Over the past 5 years, college admissions have undergone significant changes. It’s no longer the idealized version many people envision, with smart students having a Rory Gilmore-type situation where they choose between Harvard and Yale. And it’s definitely not like Troy Bolton, our jock musical singer from High School Musical conveniently going to Berkeley just 47.3 miles from his love interest at Stanford. Then there’s Miley Stewart, also known as Hannah Montana, who didn’t initially get into Stanford but managed to appeal through a live TV broadcast. It is these portrayals in media that often skew our young-minded perception of college admissions. I mean, did these characters all secretly work on a non-profit the summer going into their senior year too?
I think it is easy for us all to reminisce on these glory days, especially in the realm of TV and movies. We are now in an era that has reshaped college admissions and the criteria and expectations traditionally linked to being a “top” student. A perfect 4.0 GPA, leadership in clubs, and a flawless SAT score no longer guarantee the same level of success that the media has depicted over the past decade. I think most of society is still stuck in an era where every TV show and movie character got to cherry-pick the Ivy League of their choice because they were hard-working and smart. The reason why characters are consistently shown attending Ivy League schools is simply because it’s an easy way to show that they are smart, capable, accomplished, and goal-oriented – all tied to the prestige of an Ivy League name. Thus, a character’s worth is often defined by the school they attended, based solely on its reputation.
But it wasn’t until society’s favorite YouTuber and socialite, Olivia Jade, taught us that there is another way into college: money, and saying you row. This is just the crux of such an issue. At every private school across America, you have students neatly planted within the graduating class who miraculously do the impossible in college admissions, leaving one truly plausible answer that is the epicenter of every question in college admissions: money. These select few are envied by the rest of their grade, while also equally frustrated by this loophole in admissions. Meanwhile, everyone else is putting in the blood, sweat, and tears, only to see others who are placed on a pedestal end up at the school where their father paid for a new research building.
Let’s remember the hit 2007 show Gossip Girl, where the affluent young adults of the Upper East Side attending New York’s best private school effortlessly secured spots at elite colleges through their family connections. While fictitious, this portrayal often strikes a chord with reality, shaping viewers’ perspectives on college admissions. For example, our cult-favorite party girl Serena Vanderwoodsen faced the choice between Yale and Brown, while Nate Archibald, the son of a father indicted for embezzlement envisioned himself attending USC, but ultimately settled for Columbia University.
I can’t help but feel somewhat unsettled by the way wealthy eastsiders are characterized in television shows like Gossip Girl. They seem to defy the rules, make mistakes, and still end up with prestigious degrees because of who they are. This begs the question: is this the type of student prestigious schools want to represent them? Are they admitted based solely on their wealth and no other factors? The reality is that media demonstrations have a significant impact on us as viewers. They influence how we perceive colleges and can lead us to attach certain labels to them, which can ultimately be harmful to society. This can create preset expectations that make it feel nearly impossible to succeed in today’s current admissions cycle.
The long-standing alliance between donors and college admissions has recently faced heightened scrutiny in the wake of the “Varsity Blues” documentary, which exposed a college admissions scandal involving individuals such as Lori Laughlin and Felicity Huffman. These individuals were found to have falsified test scores and used fraudulent means to secure admission for their children into prestigious institutions. USC, in particular, has faced significant attention regarding its admissions process. In 2022, it was revealed that 1,740, or 14.4% of USC’s accepted students had some form of donor or legacy connection. Despite elite colleges emphasizing a “work hard, play hard” mentality, this backdoor admissions system contradicts the meritocratic principles they claim to uphold.
Many are hopeful for changes in college admissions in the coming years. This includes reforming the admissions process, addressing student protests while respecting their 1st amendment rights, and tackling issues within Greek life culture. These long-standing issues have been brought to the forefront, prompting society to question the true values of these institutions and whether we can overcome the powerful influence of money in admissions.
