Response to “Clout goes to College”
Today the Trib printed a damaging expose titled “clout goes to college” on the practice of trading on clout to admit unqualified students to the University of Illinois. I encourage anyone who loves the University of Illinois to read the story and take a look at the exhibits.
A Tribune investigation which included FOIA requests uncovered hard, damning evidence that the U of I is admitting unqualified students, while turning away qualified students. The Trib cites a clout list of over 160 students, but even one student getting special treatment is too many.
Leading a state university is a position of public trust. Administrators have a duty to use basic fairness and equality when admitting students. Richard Herman and B. Joe White are accountable to all the people of Illinois–to all taxpayers–not just the ones with clout. Imagine if they were outright selling admission to our competitive law school or business school–trading a seat in the class for an envelope of cash. In truth, trading for political influence isn’t altogether different. Especially when those they are catering to are the same people who set their over-inflated salaries.
While it’s true this practice predates the current administration, it doesn’t excuse our leaders from compromising their principle and tarnishing the integrity of the institution. Whether or not we traded clout for admission in the past, the practice is wrong and must stop. Whether or not other schools do it to, the practice is wrong and must stop.
If Richard Herman and B. Joe White were men of character they would acknowledge that they owe an apology and an explanation to all of the rejected students with credentials superior to the “Category I” admittees.
But what do they get instead:
From Richard Herman, we get outright lies, excuses and obfuscation. And he makes two contradictory arguments:
Herman said Category I applicants may have a higher rate of admission “simply because we have more information” about them. “We are a public institution and I think we have to answer to the state and that means those who support us perhaps through their elected representative, the board who is our governing body, and all the parents who call me up. I feel I have to be able to respond,” he said.
First, Category I applicants are admitted “simply because we have more information.” This is obviously bullshit. In the majority of cases, the only new information is someone with money or power wants the student admitted. That is wholly irrelevant to the young man or woman’s qualifications for admission to the University of Illinois.
Second, which is essentially, the state supports us so we have to trade political favors in exchange for state support. His constituency is the people of Illinois, not just the Illinois General Assembly or the the members of the Board of Trustees. Shutting down “Category I” won’t shut down state support, it will just make things fair. And I would love to hear his argument why turning down requests of members of the board, members who have a fiduciary duty to the institution, will harm the institution.
As I mentioned, his second argument contradicts his first: Arg 2: we admit these students as a political favor, Arg 1: they are simply admitted because we have more information about the candidate.
From B. Joe White we have the hugely wasteful Global Campus, an initiative that has enraged faculty members while wasting tens of millions of dollars of resources. It was a failure of vision, a failure to recognize we were late to the market, and a stubborn refusal to live with that reality on White’s part that cost the University so dearly.
Subsequently, White embarassed the University by botching a political speech issue.
President White is trying to pass the buck instead of accepting responsibility. And he’s hiding behind the same absurd “more information” argument Herman uses.
President White said it’s not unusual for selective universities to receive input on applicants from interested parties, and it’s important to have a system to track the requests. The additional information can help the admissions office make a more informed decision.”
White is outright lying on the radio when he claims political pressure is not leading to “jumping the que” by less qualified students. Too late, the Trib busted you. White argues “we do not admit strictly on the numbers” and he cites legitimate factors like grade trends, overcoming adversity, etc. However, a name being forwarded by a board members or a political official is not a legitimate factor. He was enabling the process, and his mendacity on the radio is shameful.
Today is a disappointing day for the University of Illinois, and a day where we should all be ashamed of our leaders. However, there are some encouraging elements, like the courage shown by admissions officers who push back against unethical pressures, all while knowing that Richard Herman is a feckless authoritarian who hates to be disagreed with almost as much as he hates bad publicity. Also, White’s promise that the practice will be corrected is encouraging, but like everything else he says, I’m not confident we can take him at his word.
I reject the notion that the University has to have a special process for “Category I” students. If the purpose is just “tracking” then have someone in a clerical role share data with interested parties, instead of someone with decision making power who is likely to be influenced. I do wonder if there are any privacy concerns with releasing the status of an applicant to a third party, but that is an issue for another day.
UPDATE: For those of you who are not on the University’s mailing list, I have posted Chancellor Herman’s response to the Tribune’s article. It is a rather weak response that makes little substantive or potent defense of his words or admissions habits.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Chancellor Richard Herman <chancellor@illinois.edu> wrote:
Dear Campus Community
I am writing you to respond to today’s story in the Chicago Tribune
regarding admissions policies at Illinois.
Let me state at the outset that I have full confidence in our Office of
Undergraduate Admissions and its professional and dedicated staff led by
Associate Provost Keith Marshall and Director Stacey Kostell. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has an admissions process based
on integrity and fairness, one that produces an incoming class that ranks
among the best academically in the nation. Our graduates go on to do great
work in the world and, in turn, they reward us through their support and
loyalty as Illinois alumni.
It is no secret that competition for admission at Illinois is stiff.
Thousands of people contact University administrators and others with ties
to the university every year in regard to the admissions process – 2,300
calls alone are received by the admissions office on the first decision
day. This year, the university received 26,000 applications for only about
7,000 seats in the incoming class. For the Class of 2013, the average ACT
score was 28 and the average high school class rank was in the 88th
percentile. We are proud of this tradition of academic quality.
As a land grant university we remain committed to be inclusive and
accessible in our pursuit of academic excellence. We seek to represent as
closely as we can the full demographic of the state. With that in mind, we
will continue to look at academic qualifications and other pertinent
information included in each application while asking whether we believe
the student will succeed at our university.
Admissions is not a science. However, we welcome the challenge the Tribune
story presents to make every possible effort to ensure the integrity our
admissions process.
But given our high retention rate and the many successes of our graduates,
we believe we mostly get it right.
Richard Herman
Chancellor
Comment by Tim on 29 May 2009 at 2:01 pm:
I am working on a reply to Herman, and CCing the Tribune.
Comment by Dave on 29 May 2009 at 2:10 pm:
You make valid points but how about directing a little criticism at the legislators too? After all, they’re the ones providing state support on one hand and demanding favors on the other. Legislators don’t have any duty to give money to the university and U of I knows it from experience. Look it up — state support for U of I has dropped drastically since the 1990s so that the large majority of funding comes through tuition, grants and donations. Meanwhile there’s pressure to keep tuition rates down too because the school is supposedly public, though cutbacks thanks to the legislature make it look more and more private every day. The university rightly feels like it can’t say no to these extortionist legislators. I look forward to their full exposure.
Comment by J. Prescott on 29 May 2009 at 2:16 pm:
I just think that maybe everyone is blowing this out of proportion,. mostly because this does not seem like that big of a surprise. I expect schools to show preferential treatment based on the nods of politicians or patrons, since that is how schools have been run since time immemorial. I include Florence and Ancient Greece in that calculation. The University of Illinois is a government institution, and government institutions grant special favors relating to its services.
As for the inclusion of these students excluding more qualified students, that may not necessarily be the case. For example, as discussed in the email from Paul Pless regarding the admission of a student who wouldn’t otherwise qualify, two additional students were added because of the poor student to “balance” out average test scores and GPA. It seems to me that in an effort to protect these metrics, which relates back to school rankings, the admission of subpar students leads to the school responding by increasing the class size and admitting more qualified students. Absent these politically preferred students, it could be argued that fewer qualified students would get in due to smaller class size.
Just a thought on a Friday afternoon.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 29 May 2009 at 3:20 pm:
I, too, am outraged, but I want to echo Dave’s comments. The proper focus of anger is on those asking for special treatment, especially the state legislators and other politicians, not President White and Chancellor Herman. President White and Chancellor Herman are practical people who understand that this is one of the few “legal” favors that they can do to get into legislators good graces. And with ever diminishing financial support from Springfield, I’m sure it takes all they can do just to prevent more funding cuts. So I think it’s rational, if not right, for them to downplay what is going on here.
Comment by Joshua on 29 May 2009 at 3:46 pm:
Dave – The legislators are trying to serve their constituents, typically. They are calling in favors because the U of I grants favors, if the U of I stops bowing to pressure, the pressure will eventually stop. I don’t think refusing to cut deals on admissions is going to impact our funding levels.
Prescott – The class size argument may hold in the unique case of the law school where the LSAT is such a key consideration, but I dont think it’s as valid everywhere else on campus. I do think this happens almost everywhere, but that doesn’t mean it should continue.
Niemzey – are you more troubled by them worrying about favors for board members than legislators?
Anyone have any problem w/ revealing an applicant’s admissions status to third parties?
Comment by JAL on 29 May 2009 at 3:48 pm:
“Admissions is not a science. However, we welcome the challenge the Tribune story presents to make every possible effort to ensure the integrity our admissions process.
But given our high retention rate and the many successes of our graduates, we believe we mostly get it right.”
Translation: I’m happy the Tribune put my name in writing. My ego is as big as Blago, and I like having my name in writing. [second para] Given that the University is still standing even given my reign, I’m justified and you are not. So [blowing tongue out] there!
…
Well, I enjoyed the letter/massmail/denydenydeny piece.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 29 May 2009 at 7:41 pm:
Joshua-y,
Actually, no, that the Board of Trustees are doing it is appalling, and cannot be tolerated. I was about to write something to that effect, but I accidentally submitted that while i was still writing.
Ideally, I’d like to see some sort of criminal liability for school officials who are seeking so admit students due to outside influence. Perhaps only then would school officials have the nerve to say “We have a completely merit-based admission system, so no, I can’t help you.”
But for now, I think we need to shame these people as much as possible. If I read the Trib article right, I think they are having a separate article on Sunday to shame legislators directly and name names. I’m looking forward to it.
Comment by Joey C. on 29 May 2009 at 7:55 pm:
“Admissions is not a science. However, we welcome the challenge the Tribune story presents to make every possible effort to ensure the integrity our admissions process.”
Herman forgot an “of” after “integrity”.
Just something I saw while reading…
Comment by A. Fredriksen on 29 May 2009 at 8:03 pm:
As an educator I am frequently amazed when I learn of a certain individual’s acceptance to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign–now I have my answer. When students display limited desire to put forth effort academically and lack of interest in learning beyond the high school experience, I question why they continue to pursue degrees rather than enter the work force. Society today suggests individuals will be doomed to a life of poverty if they do not have at least a college degree. Hence, more and more individuals are entering colleges who shouldn’t. Frequently I hear students say they can’t wait to party and be out from under their parents’ supervision. Facebook and MySpace pictures certainly reinforce this goal. In order to stay solvent, certain institutions of higher learning are welcoming these students, and their checkbooks in, and carrying them through to graduation. Standards are being compromised, levels of expectation are being lowered, and the dumbing down of America continues to escalate. When and where is this going to end? Students are no smarter today than students were thirty or forty years ago. If anything, they lack less general knowledge, rely on the internet as the sole source of all information in their lives, don’t read, can’t write, and yet statistically earn higher grades overall than their predecessors. It is time to look at the work students are submitting and the standards by which it is judged. The next thing to expose is the fact that professors have been forced to accept mediocre work as passable, and passable work as excellent because that is the quality they are seeing from their students. Over the last thirty-five years as a high school English teacher, I have seen a marked decline in the quality of work my “best” students produce. Honors students thirty-five years ago produced far superior work compared to the caliber of work produced by so called “honor” students today. I would like to see the current faculty at the University of Illinois interviewed with regard to the quality of work they receive from their students. Would they be honest enough to comment without fear of reprisal in light of the recent allegations with regard to the admittance of unqualified students? It all comes down to money and job security. I think not.
Comment by Segen on 30 May 2009 at 11:54 am:
Hi A. –
I heard that the grade inflation phenomenon began during the Vietnam War — a time where low grades could mean that a student faced the draft. Professors felt obligated to give students higher grades, despite students’ mediocre work, in an effort to avoid the draft. I’m sure there are many other reasons for today’s grade inflation — but I find this a particularly interesting reason.
Comment by Sarah on 15 June 2009 at 10:42 am:
It is right to express disgust at the revelations of “clout” with regards to the admissions process at U of I, but the reality of this sad state of affairs is that this isn’t remarkable to undergraduate or higher education admission processes and it’s certainly not just limited to admissions. It’s really just another symptom of society’s moral and ethical sellout to entitlement.
Whether it’s right or wrong isn’t really the issue though. What’s really troublesome is the notion of entitlement. As a society we’ve evolved into a populace that demands entitlement in one form or another especially as it applies to many things including admissions to college. How different society might be if as John Lennon said, “if everyone would demand Peace instead of another television set, maybe there would be Peace”. Is the admissions process tainted or abused? Yes, so is welfare – the Mother of most entitlements. Too many are looking for something for nothing. And as a society we’ve become complacent with giving and accepting something for nothing. Admissions processes are not immune.
In this case perhaps it seems more tainted or soiled because it involves naïve parents and their kids who think this doesn’t happen in mainstream USA, the lofty institution of higher education, places of work or is it just the possible connection to politicians with tarnished reputations? Just mention of the word politician in Illinois causes consternation these days. Would it be different if it were simply John and Jane Doe’s kid from Bumfuzzle, IL who partied too much in high school, has a few misdemeanor blemishes on his or her high school or life transcript who desperately want or need to save face with their neighbors, employers or family? Would it be worse if the same not only got in with less than the required credentials AND got scholarship or worse – a free ride? Or is this just about the possibility or crime, bribes and shady deals and the mention again of those pesky politicians?
Parents spend considerable time and resources encouraging their kids to work hard in school, take advanced classes, participate in extra-curriculars, sports, and the current buzz – philanthropy for a shot at admissions to colleges and universities and more importantly, scholarship. Yet the harsh reality is that sometimes, it’s just not enough. And when we learn of “clout” cases, we’re mad as hell and cry foul like this is something new. It isn’t.
“Clout” has many faces and dynamics and it’s been around a long time. It’s not just about sleazy politicians looking for an admissions favor for a friend or family member. Seward and Chase thought their years of service and notoriety as politicians and the connections that came with this would be enough to defeat the relatively unknown Lincoln in the Republican primary of 1860. History proves it wasn’t.
Sure there’s alumni who might know the President of a Board of Trustees or a Dean of Admissions at some school who seek admission favors, ask that someone “put in a good word” or perhaps grade manipulation. Sometimes it might come with veiled promises of gratuity in one form or another sometimes not. Some believe affirmative action allows the same partiality and devaluation to admissions and employment without of course the politician sleaze factor to maximize diversity or offset any real or perceived institutional or involuntary discrimination. One only need look toward Springfield or Chicago politics to witness “clout” in the all too familiar “pay to play” and “patronage” systems. Who hasn’t asked a family member or co-worker about opportunities for their or others kids? It’s not just Dan Quayle or “W” who both benefited from clout. Even Jesse Jackson asks for admission favors for “friends” to state schools.
Often in the admissions process, candidates are required to submit letters of recommendation. Suffice to say applicants don’t ask their Uncle Bob or friend’s Cousin Edna for a letter unless of course Bob or Edna are ESQ, MD, PhD or “the Honorable” somebody. Let’s be realistic. Sometimes the successful sway or nod comes with a caveat. Sometimes those seeking favors promise or agree to mentor an applicant. Some schools have pre-admission programs or conditional programs for at-risk applicants. Would such programs ease the sting of “clout” admissions at U of I? No, because the same would occur with these programs – and does just as it probably does at other schools.
Much of life boils down to who you know or who you think you can sway or persuade as a means to an end. Whether it’s business contacts, old sorority and fraternity connections, your parents friends or relatives, your or their boss, a teacher or professor, Dean or Trustee – the possibilities are endless whether it applies to an admissions process or ever a job opportunity. It’s all the same. And despite your want for anyone to admit otherwise, it’s alive and well. Most will simply say, “that just the way it is” or begin as U of I administration have now to back-peddle suggesting the process is too “difficult” for John and Jane to really appreciate the complexities of essential clout as a means to justify gratuitous admission to some. They’re real fault was conducting this kind of business via email where there was a trail of “evidence” allowing those who came forward to substantiate their claims.
Some things aren’t going to change and clout isn’t one of them. The best we can hope for is to continue to demand higher standards from our schools, administrators and their admissions processes. And too, teach our children about the merits of hard work and ethics so that when they become the next Dean, Trustee, boss or politician, they might make better decisions than those before them.