<p>"About a quarter of college and university admissions officers experience pressure from senior-level administrators, trustees and donors to admit some applicants, according to a first-of-its-kind survey of admissions leaders.</p>
<p>The national survey, from the online publication Inside Higher Ed, found that among all four-year colleges, 27.8 percent of admissions officials said they received pressure from senior administrators, and 23.6 percent experienced pressure from trustees and donors. A greater share of private university officials said they were subject to pressure compared with their public university counterparts…"</p>
<p>This could pose significant conflicts for idealistic admissions officers. The fact that this is happening doesn’t seem surprising, though.</p>
<p>Given the way the report is worded–suggesting that these admissions officers are reporting having been pressured ever, rather than having pressured this year–I’m a little surprised that it’s only a quarter of them.</p>
<p>In regard to private schools, so what? They have the right to admit anyone they want (subject only to equal opportunity laws). Why shouldn’t donors, trustees, and senior administrators have a say? The so-called objective criteria used by admissions officers are arbitrarily set; why should those be the only factors that figure into admissions decisions?</p>
<p>The situation is different at public schools, at which only merit, however defined - and publicly disclosed preferences for URMs, in-state residents, and other special applicants - should be considered.</p>
<p>The survey did not address the question of how the employees respond to the pressure.
Not counting athletes, IME, there are applicants pushed up based on someone’s discretion (eg, dean of admissions.) But, a very small number and they have to be justifiable, in terms of qualifications. But, I am sure there are always wildcards.</p>