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.

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.

Herman forgot an “of” after “integrity”.

Just something I saw while reading…

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.

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?

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.