Editor’s note: PAW invited readers to share their thoughts on the national college-admissions scandal.
The basis of outrage over the admissions scandal is that elite universities are supposed to be institutions that educate the most outstanding students, but, due to corrupt behavior, less accomplished scholars displace individuals who are likely to be better students.
At Yale a coach who admitted receiving a huge bribe included a non-athlete on his list of recruited athletes, and that student who didn’t meet Yale’s athletic standards was accepted for admission. But wait! No deserving scholar was displaced, but rather a potential athlete. This points to the greater area of concern. I have no complaints about Princeton’s recruited athletes, past and present: They got in according to the rules, and most no doubt made fine use of their Princeton years.
But now is the time to reassess the policy on recruited athletes. More than 17 percent of the class are these athletes. In the scandal currently roiling the nation, a handful of better students were displaced by the corrupt actions of the conspirators. If 80 percent of Princeton’s athletes would not have gotten in without their athletic credentials, then that means they displaced 182 applicants who, according to Princeton’s standards, are more accomplished students and hence better suited to a great educational institution.
The irony is that the sports policy doesn’t give Princeton a competitive advantage. Our peers in the Ivy League have the same policy. It is time for the entire league to reconsider the policy of giving an admissions advantage to recruited athletes; a change would raise the academic abilities of the student body dramatically.