Dartblog

Recently Joe Malchow breifly addressed whether Dartmouth’s admissions office, or the admissions offices of elite colleges generally, I suppose, should give preference to applications from the children of major institutional underwriters. Joe raised the issue only in passing, but in view of the College’s rather desperate financial situation of late, it is a vital question that needs to be addressed boldly and honestly.

On admissions, colleges find themselves in a lurch. They depend hugely on private donations, even for routine annual operations. Wealthy individuals, often alumni, are the source of large donations. Colleges wish to encourage such donations in the long term by cultivating a reputation for rewarding those who give richly. One very effective way to acquire this reputation—to reward the generous rich—is to lower admissions standards for their children.

It is worth dispelling a persistent misconception on this issue. No rational college would ever give admissions preference to a donor’s child solely as a “thank you” for a past donation. The idea behind such admissions preference is to encourage future donations from that donor and others. From others through the reputational effect, and from that donor because, well, if Mr. Mandel Donahoe Haldeman makes a $10 million gift prior to his scion’s applying, and then the scion is admitted, there’s a good chance Mr. Haldeman will thank the college with another $10 million gift—or at least, a better chance than there would have been had young Master Haldeman received the thin envelope.

But this is America. We’re all meritocrats, here. Nobody wants to be seen selling opportunity to the highest bidder, least of all the institutions at the top—those storied gateways to the American aristocracy—that sell it most effectively. Selling admissions preference for top dollar is noisome; the very idea enrages the gifted poor, and justifiably so. So colleges have to do it discreetly, if they choose to do it at all.

How do colleges navigate the precious little breathing room between the rock and the hard place? Everyone speculates, but I would bet that not a soul outside college presidents and their admissions deans truly knows. I would also bet that it varies from school to school and president to president. Probably a conversation took place at some point between James Wright and Karl Furstenburg to hash out their answer; probably a similar conversation will take place, if it hasn’t already, between Jim Kim and Maria Laskaris.

Monday: How should colleges navigate this breathing room? I don’t have the answer, but I have a novel idea.