College admissions in crisis: a chat with author Nicole LaPorte

Count me in as one of the people who found the "Varsity Blues" college-admissions scandal both horrifying -- and bizarrely comical -- when it first hit the news two years ago.

This, of course, was the racket in which rich parents colluded with sports coaches and admissions counselors to get their kids into fancy schools by pretending that these teens were gifted rowers, tennis players and the like. No, they weren't! It was a hare-brained scheme that was destined to fail.

But this chicanery worked for a few years. It kept other, more deserving students from getting into the likes of USC, Yale and Stanford. And it left everyone with a very troubling worry that America's higher education system -- supposedly the best in the world -- was actually a rigged game.

Now Fast Company staffer Nicole LaPorte has written a book about the entire mess, called "Guilty Admissions." (It pairs well with an earlier book on the same scandal, "Unacceptable," by Wall Street Journal staffers Melissa Korn and Jennifer Levitt.) LaPorte digs deep into the corrosive, win-at-all-costs culture that's gripped many affluent communities. She does a great job of spotlighting the reasons why the supposedly "best families" lost their way in an ethical minefield.

I connected recently with LaPorte about her book and the bigger issues it explores. Here's a condensed highlights of our conversation.

George: Your book opens with New York Times columnist Frank Bruni visiting one of Los Angeles's top prep schools and telling parents that their children can thrive without going to an elite college or university. The parents really aren't buying that! Why?

Nicole: For so long, college admissions has been treated like a game. It's been winnable for people who can hire tutors, who can check all the boxes that a top candidate is supposed to have, and who can afford tuition at elite prep schools. A parent in my book says: "I don't want to hear that Washington University is great. For us, it's Harvard, Harvard, Harvard."

The culture tells us that Frank is wrong. That comes through in the bumper stickers that people put on their cars. When schools like Stanford are admitting only 4% of applicants, it creates this velvet-rope effect. If it's so hard to get in, people say: "That's what I want! I want to get past the bouncer."

George: There's been a big move in the past two years, even at elite colleges, to reduce the reliance on entrance exams like the SAT and ACT in screening candidates. Does this move to test-optional take us closer to something more equitable? Or does it still leave problems?

Nicole: It feels like a good thing. So much data says that kids with all the resources test better on these exams. These tests really are something you can prepare for. I really like the idea of holistic admissions, where you look at the whole person

George: What's hard to me is that if we examine other parts of the application, everything's still coachable. You can hire people to write a better admissions essay than a teen would write on their own. Prosperous school districts have more extra curriculars, where students can shine. I worry that no matter what we rely on, the system will tilt toward people with wealthier backgrounds.

Nicole: What the country's been through the past year is helping things. Diversity is now becoming a real priority. UC-Berkeley and UCLA are seeing the biggest number of first-generation and minority applicants that they've ever seen. Still, the whole college model is based on a certain number of kids who pay full freight -- and who help fund everything. It's a precarious balancing act.

George: A lot of the bribery scenarios in the book involve passing off high-school students as being worthy additions to sailing teams, crew teams, tennis teams and the like. Is there something broken about the way that minor sports teams -- and their recruiting -- fits into college these days?

Nicole: I'd argue that these should be club sports. The business of sports is part of the problem. Instead of having sports be so central to universities, maybe they should be recreational only.

George: Certainly Canada has less emphasis on college competitive athletics. So does the UK. The result is they have more affordable schools and they avoid some of these ethical conflicts.

Nicole: Do you think, culturally, that can work here? We put sports on such a pedestal.

George: I'm thinking that your book is about networking gone berserk, at least in a college admissions context. But when we think about how college graduates get jobs, isn't there something loosely comparable? It helps if you've got friends, or alumni, or relatives who can make introductions. Why is that okay? Or should it be okay?

Nicole: Networking and protecting our own is part of our culture. But what make it such a hot button issue in education is because education is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy.

George: I'm wondering if part of the legacy of the Varsity Blues scandal -- plus the national rethinking of our whole way of life after the killing of George Floyd -- is that our educational system becomes more committed to providing a social elevator for people who might not have had opportunities otherwise.

Nicole: I do think that's a broader issue going on. Diversity at the admissions level has become a real priority. When I talk to families with high school seniors, they're seeing it in terms of who gets in. Remember that you've also got a lot of incoming college students who deferred the start of college last year, because of COVID.

The result is that it's even harder for the white privileged kid from the private school to get in. The parents I've talked to in the past few months are just tearing their hair out.

George: I guess they'll get to put Frank Bruni's idea to the test. It's time to see if they can send their kids to Cal State schools, or to the University of Oregon and see them still have a good life. And the answer is, "a lot of them will."

Nicole: Right. Right. Cool.