The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

Or model of ethical admissions?

AS THE vice president for development, it is my job to ensure that the University works with its alumni and friends to secure private support that will sustain the University and its students, faculty and programs into the future. An important part of the development office's mission is to nurture the relationships between the University and its major benefactors. These relationships include responding to the requests of major benefactors for information about the University's business, such as the budget, academic programs and the admissions process.

I do want to clarify a potential misunderstanding implied by the word "track." Some may believe that the Development Office has access to the pool of applicants and that all applicants' families are researched to produce a group of prospective donors that are "tracked." The office has neither the inclination, nor the access to the applicant pool, to engage in such a process. Rather, we feel it is vitally important for the University to be responsive to the admissions interests of our most loyal benefactors and volunteers. The leadership and philanthropy of these individuals has helped to define the quality of the University today. In addition, key alumni and friends routinely contact development officers to recommend applicants or to request information about the status of particular students' applications.

Frankly, while I was disturbed that The Cavalier Daily reprinted memos that could be hurtful to students and their parents (provided to the paper by an individual who obtained them without permission from the originating office), I was not upset by their content. From my experience, it is not at all unusual for development officers at this or any other premier institution to acknowledge and follow the admissions process as it relates to alumni, benefactors, friends and governing boards. It is important that we be responsive to our friends as part of building strong and mutually beneficial relationships with the University.

Just as development officers are paid to be advocates for their volunteers and donors, so too are admissions officers paid to admit the most academically talented students. How an institution reconciles these competing interests determines the ethical and moral ground it holds.

The centralized system set up more than 20 years ago in the president's office provides a critical buffer or "fire wall" between the development officer and the admissions officer. Alumni, donors, benefactors and other friends want assurances and influence. Through the excellent (and often thankless) work of Gordon Burris, we give them only assessment and courtesy. Does their candidate have a chance? What other options exist if their candidate is not admitted? More often than not, the role that Mr. Burris plays is that of counselor, friend and sounding board.

Our process assures that special admissions interests will get attention. It is also a process that lets our closest institutional friends know the news, more often bad than good, about the decision affecting their candidate. We notify our important friends through a phone call or a personal visit as opposed to an impersonal form letter. The personal nature of our contact often makes a critical difference in how bad news is received.

The statistics back up our integrity. Those who are followed through our system are no more likely to get in than those that are not. In fact, of the 92 names forwarded from Development to the President's Office last year, only 20 were admitted; this is a 22 percent admission rate, as compared to 34 percent for the overall pool. Because of our competitive nature, many more alumni and friends are disappointed than pleased. At the end of the day, admissions are a net loss, not a net gain to the development process. The role of Gordon Burris is to help the University minimize those disappointments by the personal engagement and involvement of some of the University's most important constituencies.

Sometimes the facts get in the way of a good story. This is one of those cases. The tracking process surrounding our admissions program has served us well and with integrity. I have staked my reputation on the fact that it is a good model for highly selective institutions like the University of Virginia that routinely face pressure based on the limited capacity and great demand.

(Robert D. Sweeney is the University's vice president for development.)

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt