What do you think?
Rate this book
The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges -- and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates
Every spring thousands of middle-class and lower-income high-school seniors learn that they have been rejected by America’s most exclusive colleges. What they may never learn is how many candidates like themselves have been passed over in favor of wealthy white students with lesser credentials—children of alumni, big donors, or celebrities.
In this explosive book, the Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter Daniel Golden argues that America, the so-called land of opportunity, is rapidly becoming an aristocracy in which America’s richest families receive special access to elite higher education—enabling them to give their children even more of a head start. Based on two years of investigative reporting and hundreds of interviews with students, parents, school administrators, and admissions personnel—some of whom risked their jobs to speak to the author—The Price of Admission exposes the corrupt admissions practices that favor the wealthy, the powerful, and the famous.
In The Price of Admission, Golden names names, along with grades and test scores. He reveals how the sons of former vice president Al Gore, one-time Hollywood power broker Michael Ovitz, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist leapt ahead of more deserving applicants at Harvard, Brown, and Princeton. He explores favoritism at the Ivy Leagues, Duke, the University of Virginia, and Notre Dame, among other institutions. He reveals that colleges hold Asian American students to a higher standard than whites; comply with Title IX by giving scholarships to rich women in “patrician sports” like horseback riding, squash, and crew; and repay congressmen for favors by admitting their children. He also reveals that Harvard maintains a “Z-list” for well-connected but underqualified students, who are quietly admitted on the condition that they wait a year to enroll.
The Price of Admission explodes the myth of an American meritocracy—the belief that no matter what your background, if you are smart and diligent enough, you will have access to the nation’s most elite universities. It is must reading not only for parents and students with a personal stake in college admissions, but also for those disturbed by the growing divide between ordinary and privileged Americans.
In this explosive book, the Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter Daniel Golden argues that America, the so-called land of opportunity, is rapidly becoming an aristocracy in which America’s richest families receive special access to elite higher education—enabling them to give their children even more of a head start. Based on two years of investigative reporting and hundreds of interviews with students, parents, school administrators, and admissions personnel—some of whom risked their jobs to speak to the author—The Price of Admission exposes the corrupt admissions practices that favor the wealthy, the powerful, and the famous.
In The Price of Admission, Golden names names, along with grades and test scores. He reveals how the sons of former vice president Al Gore, one-time Hollywood power broker Michael Ovitz, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist leapt ahead of more deserving applicants at Harvard, Brown, and Princeton. He explores favoritism at the Ivy Leagues, Duke, the University of Virginia, and Notre Dame, among other institutions. He reveals that colleges hold Asian American students to a higher standard than whites; comply with Title IX by giving scholarships to rich women in “patrician sports” like horseback riding, squash, and crew; and repay congressmen for favors by admitting their children. He also reveals that Harvard maintains a “Z-list” for well-connected but underqualified students, who are quietly admitted on the condition that they wait a year to enroll.
The Price of Admission explodes the myth of an American meritocracy—the belief that no matter what your background, if you are smart and diligent enough, you will have access to the nation’s most elite universities. It is must reading not only for parents and students with a personal stake in college admissions, but also for those disturbed by the growing divide between ordinary and privileged Americans.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published September 5, 2006
185 people are currently reading
3072 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews
January 15, 2022
I think this was a well researched book detailing something we all know instinctually. I found some of the other reviews of this book to be kind of dumb, like why wouldn't a book about the ways in meritocracy isn't the actual determining factor for who gets access to prestige be cynical. It's a book on investigative journalism work, of course it's going to detail exact instances when these things happened. I mostly found it kind of naive on the writers part that he seemed to think these institutions ever were more than a way to confer prestige on specific classes of people to begin with and then became this way. I also don't agree with the notion of meritocracy either or the idea of not allowing equal access to a quality education to anyone who wants it and so I didn't really agree with the solutions offered up at the end.
January 4, 2024
I admit it - I primarily read this book to learn the unsavory details of Jared Kushner’s admission to Harvard, which in Daniel Golden’s telling becomes only one blatant instance of rich parents buying admission to the Ivies for their callow offspring. The rest of THE PRICE OF ADMISSION tells a story shocking only to those who take Harvard et al’s propaganda seriously. Ivy League and elite universities (we may include in this category state ”flagships” like Berkeley) advertise themselves as meritocracies, but in practice they award large percentages of their admits to “development cases” (families with $$$), celebrities’ children, and athletes in elite sports like horseback-riding. Consequently, a lot of truly talented young people, many of them Asian-American, get rejected from the “top” schools and have to settle for large state universities or small liberal arts colleges. As another Goodreads reviewer noted, this is more a tragedy for the Ivy League than for the rejected students, who probably get a better education at Williams or Michigan.
At the very end of his expose, Golden waxes rhapsodic about his days at Grand Old Harvard, basking in the warm rich light that flowed into Dunster House library, sipping sherry with tweedy old profs, and flourishing in the company of so many brilliant young people like himself. PRICE OF ADMISSION reveals itself as a declension narrative: the Ivies once incubated young talent, but now they just coddle rich mediocrities. All of this is bunk. Insofar as they were anything other than giant tax-free real-estate investment firms, Ivy League colleges always served as finishing schools for the rich. Anyone who has studied their social institutions (dining clubs, etc.) knows that student life at the Ivies revolves around snobbery rather than mutual interest. When Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or Duke admit the brilliant or eccentric, they do so to provide a slightly brainier classroom environment for the real (wealthy) customers, and because they can steer some of the science geeks and pre-meds into finance and convert them into future donors. This was true thirty years ago and I bet it was equally true in Golden’s day.
At the very end of his expose, Golden waxes rhapsodic about his days at Grand Old Harvard, basking in the warm rich light that flowed into Dunster House library, sipping sherry with tweedy old profs, and flourishing in the company of so many brilliant young people like himself. PRICE OF ADMISSION reveals itself as a declension narrative: the Ivies once incubated young talent, but now they just coddle rich mediocrities. All of this is bunk. Insofar as they were anything other than giant tax-free real-estate investment firms, Ivy League colleges always served as finishing schools for the rich. Anyone who has studied their social institutions (dining clubs, etc.) knows that student life at the Ivies revolves around snobbery rather than mutual interest. When Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or Duke admit the brilliant or eccentric, they do so to provide a slightly brainier classroom environment for the real (wealthy) customers, and because they can steer some of the science geeks and pre-meds into finance and convert them into future donors. This was true thirty years ago and I bet it was equally true in Golden’s day.
September 18, 2016
The main premise of the book, that wealthy "legacies" have a distinct advantage in admission to elite universities, is hardly surprising to anyone. The extent of that advantage is shocking; according to the author anywhere around 40% of annual seats to elite universities are set aside for children of alumni, athletes of elitist sports like sailing and "development" cases where future donations to the school are an unstated but implied expectation.
The extent of Asian American bias is also well known but the extent is definitely surprising. It is difficult to see how anyone reading this can realistically claim that the "bastions" of American Higher Education can truly claim to be a meritocracy when Asian American students need to score hundreds of points higher on the SATs in order to compare with a comparable white student.
Golden provides a plethora of cases of massive inequality of outcomes where top students of middle class background and Asian descent are rejected from their first choices despite stellar background while a less favorable legacy student is accepted.
This is one of the problems of the book; it could have used half of the anecdotes and been just as effective at conveying its message. While Golden doubtless wanted to convey his message in no uncertain terms it seems like the main purpose of so many narratives telling essentially the same story was to pad the book. By sharing so many similar stories the readers sense of emotional outrage is exhausted quickly.
Perhaps if there had been fewer stories I would have maintained some sympathy for the people rejected from the elite schools. But the reality is that it's hard to feel too much pity for the Korean American (or any student) who got rejected from the Ivy League schools but instead went to Johns Hopkins where she got a partial scholarship.
Golden offers some ideas for remedying the inequality of legacy admissions but he doesn't once question the premise whether an Ivy League education should be attained at all cost. With thousands of universities in the US it would seem to me that the top students rejected by a narrow stretch of Northeastern Universities would be highly desired at fantastic schools throughout the country.
Those top students might find a great school in the Midwest provides a fantastic education that is an even better fit for them than Harvard. Ultimately a student who graduates with a 3.8 GPA at almost any top school will still have an entryway into any career path even if that path isn't as smooth as it would have been with a Yale sheepskin.
All in all the book was very interesting I just wish it was shorter and challenged the primacy of the Ivy League even a tiny bit.
I wouldn't particularly recommend this book for anyone since a quick review of the book tells the entirety of the story.
The extent of Asian American bias is also well known but the extent is definitely surprising. It is difficult to see how anyone reading this can realistically claim that the "bastions" of American Higher Education can truly claim to be a meritocracy when Asian American students need to score hundreds of points higher on the SATs in order to compare with a comparable white student.
Golden provides a plethora of cases of massive inequality of outcomes where top students of middle class background and Asian descent are rejected from their first choices despite stellar background while a less favorable legacy student is accepted.
This is one of the problems of the book; it could have used half of the anecdotes and been just as effective at conveying its message. While Golden doubtless wanted to convey his message in no uncertain terms it seems like the main purpose of so many narratives telling essentially the same story was to pad the book. By sharing so many similar stories the readers sense of emotional outrage is exhausted quickly.
Perhaps if there had been fewer stories I would have maintained some sympathy for the people rejected from the elite schools. But the reality is that it's hard to feel too much pity for the Korean American (or any student) who got rejected from the Ivy League schools but instead went to Johns Hopkins where she got a partial scholarship.
Golden offers some ideas for remedying the inequality of legacy admissions but he doesn't once question the premise whether an Ivy League education should be attained at all cost. With thousands of universities in the US it would seem to me that the top students rejected by a narrow stretch of Northeastern Universities would be highly desired at fantastic schools throughout the country.
Those top students might find a great school in the Midwest provides a fantastic education that is an even better fit for them than Harvard. Ultimately a student who graduates with a 3.8 GPA at almost any top school will still have an entryway into any career path even if that path isn't as smooth as it would have been with a Yale sheepskin.
All in all the book was very interesting I just wish it was shorter and challenged the primacy of the Ivy League even a tiny bit.
I wouldn't particularly recommend this book for anyone since a quick review of the book tells the entirety of the story.
March 17, 2019
Newly relevant in the face of recent college admissions scandals, Golden’s 13-year-Old book does some explaining about how America’s elite continue to perpetuate themselves while scolding the rest of us for not having their educational background—-then blocking us from achieving that education. Eye-opening and appalling. I’m even less impressed by a degree from a Big Name School now than I was before I read the book, and before I read the book my reverence for an Ivy degree was pretty low
March 24, 2020
“The Price of Admission” is a deeply reported book that details the self-perpetuating seigniorage of elite college admissions. Famously, Golden exposed Jared Kushner’s purchase of a Harvard berth in this book. But Golden’s solutions are on less solid footing. His appeal to an ideal of pure meritocracy reads as naive. There is no such thing. Golden is appalled because there are people who shouldn’t have been left outside the ivy-covered gates. He should be appalled there are even gates in the first place.
June 3, 2012
This is an entertaining and well-researched read. The gist of the book didn't surprise me (and it's clearly evident from the title), but the extent to which faculty children, "legacies" and the wealthy/famous get breaks in the college admissions game was a bit of a shock. The author won a Pulitzer with the Wall St. Journal for his writings on this subject.
Want to read
April 21, 2025“Among other shocking facts, Golden revealed the existence of something often called “the Harvard Price,” a specific multi-million-dollar payment—essentially a bribe—that would persuade our most prestigious college to admit an underqualified applicant. Due to a bitter family lawsuit, he was able to document the specific example of Jared Kushner, a totally unqualified student, whose parents had bought him his prestigious Harvard admission with exactly such a secret payment.
Kushner was Trump’s son-in-law and a leading figure in his 2016 presidential campaign. Given that the entire media was constantly attacking Trump on every possible issue, I naturally assumed they would begin raking him over the coals on this, thereby boosting our own Harvard Overseer campaign challenging such practices. But despite my best efforts, the media kept entirely silent on that outrageous example of familial corruption, apparently too fearful of alienating Harvard to ever mention that scandal.”
-Ron Unz, “Trump vs. Harvard in a Political Wrestling Match” April 21,2025
Kushner was Trump’s son-in-law and a leading figure in his 2016 presidential campaign. Given that the entire media was constantly attacking Trump on every possible issue, I naturally assumed they would begin raking him over the coals on this, thereby boosting our own Harvard Overseer campaign challenging such practices. But despite my best efforts, the media kept entirely silent on that outrageous example of familial corruption, apparently too fearful of alienating Harvard to ever mention that scandal.”
-Ron Unz, “Trump vs. Harvard in a Political Wrestling Match” April 21,2025
September 6, 2024
solidly a 2.5/5 for me. I think as a long form news article this could have some teeth but there was just too much exact sat scores of random kids to prove a point that bogged down the main gist. that aside, I wouldn't necessarily recommend to someone reading today because a lot is outdated, however I fount it interesting to read some of the arguments for legacy admits, like helping normalize weird rules like parietals on campuses like ND. also, the recommendations in the back of the book are not enough. that section needed a lot of work and was a let down.
December 8, 2025
a reread; used to love it so much & it probably singlehandedly brought me into investigative journalism, but now it seems more like a redundant list of 100 cases that sound similar, just with different names. regardless still an important topic to investigate that should still be looked into - even though the book was published exactly 20 years ago, the social issue it discusses is not at all outdated
February 19, 2011
Rich kids, celebrities, and legacies getting preferential treatment and perpetuating a culture of privilege at Ivy Leagues isn't ground-breaking, but it was interesting to read how it works in practice. Title IX prompting a rise in "patrician sports" scholarships for girls already wealthy was also informative.
The "Asian fail" and Asian quotas won't be a new concept if you live in California, but I liked that Golden differentiated the subgroups of the Asian-American label, and how this arbitrary umbrella prevents Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders from getting affirmative action benefits despite high rates of poverty and low rates of education.
The chapter on CalTech (staunch meritocracy), Cooper Union (elite and free), and Berea College (free and only open to the poor) was great--so positive after slogging through so much cynicism.
And that's what I didn't like about this book at all: the cynicism. I can understand his anger at the system, but it messed with his argument. Each chapter focuses on a specific issue and (usually) targets a specific college, and he dumps every related anecdote and statistic even if he's used it before, making it repetitive and meandering. He subtly praises the people he likes, but makes most other people he interviews sound almost insidious. Some of those people were teenagers. Maybe they were willfully ignorant, but seriously, Golden: lay off.
I didn't go to an Ivy League. The clearest message I took from this is that I should be a regular donor to my alma mater and boost its ability to offer aid, and spread the word that you don't have to go to a name-brand college to do well. Like some other reviews state here, it's the obsession to get recognition that's the source of all these problems. Golden's chapter on proposed solutions doesn't bring it up at all, which is a shame.
The "Asian fail" and Asian quotas won't be a new concept if you live in California, but I liked that Golden differentiated the subgroups of the Asian-American label, and how this arbitrary umbrella prevents Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders from getting affirmative action benefits despite high rates of poverty and low rates of education.
The chapter on CalTech (staunch meritocracy), Cooper Union (elite and free), and Berea College (free and only open to the poor) was great--so positive after slogging through so much cynicism.
And that's what I didn't like about this book at all: the cynicism. I can understand his anger at the system, but it messed with his argument. Each chapter focuses on a specific issue and (usually) targets a specific college, and he dumps every related anecdote and statistic even if he's used it before, making it repetitive and meandering. He subtly praises the people he likes, but makes most other people he interviews sound almost insidious. Some of those people were teenagers. Maybe they were willfully ignorant, but seriously, Golden: lay off.
I didn't go to an Ivy League. The clearest message I took from this is that I should be a regular donor to my alma mater and boost its ability to offer aid, and spread the word that you don't have to go to a name-brand college to do well. Like some other reviews state here, it's the obsession to get recognition that's the source of all these problems. Golden's chapter on proposed solutions doesn't bring it up at all, which is a shame.
June 6, 2016
An incredible work detailing how several colleges and universities have utilized their admissions offices to raise money and prestige, while sacrificing their academic integrity. Each chapter focuses on a different tactic or issue in higher education admissions, be it legacies, development cases, patrician athletics and how they manipulate Title IX, or discrimination against Asian American students. Every tactic is explored largely at one school, but other institutions are freely listed, and most resurface throughout the entire text. Anecdotal evidence lies next to statistics and numerical data for a fascinating read that moves quickly.
Golden skewers highly esteemed schools for their utter disregard of integrity to achieve a higher ranking or a larger endowment. He has accomplished a truly stunning book.
Golden skewers highly esteemed schools for their utter disregard of integrity to achieve a higher ranking or a larger endowment. He has accomplished a truly stunning book.
May 30, 2017
I will admit to reading the first chapter carefully, but between anger and sadness I skimmed the remaining chapters until the last 2. These are worth trudging through the others. His detailed analysis of Caltech,Copper Union and Berea are well worth. The last chapter detailing what should and (could) be done verges on fairy tale particularly in the current political environment and considering how long ago this book was written. Kudos to Mr. Golden for courage to detail the inequities.
December 4, 2009
Interesting, but uses the case study approach rather than marshalling up comprehensive arguments.
April 28, 2020
Duke -> Anyone can get in if they have money
Brown -> Famous people & their children can get in
Others -> Difficult to get in without a "hook" of either: legacy, six or seven figure donations, recruited athlete, or parent on staff
Caltech -> For the smartest people
Based on this book, the easiest way in to an elite college is to have your parents apply for a job at one. Time to brush up that ol' resume!
Brown -> Famous people & their children can get in
Others -> Difficult to get in without a "hook" of either: legacy, six or seven figure donations, recruited athlete, or parent on staff
Caltech -> For the smartest people
Based on this book, the easiest way in to an elite college is to have your parents apply for a job at one. Time to brush up that ol' resume!
February 17, 2023
A lot of the things detailed in this book I actually didn’t know - maybe I’m too optimistic but I always had a lot of faith in meritocracy, so some parts of this book were definitely an eye opener.
It did get a little repetitive towards the end, and I think the possible solutions posed were a little too pie-in-the-sky considering the facts presented in the rest of the book, but overall an insightful and interesting read.
It did get a little repetitive towards the end, and I think the possible solutions posed were a little too pie-in-the-sky considering the facts presented in the rest of the book, but overall an insightful and interesting read.
Read
April 5, 20181. Underqualified rich white people are taking a high percentage of spots at Ivy league schools.
2. High acheiving Asian Americans are rejected at a higher rate than others from a lot of highly competitive US schools.
3. There are three highly competitive US schools doing it right: Berea, Caltech, and Cooper Union.
It's mostly depressing, everyone.
2. High acheiving Asian Americans are rejected at a higher rate than others from a lot of highly competitive US schools.
3. There are three highly competitive US schools doing it right: Berea, Caltech, and Cooper Union.
It's mostly depressing, everyone.
July 28, 2021
Naming and shaming are paramount in The Price of Admission, hammering home the message that it does not behove meritocratic admission procedures to favour the already wealthy and / or alumni descendants for almost unrestricted access to Ivy League and other top-notch universities
June 10, 2022
Very informative but became a bit repetitive.
September 24, 2024
Desperately needs a heavy handed editor for conciseness and brevity
September 24, 2023
3.5 - I'm a smidge conflicted. This was likely much more shocking/groundbreaking at the time it was published (about 15 years ago), while now with how well-trod this argument is in the general public discourse it feels a bit stale. It's very well-done reporting, though, and just because we're all a bit more familiar with the issues raised doesn't make them less infuriating.
June 21, 2018
Damning indictment of policies that equate to "affirmative action for the privileged and wealthy." The anecdotal, reportorial style makes for faster reading, but a more systematic, empirical study is called for. Nonetheless, the author's conclusions will make you nauseous! The recommendations at the end of the book calling for the end of preferential treatment for legacy admits, and other privileged groups, is useful.
April 21, 2021
The Price of Admission takes a critical look at admissions practices at elite universities in a country where the masses believe in the myth of meritocracy. Each of the topics was very interesting and centered on a specific university (although additional information from other universities was included in each section). The privilege in the admissions office ranged from financial help to unfair admission for grossly underperforming students. Topics included:
Admissions boosts for children of big donors at Harvard
Admissions boosts for children of wealthy parents at Duke
Admissions boosts for celebrities and celebrity relatives at Brown
Admissions boosts for legacies at Notre Dame
Financial aid and admissions boosts for aristocratic athletes (fencing, crew, and polo) at the University of Virginia
Financial aid and admissions boosts for children of faculty at Tufts
Inequity and higher standards for Asian American students
Preference given to relatives of politicians and lobbying for legacy privilege
How to do it right: CalTech, Berea College, and Cooper Union
Additionally, the author proposes suggestions for how to bring equity to college admissions and end the cycle of privilege that benefits the already wealthy/influential/educated and excludes racial and socioeconomic "minorities" in the college world. Golden also discusses the rise of the independent counselor and the Operation Varsity Blues scandal.
Overall, an excellent read.
Admissions boosts for children of big donors at Harvard
Admissions boosts for children of wealthy parents at Duke
Admissions boosts for celebrities and celebrity relatives at Brown
Admissions boosts for legacies at Notre Dame
Financial aid and admissions boosts for aristocratic athletes (fencing, crew, and polo) at the University of Virginia
Financial aid and admissions boosts for children of faculty at Tufts
Inequity and higher standards for Asian American students
Preference given to relatives of politicians and lobbying for legacy privilege
How to do it right: CalTech, Berea College, and Cooper Union
Additionally, the author proposes suggestions for how to bring equity to college admissions and end the cycle of privilege that benefits the already wealthy/influential/educated and excludes racial and socioeconomic "minorities" in the college world. Golden also discusses the rise of the independent counselor and the Operation Varsity Blues scandal.
Overall, an excellent read.
March 30, 2019
There is nothing to say besides that this country is wasting a lot of talent because of discriminating policies. Major institutions of high education hold the belief that they have to appease any way possible their alumni and potential donors in order to secure constant inflow for their endowments. All attempts aimed at the legacy and preferential admissions have resulted in a kindergartner's argument:
"But he started it"
meaning that as long as affirmative action is on the books, which are discriminating, then as long the legacy admissions, also discriminating, would remain on the books. Of course, it has to be understood that society at large has not benefited equally from progressive agendas: progressive agendas have been historically skewed to make minorities, the undesirables, stay away from the good side of town. Hence the need for affirmative action. A black child did not go to a dilapidated school for fun, no, that was the mandated reality, thanks to funding games and gerrymandering. We need to integrate all social groups and become egalitarian(equal start) and merit-based society, and we have to take some sour pills, not forever, but until enough critical mass of individuals have passed through and acquired the skills and representation.
As it stands, unfortunately, the individuals who would benefit from affirmative action types of policies are not taking advantage of the opportunities, and behave arrogantly, as an entitlement. What in large they are not understanding is that this is not an entitlement game. It needs to become "You work, you earn. ", and if you don't work you can play in the gutter, because it is an allowed outcome.
In addition, while some groups are kept deliberately as a minority, there is no reason that they should self-segregate, which is a real phenomenon on campuses. This groups can be religious-based or ethnic-based. Integration comes from deliberately infiltrating the camp that is deliberately not integrating you. This is the problem of missed opportunities.
"But he started it"
meaning that as long as affirmative action is on the books, which are discriminating, then as long the legacy admissions, also discriminating, would remain on the books. Of course, it has to be understood that society at large has not benefited equally from progressive agendas: progressive agendas have been historically skewed to make minorities, the undesirables, stay away from the good side of town. Hence the need for affirmative action. A black child did not go to a dilapidated school for fun, no, that was the mandated reality, thanks to funding games and gerrymandering. We need to integrate all social groups and become egalitarian(equal start) and merit-based society, and we have to take some sour pills, not forever, but until enough critical mass of individuals have passed through and acquired the skills and representation.
As it stands, unfortunately, the individuals who would benefit from affirmative action types of policies are not taking advantage of the opportunities, and behave arrogantly, as an entitlement. What in large they are not understanding is that this is not an entitlement game. It needs to become "You work, you earn. ", and if you don't work you can play in the gutter, because it is an allowed outcome.
In addition, while some groups are kept deliberately as a minority, there is no reason that they should self-segregate, which is a real phenomenon on campuses. This groups can be religious-based or ethnic-based. Integration comes from deliberately infiltrating the camp that is deliberately not integrating you. This is the problem of missed opportunities.
June 20, 2015
As I write this, the book is about 8 years old, and as far as I can tell not one damned thing has changed policy-wise since the book has been written. Sigh. (Well other than the fact that Cooper Union is now charging tuition.) College is a business, y'all, and people with lots of money or power will edge out people without it.
There is plenty of dead-horse beating in this book. It's about six chapters of "See [this elite university]! They are one of the most selective in the nation, and the average SAT score of admitted students is 1460 (M+V). However they admitted a person with a really low score because they were [a legacy/a polo player/a billionaire's kid/Natalie Portman/faculty offspring]! How is this fair to [Asians/unhooked applicants/poor geniuses/people whose parents aren't in Congress]?" Lots and lots of anecdotes, some repeated to the point of tedium (did you know that Al Gore's worthless son and Bill Frist's worthless son were both admitted to top Ivies? Golden tells you about each one twice to indicate how this problem crosses party lines). Wants to abolish legacy preference, rich-people courting, athletic scholarships for rich-kid sports like sailing, crew, squash, and fencing, and quit giving admissions breaks to faculty's children.
Obviously the rich and powerful aren't in favor of eliminating this sort of affirmative action, which is part of the reason the 2003 case trying to outlaw race-based affirmative action failed in the Supreme Court (basically everyone but Clarence Thomas benefited from or conferred legacy benefits to their offspring).
Mentions Cal Tech, Berea, and Cooper Union as anti-legacy, anti-rich, meritocratic institutions, though at least one of them has ceased to be so since the book was published.
There is plenty of dead-horse beating in this book. It's about six chapters of "See [this elite university]! They are one of the most selective in the nation, and the average SAT score of admitted students is 1460 (M+V). However they admitted a person with a really low score because they were [a legacy/a polo player/a billionaire's kid/Natalie Portman/faculty offspring]! How is this fair to [Asians/unhooked applicants/poor geniuses/people whose parents aren't in Congress]?" Lots and lots of anecdotes, some repeated to the point of tedium (did you know that Al Gore's worthless son and Bill Frist's worthless son were both admitted to top Ivies? Golden tells you about each one twice to indicate how this problem crosses party lines). Wants to abolish legacy preference, rich-people courting, athletic scholarships for rich-kid sports like sailing, crew, squash, and fencing, and quit giving admissions breaks to faculty's children.
Obviously the rich and powerful aren't in favor of eliminating this sort of affirmative action, which is part of the reason the 2003 case trying to outlaw race-based affirmative action failed in the Supreme Court (basically everyone but Clarence Thomas benefited from or conferred legacy benefits to their offspring).
Mentions Cal Tech, Berea, and Cooper Union as anti-legacy, anti-rich, meritocratic institutions, though at least one of them has ceased to be so since the book was published.
December 28, 2007
Not bad at all. I think this will unfortunately put more fuel to the fire to those who weren't accepted to the college of their choice. Sometimes, yes, there is some question as to why some students are accepted or denied. But sometimes, you're denied because you don't fulfill the qualifications.
There was one interesting section on Asian applicants and how Asians must excel twice as well as their white counterparts in order to be accepted. We don't fall under Affirmative Action. So, if an Asian is a good student but poor, they have less of a chance of admissions.
I would recommend this book to anyone who has ever had to work in Admissions or are interested in college counseling.
There was one interesting section on Asian applicants and how Asians must excel twice as well as their white counterparts in order to be accepted. We don't fall under Affirmative Action. So, if an Asian is a good student but poor, they have less of a chance of admissions.
I would recommend this book to anyone who has ever had to work in Admissions or are interested in college counseling.
February 11, 2018
So gross. A must-read.
Seems that the anecdotes could've been better organized within each chapter.
Seems that the anecdotes could've been better organized within each chapter.
November 23, 2025
I had wanted to read this book for years, but it fell off my radar until recently. I finally picked up the updated 2019 edition, and I’m honestly disappointed that I didn’t read it sooner. Although the foundation comes from the original 2005 publication, the new edition adds a final chapter that revisits how the landscape evolved over the following decade.
The book offers a detailed examination of how students gain entry into elite universities. Like many people, I used to think “affirmative action” mainly referred to programs supporting marginalized groups. This book completely reframed that assumption. Golden argues that the wealthiest families have built their own parallel system of “affirmative action,” using legacy admissions, donor influence, political connections, and back-channel deals to secure advantages for their children. In other words, the same mechanisms meant to help the disadvantaged are mirrored, and sometimes overshadowed, by privileges available only to the wealthy.
One of the strongest parts of the book is its commitment to documentation. Golden handles inherently opaque topics, yet he consistently distinguishes between verifiable records and information that relies on interviews with students, parents, or school insiders. When facts cannot be independently confirmed, he says so directly. At no point did I feel he was trying to manipulate data or push a hidden agenda. The tone is balanced, the claims are clearly supported, and the structure of the chapters makes the book easy to follow without ever dragging.
The final chapter, which serves as an update, was especially striking. Rather than showing improvement in the admissions landscape, it suggests that many structural issues have intensified. Golden discusses the Varsity Blues scandal, which broke in 2019 but reflected fraudulent practices spanning roughly a decade. Wealthy parents bribed coaches and intermediaries to portray their children as athletes so they could enter through less competitive recruitment channels. As shocking as the scandal was, Golden frames it as only one example of a much broader system of privilege.
Equally concerning is the decline in admission rates among several Ivy League schools. In 2005, Golden notes acceptance rates around ten percent. By the time of the update, some had dropped to roughly five percent. Fewer seats combined with rising demand create an even more competitive environment, which magnifies the impact of privileged pathways.
Notably, the book predates the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, so the update does not address how the landscape changed after that ruling. I genuinely hope Golden releases another edition in the next several years, because that case feels like a pivotal moment that will reshape debates around merit, fairness, and who benefits or loses under new admissions norms.
One area where the book felt limited was its discussion of life without affirmative action. Golden highlights the shrinking middle class and how students outside both privileged and designated disadvantaged groups often fall between the cracks. But the book doesn’t deeply explore what would happen to marginalized students if these supports disappeared. It’s important to acknowledge that wealthier students can afford tutors, prep courses, extracurriculars, and every possible advantage. If admissions were purely meritocratic in the academic sense, those structural advantages would likely dominate even more. The result might be campuses filled with affluent students, with only a handful of exceptionally gifted low-income students getting through.
Another interesting insight from the book is how guidance counselors sometimes encode recommendation letters to protect themselves from backlash while still signaling honest assessments to admissions officers. The idea that paragraph order could communicate subtle evaluations was something I had never considered, yet it perfectly illustrates how much of the admissions world operates on unwritten codes and quiet understandings.
Overall, The Price of Admission is a compelling and accessible read. Even if you’re not a student, a parent, or connected to academia, it offers a fascinating look at how institutions operate behind the scenes. It made me think about how many lives might have unfolded differently if seats hadn’t been quietly reserved for the well-connected. It also reinforces how complicated, layered, and often invisible the forces shaping opportunity can be. This book is a reminder that merit is only one part of a much larger puzzle, and that many people work incredibly hard only to find their fate influenced by factors they could never control.
A short book, easy to read, and full of insights. I’m glad I finally got to it.
The book offers a detailed examination of how students gain entry into elite universities. Like many people, I used to think “affirmative action” mainly referred to programs supporting marginalized groups. This book completely reframed that assumption. Golden argues that the wealthiest families have built their own parallel system of “affirmative action,” using legacy admissions, donor influence, political connections, and back-channel deals to secure advantages for their children. In other words, the same mechanisms meant to help the disadvantaged are mirrored, and sometimes overshadowed, by privileges available only to the wealthy.
One of the strongest parts of the book is its commitment to documentation. Golden handles inherently opaque topics, yet he consistently distinguishes between verifiable records and information that relies on interviews with students, parents, or school insiders. When facts cannot be independently confirmed, he says so directly. At no point did I feel he was trying to manipulate data or push a hidden agenda. The tone is balanced, the claims are clearly supported, and the structure of the chapters makes the book easy to follow without ever dragging.
The final chapter, which serves as an update, was especially striking. Rather than showing improvement in the admissions landscape, it suggests that many structural issues have intensified. Golden discusses the Varsity Blues scandal, which broke in 2019 but reflected fraudulent practices spanning roughly a decade. Wealthy parents bribed coaches and intermediaries to portray their children as athletes so they could enter through less competitive recruitment channels. As shocking as the scandal was, Golden frames it as only one example of a much broader system of privilege.
Equally concerning is the decline in admission rates among several Ivy League schools. In 2005, Golden notes acceptance rates around ten percent. By the time of the update, some had dropped to roughly five percent. Fewer seats combined with rising demand create an even more competitive environment, which magnifies the impact of privileged pathways.
Notably, the book predates the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, so the update does not address how the landscape changed after that ruling. I genuinely hope Golden releases another edition in the next several years, because that case feels like a pivotal moment that will reshape debates around merit, fairness, and who benefits or loses under new admissions norms.
One area where the book felt limited was its discussion of life without affirmative action. Golden highlights the shrinking middle class and how students outside both privileged and designated disadvantaged groups often fall between the cracks. But the book doesn’t deeply explore what would happen to marginalized students if these supports disappeared. It’s important to acknowledge that wealthier students can afford tutors, prep courses, extracurriculars, and every possible advantage. If admissions were purely meritocratic in the academic sense, those structural advantages would likely dominate even more. The result might be campuses filled with affluent students, with only a handful of exceptionally gifted low-income students getting through.
Another interesting insight from the book is how guidance counselors sometimes encode recommendation letters to protect themselves from backlash while still signaling honest assessments to admissions officers. The idea that paragraph order could communicate subtle evaluations was something I had never considered, yet it perfectly illustrates how much of the admissions world operates on unwritten codes and quiet understandings.
Overall, The Price of Admission is a compelling and accessible read. Even if you’re not a student, a parent, or connected to academia, it offers a fascinating look at how institutions operate behind the scenes. It made me think about how many lives might have unfolded differently if seats hadn’t been quietly reserved for the well-connected. It also reinforces how complicated, layered, and often invisible the forces shaping opportunity can be. This book is a reminder that merit is only one part of a much larger puzzle, and that many people work incredibly hard only to find their fate influenced by factors they could never control.
A short book, easy to read, and full of insights. I’m glad I finally got to it.
November 5, 2023
1) Summary of the book:
- Some astounding facts: for certain elite schools, only 40% of the admission is based on pure academic performance, and the rest is 60% are for non-merit reasons.
- You can get a good idea of the different types of preferences in admission from the table of contents: the US elite schools are favoring the rich (e.g. donors), the famous (e.g. celebrities), the legacies (e.g. children of alumni), the (upper-class) athletes, the children of professors.
- Disclaimer: this introduces the US elite colleges, which will be a totally different case for European ones (some of which are walk-in for all, e.g., ETH, and fail people by difficult exams), and Asian ones (some of which are based on a unified college entrance exam for everyone, instead of this "holistic" admission process).
2) Methodology of the author
- The author seems to take a journalist approach to the problem, keep interviewing different people and collecting stories
- The writing seems to be focusing on storytelling, rather than deep analysis, or quantitative methods. After making a point, then it keeps telling stories with the same spirit. It also seems to make the readers feel angry from the un-fairness instead of objectively reasoning about the underlying problem. Personally I prefer more logical reasoning instead of accumulating emotions, but this is just my personal preference, maybe the majority of the readers like this type of writing style.
3) Analysis and takeaways from the book:
The book serves as a good reference for all the stories of what is happening. On top of this evidence, I wonder if we can think deeply about how the problem happens and what is the ideal state of the education situation that we should pursue.
(a) The payer-and-service-provider framing:
If I compare the expensive price of the US universities versus cheap and relatively low-bar entry for European universities, one explanation is that in Europe education is part of the social welfare system (similar to accessible healthcare), which is covered by taxpayers' money; on the other hand, many of the elite colleges, such as the Ivy League, needs to have their own sources of income. So in a way, it is an ecosystem that an institute receive money from certain parties and then provide services for them; the only tricky part is that education as a keyword seems to be part of the public service, which should be beneficial for all, except that the actual income of the schools is from private sources., The European schools can be also thought of as that it is paid by taxpayers, and provide service to them (If you think about that they also don't provide unlimited services to its non-taxpayers, such as having unlimited slots for international students).
(b) Essence of the problem: right to own property
When being upset about the unfairness, actually the underlying root cause is the pillar of our democracy system (which will be overall a bad thing if we shake it), the right to own property. A lot of legacy problem boils down to: If parents work hard with the goal of making their descendants live a better life, are they allowed to do so? I think it is justified to create anti-monopoly an anti-trust law, but it is illegal to ban an individual from turning their work into affluence, and passing it down to their children. If we add any constraints on that, we might see more equal access for the short term, but we shake the foundation for free markets and a democracy, which might cause vast unwanted side effects. We also discourage future people to work hard and gain what they deserve. This is my hypothesis, and welcome philosophers, social scientists, and policy makers for more expert ideas.
(c) Miscellaneous:
Some other unaddressed problems by the book but I am also interested in include: should a university spend a lot of money on advertisement and PR?
- Some astounding facts: for certain elite schools, only 40% of the admission is based on pure academic performance, and the rest is 60% are for non-merit reasons.
- You can get a good idea of the different types of preferences in admission from the table of contents: the US elite schools are favoring the rich (e.g. donors), the famous (e.g. celebrities), the legacies (e.g. children of alumni), the (upper-class) athletes, the children of professors.
- Disclaimer: this introduces the US elite colleges, which will be a totally different case for European ones (some of which are walk-in for all, e.g., ETH, and fail people by difficult exams), and Asian ones (some of which are based on a unified college entrance exam for everyone, instead of this "holistic" admission process).
2) Methodology of the author
- The author seems to take a journalist approach to the problem, keep interviewing different people and collecting stories
- The writing seems to be focusing on storytelling, rather than deep analysis, or quantitative methods. After making a point, then it keeps telling stories with the same spirit. It also seems to make the readers feel angry from the un-fairness instead of objectively reasoning about the underlying problem. Personally I prefer more logical reasoning instead of accumulating emotions, but this is just my personal preference, maybe the majority of the readers like this type of writing style.
3) Analysis and takeaways from the book:
The book serves as a good reference for all the stories of what is happening. On top of this evidence, I wonder if we can think deeply about how the problem happens and what is the ideal state of the education situation that we should pursue.
(a) The payer-and-service-provider framing:
If I compare the expensive price of the US universities versus cheap and relatively low-bar entry for European universities, one explanation is that in Europe education is part of the social welfare system (similar to accessible healthcare), which is covered by taxpayers' money; on the other hand, many of the elite colleges, such as the Ivy League, needs to have their own sources of income. So in a way, it is an ecosystem that an institute receive money from certain parties and then provide services for them; the only tricky part is that education as a keyword seems to be part of the public service, which should be beneficial for all, except that the actual income of the schools is from private sources., The European schools can be also thought of as that it is paid by taxpayers, and provide service to them (If you think about that they also don't provide unlimited services to its non-taxpayers, such as having unlimited slots for international students).
(b) Essence of the problem: right to own property
When being upset about the unfairness, actually the underlying root cause is the pillar of our democracy system (which will be overall a bad thing if we shake it), the right to own property. A lot of legacy problem boils down to: If parents work hard with the goal of making their descendants live a better life, are they allowed to do so? I think it is justified to create anti-monopoly an anti-trust law, but it is illegal to ban an individual from turning their work into affluence, and passing it down to their children. If we add any constraints on that, we might see more equal access for the short term, but we shake the foundation for free markets and a democracy, which might cause vast unwanted side effects. We also discourage future people to work hard and gain what they deserve. This is my hypothesis, and welcome philosophers, social scientists, and policy makers for more expert ideas.
(c) Miscellaneous:
Some other unaddressed problems by the book but I am also interested in include: should a university spend a lot of money on advertisement and PR?
January 1, 2023
Long wanted to read this, then about its ++20 years cousin Varsity Blues happened. As they call it, this covers the backdoor exploit, while Varsity Blues covers the side-channel exploit. None of what it covers is shocking to me, but still covers so much ground with examples & facts, the prevalence of this bothers me. I’ll probably recommend my daughter read it at some point. Some specifics to call out below. There is a lot more refs in the book. Too hard remember and note all down.
- Univs mentioned ( that i remember): Harvard, Duke, Princeton, Stanford, Emory, NYU, Bates, Wesleyan, Brown, Wellesley, Notre Dame, UVA, Umass, etc.
- There are these Prep? schools (that i remember) called St. Alban’s, Sidwell Friends, Groton, middlesex, Dalton, LakeForest Day, Harvard-sth at CA, Crossroads at CA, Noble and Greneough, Exeter, Andover, Lawrenceville, Baldwin, Manhattan Prep, etc. etc. that build up the next gen of privilege.
- Univs admissions, trustees, and prep school development heads, ind counselors all backchannel together to make things happen for development, preference cases. It is kind of mutual understanding of implicit quid pro quo.
- all four of Al Gore kids admitted to Harvard. What are the odds?
- I now know who the Frist is in Frist Campus ar Princeton. No to affirmative action but yes to family lineage admission ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Princeton eating club mentions: Ivy, Cottage, Tiger :)
- and Yale has Skull and Bones
- Duke made the dev jump big time w Fleishman. Win win for Fleishman and: Ralph Lauren, Boston Scientific, etc.
- Brown big on celebs. Ovits, Hoffman, etc.
- Celebrity “Notables” ~subset of development candidates.
- Before the side door guy, Rick Singer, there was Dave Zucconi of Brown.
- Notre Dame leads legacy admissions w 24%
- 54% corp leaders and 42% of govt leaders are from 12 priv univs :o
- Origins of legacy admission: 1930s, to curb Jewish enrollment in favor of alumni next gen. Darrmouth, Harvard, Yale, etc. saw a significant drop after.
- Wow. 2000s, Harvard accepted 11% of gen pop and 40% of legacy pool.
- Notre Dame accepts 19% of gen pop, 50% of alumni children and 70% of faculty kids.
- BU admitted 90% of its faculty kids (160/176) in 2003
- Thanks to some nice lobbying from ACE, the faculty tuotion benefit is also, for some reason, tax free.
- Faculty entitlement at Tufts. Leupp daughter got rejected. he whined to deans. they took her as transfer next year.
- Caltech vs. the rest. The contrast is huge in sat scores etc.
- None of the many many names mentioned associated w various concessions ever pick a science or eng. major. not one. they are all bright, and can do the work, etc. apparently, but not in science or eng. Daniel Golden eventually calls this out after Caltech visit, calling those Gut courses/majors to appease the privileged patrons.
Coming from a place, where a million+ of our cohort take the same univ entrance exam at the exact moment, with no retakes or redos (until next year). Having to place in the top few 100 to make it to your top choice, where state colleges are essentially free. This was an interesting read. Having spent 6+ years in a top ivy school for grad school, and having also taught eng undergrads in a top ivy school, this was further interesting read. Having worked in various places, some still hanging onto old-boy, legacy sentiments and some thriving for pure, algorithmic, transparent meritocracy, this was yet an interesting read to compare and contrast the fallout from different paths. I did not mind the cynicism or the repetition or naming names. I like joirnalists' books, enjoyed this one a lot.
- Univs mentioned ( that i remember): Harvard, Duke, Princeton, Stanford, Emory, NYU, Bates, Wesleyan, Brown, Wellesley, Notre Dame, UVA, Umass, etc.
- There are these Prep? schools (that i remember) called St. Alban’s, Sidwell Friends, Groton, middlesex, Dalton, LakeForest Day, Harvard-sth at CA, Crossroads at CA, Noble and Greneough, Exeter, Andover, Lawrenceville, Baldwin, Manhattan Prep, etc. etc. that build up the next gen of privilege.
- Univs admissions, trustees, and prep school development heads, ind counselors all backchannel together to make things happen for development, preference cases. It is kind of mutual understanding of implicit quid pro quo.
- all four of Al Gore kids admitted to Harvard. What are the odds?
- I now know who the Frist is in Frist Campus ar Princeton. No to affirmative action but yes to family lineage admission ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Princeton eating club mentions: Ivy, Cottage, Tiger :)
- and Yale has Skull and Bones
- Duke made the dev jump big time w Fleishman. Win win for Fleishman and: Ralph Lauren, Boston Scientific, etc.
- Brown big on celebs. Ovits, Hoffman, etc.
- Celebrity “Notables” ~subset of development candidates.
- Before the side door guy, Rick Singer, there was Dave Zucconi of Brown.
- Notre Dame leads legacy admissions w 24%
- 54% corp leaders and 42% of govt leaders are from 12 priv univs :o
- Origins of legacy admission: 1930s, to curb Jewish enrollment in favor of alumni next gen. Darrmouth, Harvard, Yale, etc. saw a significant drop after.
- Wow. 2000s, Harvard accepted 11% of gen pop and 40% of legacy pool.
- Notre Dame accepts 19% of gen pop, 50% of alumni children and 70% of faculty kids.
- BU admitted 90% of its faculty kids (160/176) in 2003
- Thanks to some nice lobbying from ACE, the faculty tuotion benefit is also, for some reason, tax free.
- Faculty entitlement at Tufts. Leupp daughter got rejected. he whined to deans. they took her as transfer next year.
- Caltech vs. the rest. The contrast is huge in sat scores etc.
- None of the many many names mentioned associated w various concessions ever pick a science or eng. major. not one. they are all bright, and can do the work, etc. apparently, but not in science or eng. Daniel Golden eventually calls this out after Caltech visit, calling those Gut courses/majors to appease the privileged patrons.
Coming from a place, where a million+ of our cohort take the same univ entrance exam at the exact moment, with no retakes or redos (until next year). Having to place in the top few 100 to make it to your top choice, where state colleges are essentially free. This was an interesting read. Having spent 6+ years in a top ivy school for grad school, and having also taught eng undergrads in a top ivy school, this was further interesting read. Having worked in various places, some still hanging onto old-boy, legacy sentiments and some thriving for pure, algorithmic, transparent meritocracy, this was yet an interesting read to compare and contrast the fallout from different paths. I did not mind the cynicism or the repetition or naming names. I like joirnalists' books, enjoyed this one a lot.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 3, 2021
This book is eye opening. I recommend having any high school student parent read it to prepare themselves for the college selection. College choices can be disappointing. There will be students who get in to schools who my not seem to deserve it. Biases exist everywhere.
The author points out some of the challenges universities deal with when they admit students from very wealthy families, accept alumni children, recruit athletes, and compare similar but racially different students. The topics of college counseling and the Rick Springer scandals are covered later in the book.
Daniel Golden attempts to point out how bad it is that rich families can buy their way into elite schools and recommends to abolish legacy admissions. I think he actually made the case to support a few very wealthy families to send their children in order to pay for underprivileged students. Alumni families also tend to donate more more money. He discusses how Brown University created an environment friendly to 'famous' students/families. BTW, the number one school for legacy admission is Notre Dame.
Sport scholarships and recruiting are perhaps are perhaps even a bigger issue. I found the chapter on title 9 and sport admissions quite interesting.
My wife and I both came from humble backgrounds but went to the same top 10 university. We made it in spite of the odds, by having top marks, doing well on the SAT, participating in a number of sports and activities, and making our mark in one way or another. Neither of us took any prep classes for the SAT. We worked hard and raised our children to do well. My oldest son had straight As, a perfect PSAT score and nearly perfect SAT score, top SAT II and AP marks, not to mention an Eagle Scout rank, a martial arts black belt, and other stand out activities. We thought he could easily get into our alum mater by applying early decision. We were wrong. He ended up at a good school with a merit scholarship, finished his freshman year with straight As, but the university didn't meet his expectations. We consulted a relative who is a college counselor. With some good advice, he applied and was accepted to several top schools and transferred to our alum mater. While we didn't make a big donation, we are paying full price. He is now happy.
I wish there was a way that was fair. Schools recruit sport stars and very rich kids. They expect top scholars to apply and be able to weed them out. Some students who haven't had the privileges of top schools, money, and healthy families need to be helped. I can see why schools need wealthy donors and want to have sports prestige. Like rooting for your favorite sports teams, alumni want to have their children attend their alum mater if it is a good fit. If a rich or legacy student doesn't meet the cutoff, they shouldn't get it. I don't think legacy status should give extra points, but the status should still valuable when comparing equal students. Likewise, I think all schools should assist underprivileged students in getting in and graduating, perhaps this is where the wealthy families can help. If one really rich kid can pay for 10-20 underprivileged students, perhaps these deals should be made? Colleges and university should put money in a pool for their staff to use to pay for education at any college. This way students can go to school that is appropriate and fits them and not admit under achieving students or force decisions that don't make sense.
The author points out some of the challenges universities deal with when they admit students from very wealthy families, accept alumni children, recruit athletes, and compare similar but racially different students. The topics of college counseling and the Rick Springer scandals are covered later in the book.
Daniel Golden attempts to point out how bad it is that rich families can buy their way into elite schools and recommends to abolish legacy admissions. I think he actually made the case to support a few very wealthy families to send their children in order to pay for underprivileged students. Alumni families also tend to donate more more money. He discusses how Brown University created an environment friendly to 'famous' students/families. BTW, the number one school for legacy admission is Notre Dame.
Sport scholarships and recruiting are perhaps are perhaps even a bigger issue. I found the chapter on title 9 and sport admissions quite interesting.
My wife and I both came from humble backgrounds but went to the same top 10 university. We made it in spite of the odds, by having top marks, doing well on the SAT, participating in a number of sports and activities, and making our mark in one way or another. Neither of us took any prep classes for the SAT. We worked hard and raised our children to do well. My oldest son had straight As, a perfect PSAT score and nearly perfect SAT score, top SAT II and AP marks, not to mention an Eagle Scout rank, a martial arts black belt, and other stand out activities. We thought he could easily get into our alum mater by applying early decision. We were wrong. He ended up at a good school with a merit scholarship, finished his freshman year with straight As, but the university didn't meet his expectations. We consulted a relative who is a college counselor. With some good advice, he applied and was accepted to several top schools and transferred to our alum mater. While we didn't make a big donation, we are paying full price. He is now happy.
I wish there was a way that was fair. Schools recruit sport stars and very rich kids. They expect top scholars to apply and be able to weed them out. Some students who haven't had the privileges of top schools, money, and healthy families need to be helped. I can see why schools need wealthy donors and want to have sports prestige. Like rooting for your favorite sports teams, alumni want to have their children attend their alum mater if it is a good fit. If a rich or legacy student doesn't meet the cutoff, they shouldn't get it. I don't think legacy status should give extra points, but the status should still valuable when comparing equal students. Likewise, I think all schools should assist underprivileged students in getting in and graduating, perhaps this is where the wealthy families can help. If one really rich kid can pay for 10-20 underprivileged students, perhaps these deals should be made? Colleges and university should put money in a pool for their staff to use to pay for education at any college. This way students can go to school that is appropriate and fits them and not admit under achieving students or force decisions that don't make sense.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 143 reviews