incentives in the admissions process in private education.
Wealth advantages those clearly who can pay more.
When Vermont students are competing with international kids at a boarding school for a finite number of admission spots and that elite boarding school happens to also be admitting hometown students as the primary receiving school in a given community, Vermonters have an abiding interest in making sure that everyone gets a fair shake. Clearly those who can afford to least tax the resources of the school will be admitted. Stated differently, the wealthier you are, the less likely it is that you will be a burden to the overall operating budget of the given institution; the more likely it is currently that one might secure a seat in a favored school or preferred institution. This represents a form of quid pro quo. If one is able to give beyond the cost admission over a period of time and establish relationships with the institution, the more likely it is that a given seat will have been secured for that donor. It’s incumbent that we be certain that Vermonters are never at a competitive disadvantage in the academic marketplace based on their socio-economic status.
Wealth advantages those clearly who can pay more. When Vermont students are competing with international kids at a boarding school for a finite number of admission spots and that elite boarding school happens to also be admitting hometown students as the primary receiving school in a given community, Vermonters have an abiding interest in making sure that everyone gets a fair shake. Clearly those who can afford to least tax the resources of the school will be admitted.
Stated differently, the wealthier you are, the less likely it is that you will be a burden to the overall operating budget of the given institution; the more likely it is currently that one might secure a seat in a favored school or preferred institution. This represents a form of quid pro quo. If one is able to give beyond the cost admission over a period of time and establish relationships with the institution, the more likely it is that a given seat will have been secured for that donor. It’s incumbent that we be certain that
Vermonters must never be at a competitive disadvantage in the academic marketplace based on their socio-economic status.
Ability to pay in and of itself should not be the determining factor in whether one has access to upward mobility or not, the right networks or not, the right pedigree or not, good enough breeding or not. Placing wealth above all else creates a “money above all” environment. Institutions become slaves to the money and sacrifice academic rigor and independent judgement. Once again, courting donors means currying favor with donors. That might be fine when donors interests align with that of institutions, but when they don’t, and development offices chase money and donors to pursue the “bizarre” or “eclectic” interest of a benefactor, we then call people with financial resources “nuts,” we call them “colorful.”
This is not about the handful of Vermont schools that are going to be affected by ending the use of financial incentives in admissions decisions. At its core, the role of money in admissions has become corrosive and is a poor overall indicator of overall success. Rather, it’s about the thousands of students across this state whose future will be determined based upon the virtue of merit. Their ability to do the work, PERIOD. Merit matters. At the end of the day this should be a question of performance. At the most basic level, does this student meet the minimums necessary to fulfill the school’s expectation to master this information or skill?
Vermont is home to some of the finest institutions of learning in this country, which have shaped the minds of Vermonters for generations, and intend to do so for generations more. The world looks to Vermont as a leader when it comes to ideas about equity and fairness. Once again, we are being called upon to act in the public interest. Together let’s assure that class, wealth and pedigree are not the primary or determining factor in who can access the best education Vermont has to offer. Let’s affirm today that merit matters, and merit alone should be the determining factor as to whether one is admitted to an institution of higher learning.
