Bob Warring: The farce of Penn's need-blind admissions policy

The University's "need-blind" admissions policy unfairly privileges some applicants above others.

Penn's policy of ignoring a student's need for financial aid in determining whether or not that student will be admitted too often overlooks those that have worked harder to accomplish what they have in favor of those that simply sit back and benefit from the system.

Penn needs to adopt a policy that truly rewards diligence and ability, and one that stops benefiting certain students because of their family's financial circumstances.

Yes, the University needs to stop privileging the rich at the expense of the poor.

Rather than being "need-blind," Penn's Office of Admissions should be acutely aware of financial need -- and reward it. Applicants demonstrating financial need -- and especially those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale demonstrating large amounts of financial need -- generally lack the advantages conferred upon upper and upper-middle class applicants.

Traditional indicators of merit are flawed by the economic inequality of potential students. Wealthier applicants have much better access to private schools, which tend to be more conducive to learning and achievement than the schools attended by poorer kids. If anyone coming from a private school doubts the validity of this statement, ask your parents what possessed them to shell out the money for a private school. If they say they liked the school's mascot better than the local public school's, let me know.

Currently, the Penn Admissions shows a strong bias toward private school applicants. Nearly 40 percent of the Class of 2005 graduated from private schools.

But the complexities of rooting out privilege are not as simple as an easy public school-private school dichotomy. Public schools in affluent areas tend to be better-funded and hence, better in general. A handful of economically underprivileged students living in an otherwise affluent area may be positioned to reap the benefits of an exceptional public school, but, for the most part, poor students -- especially those living in poor areas -- go to poor schools.

These students, unlike their wealthier counterparts, may lack the money to afford the books, tutors and classes that improve standardized test scores. Even something as fundamental as participation in extracurricular activities may be affected by a student's socio-economic circumstances. A part-time job may not allow a student time to participate in sports and other organizations, especially after the strain put on academics is considered.

Certainly, it is a stretch to say that every poor kid working a part-time job is doing so to support his or her family, but can we really dismiss working as "their choice," even if it is only to have a little spending cash or decent clothes because the family isn't in an economic position to provide these things?

Ah, the judgment of the ignorant. Is anything more meaningless?

And let us also not be too self-righteous to appreciate the difficulties faced by the poorest applicants. The United States Census, in all its genius, officially acknowledges that poverty increases stress on an individual. In practical terms, this means that these students face things like eviction and homelessness, loss of utilities and hunger.

They are also more likely to face environments that are dangerous, including home and school. Academics as a primary focus is certainly not a privilege shared by all.

Yet, the Office of Admissions seems to be unaware of these difficulties. Or they simply don't care.

Using statistics from an Admissions propaganda brochure on the family income of aided students in the Class of 2005 ("Paying for a Penn Education"), I found that, when scaled to national statistics on family income presented by the Census for the year 2000 (the year for which freshmen students would have presented their parents' W-2's), poor and even middle-class students are severely underrepresented in the Class of 2005.

Less than six percent are from the lowest quintile of family income and about 11 percent are from the lowest two fifths. Less than 18 percent are from families that earn at the sixtieth percentile or lower.

My calculations operate on the assumption that all students from the middle, lower-middle and lower classes apply for financial aid. Certainly, this cannot be entirely accurate, but I would bet that it's pretty close.

By ignoring the unequal playing field and looking only at the "score" (SAT scores, class rank and the like), Admissions both commits a social injustice and undermines the intellectual integrity of the student body.

The social injustice seems clear; if you don't already understand it, I doubt my explaining it to you will really make any difference.

But Penn's "need-blind" policy also saps the intellectual vitality of the University by weeding out applicants who have demonstrated talent and dedication by compiling "good-but-not-Penn" credentials despite the difficulties associated with being financially underprivileged.

This is why the Admissions Office needs to reevaluate its policy of ignoring family income in determining admissibility.

Most of us are proud to go to this "elite" university.

But just what kind of elitism are we practicing here? Bob Warring is a senior History and English major from Hanover, PA.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.