Debate has sparked on campus over the last couple of weeks over SU’s rising admission rate. This year, the school had a record number of applicants — and admitted 60% of them. The Daily Orange published an editorial questioning this rate, to which Chancellor Cantor, the deans of the individual colleges, and professors and students alike responded. Much of the debate focused on whether increasing diversity meant decreasing selectivity.
The admissions process is certainly complex, and there is no black-and-white answer as to which side is right and which side is wrong. But the university does have some explaining to do. In the early 2000s, the admission rate was at 80 percent. In the middle of the decade it dropped to around 50 percent, and now has risen again.
First of all, anyone who has ever been inside Ernie Davis Dining Hall between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m. on a weekday can see why an increased admission rate is a problem. Admitting more than half of over 25,000 applicants makes no sense based on overcrowding alone. Students are already living in converted dorm lounges, and then practically have to pounce on people getting up from tables to have a place to sit and eat dinner. The campus physically has no room to expand, which makes a pretty strong case for keeping the campus population steady at the least, if not decreasing it.
University officials argued that increasing geographic and economic diversity makes for richer educations and a more vibrant campus community. This is absolutely true. This also does not explain the rising admission rate. I have no problem with the university accepting more students from the Southwest or the West Coast. But why does accepting more kids from geographically diverse areas or with diverse economic backgrounds mean the admissions rate has to increase? Accept the most qualified applicants from all across the country, and reject kids that are less qualified, regardless of their race, nationality, geographic location or shoe size.
When prospective students look through colleges or eduational publications rank schools, they look at the admissions rate. When I applied to schools, it was one of the first things I looked at, because it was one of the easiest ways to compare schools. Admissions rates do not tell the whole story of a school’s value, of course, but 60 is a high number and may turn off prospective students and professors who are looking to learn and teach at a prestigious, selective school. Harvard and Yale do not have 60 percent admissions rates. SU is not and never will be Harvard or Yale and doesn’t need to be, but the fact is that selective schools are prestigious and kids who graduate from them have a leg up when applying for jobs.
I am all for increasing diversity at this school. I have learned more from interacting with students whose backgrounds and upbringings are different from mine than I have in any classroom on this campus. But SU students are paying close to 50 grand a year because we also want jobs when we graduate, we want to be taught by top professors who want to teach the best and the brightest, and we want to have classmates who challenge and stimulate us. If a higher admissions rate is going to give us that, university officials need to prove it, and quickly.