Vincent Ye
10/2/13
Professor Dougherty
First Year Seminar: Color and Money
Color and Money: Race and Social Class
Persuasive Essay: Debating policy in The College simulation
This essay was assigned to be written from the perspective of a class matters advocate, and does not necessarily represent the views of the author.
This year The college attracted many applicants, which was a great achievement. Current policies indicated the need to achieve more diversity in race and class representation of students by accepting more diverse students, and this admission campaign was aimed at searching for the best ones. The task was clearly set and we needed to choose three best applicants to meet the goal of the college. As a result, three students Caitlin Quinn, Jazmine Hope-Martin and Daniel Juberi joined The College learning community. This year showed that all students can rely on their knowledge and achievement indicators, such as SAT scores or GPA, with no reference to their social class; however, in some exceptional cases, the admission committee treats high social status as a substantial benefit for the applicant, which is not really fair concerning other applicants.
The overall background of this year campaign is as following. 9 of 15 applicants have been accepted and 3 have enrolled. All applicants come from different social backgrounds, and it shows that education is becoming more and more affordable for people. Out of 3 students, who have been accepted by The College’s admission board, two applicants have 50K annual family income. They are Daniel Juberi and Rosa Martinez. In both cases of Daniel and Rosa, applicants have been offered extensive university grant, which merits $52K. Other families of accepted applicants are different in their social class earning $100-200K. The list of applicants includes 2 applicants who are ready to pay full price of their education (one not accepted); one applicant out of them comes from a family with $400K annual income (“4th round review”). This situation shows that different people have an opportunity to apply for higher education regardless if they are rich or poor. Even in this case, equality is relative because Athletic Director has recommended both Juberi and Martinez for their outstanding sport achievements. Perhaps, without this recommendation they would have less chances to enter the college (“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions”).
After all, Daniel Juberi has been accepted as a college student, and it is the right choice as he is in the worst situation out of all applicants. He is from a single-parent family, where only the mother works (“Decision Day”). Moreover, his sister is in college as well, so his family cannot afford to pay for David’s education. Even though he does not have the highest GPA scores, but his overall achievement, especially in sports, and high motivation perform the role of the most influential driver of the decision of the commission and persuades all members that he deserves this opportunity. Juberi’s poor family condition received additional points from the admission board which were expressed in 0.6 point of family legacy in overall assessment which shows that committee members were not against accepting Juberi (“4th week review”). The fact that this student gets the opportunity to study proves that The College is a place for everyone either rich or poor.
One more accepted applicant is Hope-Martin. She is a level student, with overall family income of 150K. Her example shows that the university praises academic achievement and invites really talented students to join. She represents a middle-class average American family. Obviously her case is not connected with social class attribution because she comes from a usual family with enough money to pay for her education and great academic achievement to cover the lacking rest (“Simulation Applicant Files”, “4th week review”).
Due to the current policies, The College needs to be very careful with the way it assesses its applicants. Increased attention to diversity and social class issues create a situation in which people just cannot disregard equality for all applicants who want to study at The College. Obviously, Quinn Caitlin comes from the upper-class family with both parents working (“4th round review”). It is noted in admission reviews that “full-payer” is an advantage for the admission board to consider. Caitlin’s family members studied at The College and it gives her additional bonus in her admission review. High social status of the family, connection to the college and the desire of parents to invest in its development indicate that Caitlin is a candidate liked by the committee. Luckily, Quinn is not accepted only due to her family status, but she has all needed credentials to be accepted as well.
Usually, admission board members from all colleges argue that family legacy is a minor thing and it is considered the least. Family connection and income should not be treated as decisive factors when evaluating students who want to study at any college. One thing is to help poor students to get education if they are really motivated like Juberi (“Simulation Applicant Files”). The other case is to promote inequality by promoting rich applicants and protecting their admissions in the committee either by the committee members or by the college staff. The example of this student shows that the role of family stats is far from minor as family legacy lead to additional point from the board members and the recommendation from Vice President of Development for Caitlin Quinn. It is confusing that parent’s generosity is treated with so much attention. Moreover, the Vice President of Development promotes the personality of the richest applicant motivating his position by benefits for all The students (“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions”). Such great attention to this factor can lead to decrease in prestige of the place and a common belief that people with much money have better opportunities to enter the place. Applicants from poor families can consider the place to be corrupted and unequal treating people with less money than their average applicants. I believe that protectionism and additional support for rich family is not a thing to be valued by American society, where equal opportunities are viewed as a core value.
Two controversial cases are to be reviewed. On the one hand, The is ready to accept the challenge and let students from poor families join the place. On the other hand, the cases of overt inequality and preference to accept rich students are observed. In the case of Quinn, her acceptance is quite predictable because if The College declines her application, her parents will never give any presents to the college again. Naturally, college becomes a tradition for rich families and parents are ready to please the administration of educational establishments by various gifts to the college or investments in college development. It is not fair that Quinn got a support from the Vice President even before the 3rd round of evaluation as the Vise President contacted the board when all members were in the process of their decision making. The Vise President of Development created the atmosphere of pressure on the committee and all members had to take his message into consideration (“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions”). Quinn’s acceptance is legal due to her high academic performance, leadership roles, sports and other achievements which make her a great applicant even without the support of her family. However, there is a question whether such university behavior is adequate or not concerning other students.
According to Stevens, the direct link between Quinn’s background and her opportunities to be accepted makes it less possible for other individuals to study at The College (12). Parental influence can be treated as an inherited privilege, which cannot be considered in any organization, which claims to provide equal opportunities for all applicants and students. In all other cases, students have been evaluated and treated equally. Evaluations of other applicants accepted by The College were based on the college aims and personal achievements of each applicant, so it is possible to say that students get more and more opportunities to receive their education thanks to their high academic performance, personal qualities and achievements. According to Clotfelter, most elite colleges tend to support meritocratic character of their admissions supporting family connection and promoting their college as a family tradition or value for elite students (110-111). Quinn’s examples show that The College is not the exception from this rule and elite students are motivated to donate to the college as they will have more opportunities and influence on the institutional decision later.
Summing up, the work of admission board can be called legitimate. All of the best applicants, regardless of their social class were accepted by the board and 3 of them enrolled in the end. There is a balance as one upper class and one lower-class students enrolled. The number of poor and rich students needs to be mediated for the college to function properly. In this respect, all people should be inspired by their real opportunity to be accepted by prestigious college like The College. As a private college, The College cannot supply all students with financial aid; however, if to balance the number of rich and poor, both groups will invest in each other’s development. Still, all students need to be judged based on their personal achievement. Achievements and social status of their parents are two things that should not need to be so heavily weighted as it the case of Quinn. It is great that in this case, the applicant shows everything expected by the college from its ideal student. In the opposite case, The College college could easily lose its reputation and prove that it support elite only with no regard to those students who do not have powerful family background or enough money to pay.
Works Cited
Clotfelter, Charles T. “Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities.”Economics of Education Review 22.2 (2003): 109-120.
“4th round review”. Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney
“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions” (from simulation). Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.
“Decision day”. Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney
“Simulation Applicant Files”. Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.
Stevens, Mitchell L. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Harvard University Press, 2009.