UVA Considers Applicant's Wealth in the Admissions Process
Who's your daddy?
The University of Virginia acknowledges it tracks applicants based on their parents' donor potential.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Alisa Roth
Jan. 14, 2000 |
Amid heated debates on affirmative action, there has
been little discussion on another
form of admissions favoritism:
financial. While it was long suspected that family wealth might have an
impact on an applicant's prospects, few schools would ever acknowledge
it. But last fall, the University of Virginia disclosed that along with
legacies and friends of university VIPs, it tracks candidates whose
rich parents are likely to make major contributions to the university.
The school newspaper, "The Cavalier Daily," broke the story after obtaining three memos regarding a list that defines applicants according to family worth and the probability of a big donation. The memos were sent by the development office and addressed to the president's assistant, Gordon Burris.
In some cases, the notes made specific reference to the family fortune: "-- nonlegacy son of William --, godson of Randolph Preston Pillow, MD ('42 A&S, '44 Health Sciences) -- is an heir to the Boeing Family fortune." (The dashes refer to places where the Cavalier Daily deleted some names before publication to protect students' privacy). In other cases, parents were rated by how much they were likely to donate: A for $10 million or more, B for $9.9 million to $5 million and so on.
Each year, about 400 students are put on Gordon Burris' master list to receive special consideration; along with rich kids, this record includes legacies and people who know people, typically politicians or board members. After admission decisions have been made, but before applicants are notified, Dean of Admissions John Blackburn meets with Burris. (Both Burris and Vice President for Development Robert Sweeney declined to be interviewed for this story.) The men compare lists and, in some cases, tweak a decision.
"A lot of it is maintaining good relations," says university spokeswoman Louise Dudley, who defends the list as primarily a means to inform so-called important people about how an applicant has fared. But in 1998, one-quarter of the 412 most-favored students had wealthy connections and were recommended by the development office. Of those, 20 were admitted.
Dudley emphasizes that the list is maintained alphabetically and the dean of admissions would never see information like that in the memos. While being on the list is no guarantee of acceptance, it can sway a decision. "[Burris] tells me the importance a student would have to the institution," Blackburn explains. "In some cases, I would make a change to the decision." Dudley's point is moot: It doesn't matter whether the list is alphabetized or if the admissions dean doesn't see the names on paper. Burris essentially verbalizes the list for Blackburn and prioritizes the names for him.
Ironically, the University of Virginia is not lacking for money or qualified applicants. Its endowment is a noteworthy $1.2 billion, and the school is about to complete a $1 billion campaign nearly one year ahead of schedule. On average, there are between 16,000 and 17,000 applicants for 3,000 spots in the freshman class. With two-thirds of those spaces reserved for Virginians, the acceptance rate among out-of-state students drops to about 20 percent.
Does that mean sending a bank statement along with an application or promising to build a state-of-the-art sports center will open an admissions door? Probably not. "For the most part, we're not talking deals cut for future giving," Blackburn clarifies. "We're quite leery of promises." He hastens to point out that UVA is hardly alone in considering wealth. Officials at the University of California, a prestigious public system, and Ivy League member Cornell University both readily admit that such considerations are a fact of life at any institution.
