College Admissions Analysis

MBA 6315 - Group F

The recent scandals on college admissions will be the focus of this paper as we look at a

possible solution to circumvent the practice of bribing admissions employees and/or coaches. It

is socially acceptable that in order to get into an academic institution, one has to demonstrate

evidence of prior academic performance. This is determined through standardized tests such as

the SATs, grade point average (GPA), and admission essays. In order to improve their child’s

chances many parents will shell out money for private schools, tutoring, prep courses to help

with tests, and other learning classes that are considered ethical. Other parents have hired others

to take tests or paid admission employees to gain access to academic institutions. While these

practices are considered unethical they are not necessarily illegal. Other areas of focus may also

include extracurricular activities (bribing coaches), ability to pay for admission, and

contributions to society (volunteering).

         While other options may exist to try and remedy the situation of bribing admission

employees and/or coaches we will focus on one issue and either accept or reject the option. This
option is allowing parents to make a lump sum payment that allows ten additional students to

attend the academic institution that they would not normally be able to attend due to lack of

funds. Does trying to justify this violation of a social norm by putting a monetary price tag on it

along with a greater benefit (ten students) make this an ethical solution? Who thinks this is an

ethical decision? Are the displaced students OK with this new admission process or do they

consider it unethical? How will the public's view change of academic institutions that use this

new admissions policy? 

 In order to conduct an ethical analysis of the issue, the Weight of Reason Framework

will be utilized.  Please refer to Exhibit A for a visual representation of Stakeholder structure and

Exhibit B for Stakeholder Power analysis.

Step 1: Identify the issue

 
It is socially acceptable that to get into the university, one must demonstrate evidence of prior

academic performance.  This is determined through standardized tests such as the SATs in

addition to grade point average (GPA), extracurricular activities, etc.  Allowing the student that

does not meet the criteria undermines this social norm and makes this practice unethical.  Trying

to justify this violation of this social norm by putting a monetary price tag on it, is also

unethical. 

Traditionally, to get accepted to the university, in addition to being acceptable from academic

standpoint, one also should have the ability to fund their education.  By allowing the 10 students

who do not meet the financial criteria to entry, students who would otherwise meet the financial

and academic criteria will be displaced. 

Admissions office that is entertaining the idea of admitting a single student whose parents will

then pay for an additional 10 students.  This will violate the admissions code of ethics as well as

societal and public trust in the admissions process.

What is the ethical ratio between academic suitability and financial suitability?  Are massive

financial resources enough to be admitted or is previous stellar academic performance alone

sufficient to be admitted?

Step 2: Gather information

         Operations of secondary education institutions are costly.  They are funded from multiple

sources that include donations, tax-incentives, commercialization of research and mainly through

student fees.  Inability of certain academically qualified prospective students to afford school

fees might create a temptation for admissions officer(s) to find a way to help students to get in. 

This can be accomplished through an acceptable way of helping them find a scholarship.  In the

current example, the admissions office is considering sponsorship of 10 students by 1 student

resulting in denying access to 10 others who would have otherwise attended, despite their less

than stellar academic performance.  This is advantageous for the wealthy student who got

accepted and the 10 other students whose education will be paid for by the wealthy individual. 

High financial barriers to entry created this ethical distortion among admission officials.  This is

a systemic issue.  In addition, this action destroys public trust in fair admission practices. 

         For the university balance sheet, this will be zero net profit/loss action, as they will

collect the same amount of tuition fees.  From the university academic prestige standpoint, this

action may result in significant benefit as more academically talented students are recruited. 

However, this may be detrimental to their reputation as it can be labeled as an unethical/unfair

admissions process.
         From the standpoint of the wealthy parents of the single student, this creates significant

benefit as they will fulfill their parental duties by placing their child into the university.  The

parents of the 10 would be accepted students will enjoy significant financial benefit as they

would not participate in cost sharing of tuition fees.  Additionally, these 10 students will enjoy

the absence of debt burden.  The displaced students would suffer the loss of educational

opportunity and potential loss of future earnings from the lack of education, however they would

enjoy the benefit of not having to pay tuition fees.  Moreover, having less than stellar academic

history, they would not be exposed to the risks of losing tuition fees if they fail the course, in

addition to bringing down their GPA.

Step 3. Identify the option for action

         1. Review of proposal by the ethics committee of the university.

         2. Survey of current students and university staff to determine their attitudes towards the

proposal.

         3. Benchmarking.  Review of admissions practices of other establishments to see if

similar proposals were implemented.

         4. Ethical review of admission practices by outside ethics committee/board.

Step 3. Assessing the consequences

         This action will create significant benefits to the 11 students as well as the university, as

discussed above in step 2.  It will also deprive 10 students of attaining higher education. 

Additionally, it may be detrimental to the university as fair practice admission process will be

affected.  If this unorthodox admission scheme will gain attention from state regulators it may

result in university losing its accreditation.  Another unintended sequalae is potential legal action
against the university by the group of 10 displaced students, resulting in negative financial and

social outcomes.

Potential united consequences for the unadmitted students could result in alternative allocation of

their tuition fees, such as successful investments resulting in better financial outcomes than

acquiring an education.  Moreover, they can be admitted to competing colleges and therefore

they may not suffer any consequences other than not being admitted to this university.  In

addition, those who receive a free ride may not value the education process as they have not

made their own financial contribution.  This may change their attitude towards academics and

negatively affect them as well as the university. 

Step 5: Applying principles

         Beneficence: actions should aim to benefit both the individuals and society.  This

admission suggestion may not benefit society as it is disruptive to socially acceptable norms.

         Non-maleficence: This action causes significant harm to the 10 displaced students

therefore this principle is violated.

         Justice: This principle is grossly violated as students do not have equal rights for

admission as different criteria of admissions are applied.

         Integrity and honesty: This admission practice, though honest, does not have high

integrity. 

         Law abiding: It is not clear if this practice is compliant with university by-laws and state

regulations

Step 6: Taking a course of action

         Based on the analysis and the identified violations of ethical principles, we would

recommend placing this proposal on hold.  Further actions can be undertaken as outlined in step
3.  Depending on the outcomes of these actions, further implementation can be reconsidered or

abandoned.   Short term solutions are immediate halt of the action and potential suspension of

the admission officer handling this case.

Step 7: from short term to long term solution

         Given the complexity of the issue as well as great variability in the intended and

unintended consequences, a careful plan of action should be crafted.  As outlined in step 3,

several potential solutions can range from internal to external ethical reviews.  However, the

final long-term solution will require input from all the stakeholders.

Step 8: Learning from experience

Proposed current admission tactic led to extensive analysis of potential outcomes.  As outlined

above, there are significant benefits to this solution, however, there are also significant

downsides.  This proposal certainly violates core ethical principles.  Prior to implementing an

operational decision into life, one should utilize the rational framework to assess potential impact

that this decision will have, not only on business operations, but also on stakeholders, ethical

norms, legal norms, and societal implications. 

 
Exhibit A
 The graphic below shows several stakeholder views.  The inner ring includes the primary

stakeholders: admissions team, the ten students, other students, coaches, parent/student.  The

outer ring shows secondary stakeholders: other colleges, fraternities & sororities, businesses and

loan issuers.

Exhibit B 
 Stakeholder power differs depending on the level of power and level of interest among

stakeholders.  At the low end of both power and interest are secondary stakeholders.  [ like… 

The key players include (I feel that we do not need to relist the stakeholders here as you have

them listed on the right,   ]

 References
            https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/us/college-admissions-scandal-parents-convicted/
index.html
Marcus, A., Hargrave, T. Chapter Two: Thinking Fast and Slow: Ethical Intuitions and
Reasoning.  Retrieved from: https://canvas.umn.edu/courses/272896/external_tools/12142
            Josephson, M. (2015). 12 Ethical Principles for Business Executives. Retrieved from:
https://www.standardizations.org/bulletin/?p=133
Step 1 – Identify the Issue
Step 2 – Get the Facts
Step 3 – Identifying the options for action

Step 4 – Assessing the consequences

Step 5 – Apply the principles

 Subd. 2. Guiding Principles.

In all of its activities, the University strives to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an
environment that:
 embodies the values of academic freedom, responsibility, integrity, and cooperation;
 provides an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from racism, sexism, and other forms of
prejudice
and intolerance;
 assists individuals, institutions, and communities in responding to a continuously
changing
world;
 is conscious of and responsive to the needs of the many communities it is committed to
serving;
 creates and supports partnerships within the University, with other educational systems
and
institutions, and with communities to achieve common goals; and
 inspires, sets high expectations for, and empowers the individuals within its community.

https://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/2019-09/policy_mission_statement.pdf

Step 6 – Taking a course of action

Step 7 – From short-term fix to long term solution
 
Step 8 – learning from experience