This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

U. Whore


Richard Vedder:


The fact that persons get a tax break for gifts that actually serve a private goal (getting a child into Elite U) raises some questions, but that is part of a broader issue of whether we should even allow tax deductions for gifts to [the] country club-like elite havens that are today's top private universities, gifts that widen the divide between the rich and merely moderately affluent public flagship universities. Why should we subsidize colleges who have as a major institutional principle the DENIAL of admission of many generally bright and worthy students?

What does especially irritate me ... is the hypocrisy of universities regarding this issue. Many schools claim that admission is determined strictly on the basis of merit, except of course, if you have a favored (non-white) skin complexion, or if you have some special talent (e.g., shooting a ball through a hoop). I would be less irritated by "development admits" if schools admit that they engage in some whoring, particularly if the customer will pay top dollar.

...For the right price, even the best of schools will become academic hookers. That is fine, but I question whether the taxpayers should be subsidizing academic prostitution.



I think Vedder's right that the highly sought after universities who sell admission to the children of extremely wealthy people should make this policy public. (Those universities which, like Brown, will ease up on the demand for money if the family's degree of celebrity is extremely high should also make this generally known.) Beyond the matter of hypocrisy, which Vedder notes, there's a clear financial advantage to universities willing to do this. The more extremely wealthy people, from all over the world, who know about the extreme wealth policy, the more competition among this cohort there will be, and the higher the bids they will make against one another.