This month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on decades of affirmative action practices in college admissions. As the dean of graduate admissions at Rush University and the parent of an ambitious, motivated high school student, I am deeply concerned by the striking resemblance between college admissions and a game of high-stakes poker.
The façade of ensuring fairness in the process often masks the underlying reality of a high-stakes game in which strategic maneuvers heavily influence outcomes.
Rising high school seniors are preparing to spend their summer break refining the list of activities needed to increase their appeal to college admissions committees, and it is difficult to overlook the parallels with the game of chance.
Similar to poker, the college admissions gauntlet favors “players” who effectively use strategy, status, and resources over “players” with a seemingly “stacked deck” of intellectual merit and academic accomplishment.
In a world where a college education can help balance the scales of equity, it is, ironically the savvy and well-resourced players who most often take home the spoils: admission at top schools. At these schools, academic excellence is the norm for most applicants — so non-academic factors become the weights that tip the admissions scales.
As a result, many high school students and their parents have begun treating the process like a game of Five Card Draw. I see this in the process, as non-academic factors significantly shape admissions outcomes — with the winner earning a prized spot in the freshman class.
Money and resources
Poker players with deep pockets can fund their gameplay, participate in high-stakes matches, and outlast their opponents to increase their odds of winning. Comparably, money to pay for standardized test preparation; to cover tuition and fees at elite, private feeder high schools that enjoy preferential treatment in admissions; to make philanthropic donations to academic institutions; and to finance early admissions offers, which generally (if tacitly) presume families will cover the full cost of tuition — can all unjustly favor a small, wealthy minority. This widens the entrenched wealth and access gap between the affluent and the less fortunate, often families and students of color or immigrant families.
Chance and luck
Colleges and universities continuously seek new ways to standardize admissions. However, with tens of thousands of applications to review in a short timeframe, myriad factors play a powerful and unpredictable role: the number of available spots; changes in admissions criteria (e.g., test-optional vs test-blind); and the assignments and idiosyncratic preferences of admissions committee members. The process is highly susceptible to the “luck of the draw,” which makes it near-impossible for applicants to accurately predict their chances of admission.
Strategy
Just as high-roller poker players capitalize on past wins to gain the upper hand and consolidate their status, some college applicants enjoy these same advantages via family ties. In some cases, legacy admits and athletes account for 30% of the entering class — that’s roughly one in three students admitted due to preferential admission. Similarly, generational wealth can “ramp up” an applicant’s visibility because the family can afford resources like tutors, counselors, application consultants and the like, who assist with application “theming” and suggest “passion projects” to satisfy the implicit expectation that applicants show enterprise, self-motivation and extracurricular activities. All this maneuvering often results in the same outcome: a high chance of success.
What parents, administrators can do
To be fair, some institutions recognize that an abundance of outstanding applicants means they could substitute one admitted student with up to nine similarly qualified candidates without compromising academic quality. So they rely more on non-academic factors.
But when it comes to equity in admissions, one question persists: What does it mean when students with impressive academic accomplishments are excluded from their top choices because they lack access to insider knowledge and the aforementioned strategies?
To answer, we must look inward. As parents, we need to consider whether hard work and self-motivation, rather than admission to prestigious institutions, should be the focus of our ambitions for our children. As administrators, we need to identify new standards and metrics that will level the playing field and meet institutional goals without excluding deserving students.
And for those idealistic and accomplished applicants who feel as though they came up short and are disappointed in what might seem like a rigged ending: It’s our responsibility to communicate to them that students who exert yeoman effort toward their goals are already primed for success, no matter at what college they land.
Marenda Wilson-Pham is associate dean and associate professor at Rush University Graduate College. She holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and molecular genetics and is a Public Voices Fellow through The OpEd Project.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
