USC must formalize its special interest tagging process

The echoes of the college admissions scandal continue to rock USC, and a new development has arisen with the trial of Robert Zangrillo. It was well revealed that Zangrillo, along with making a $200,000 payment to Rick Singer, the main defendant in the Varsity Blues case, made a payment of $50,000 to a USC official’s account. 

On Sept. 3, Bloomberg reported that Zangrillo’s defense attorneys believe they’ve uncovered evidence of a “university-wide program linking big donations and promises of future gifts with decisions on who gets in.” Zangrillo and his lawyers alleged that USC used a “special interest” tag to single out students who the University knew would bring in large donations. 

While USC has denied that this process has any impact on admission, it begs the greater question of the lack of formal processes surrounding special interest tagging and tracking of these candidates throughout the admission process.

Zangrillo and his defense attorneys have made some startling claims. The same Bloomberg article reports that the attorneys “cited a list of ‘special interest’ candidates from 2012 to 2015 that includes notations of donations for many, such as ‘$3 mil to Men’s Golf-Thailand,’ ‘$15 mil’ and ‘previously donated $25K to Heritage Hall.’” The article continues, noting 80% of students with this tag were admitted to the University. 

Such allegations have serious ramifications for the University if proven true. USC claims on its admissions page that it conducts “a comprehensive, holistic review of your application to consider academic and personal characteristics.” 

However, if students could get in just because of a large dollar amount by their last name, it would be hard to claim that this accurately describes the admission process. In addition, this association of students with a specific dollar amount seems to place the University’s interest in donations rather than in accepting the most qualified candidates regardless of finances.

With USC hotly contesting the claims and the court date for Zangrillo’s bribery case still on the horizon, it’s important to understand the University’s counterargument. While USC does not dispute its use of the “special interest” tag, undergraduate Dean of Admission Timothy Brunold said that the majority of candidates with this tag are not accepted. However, the University’s analytics seem to counter that, as they don’t track the number of special interest applicants accepted to USC. 

While the University has said that Zangrillo’s lawyers have “demanded reams of far-flung and ultimately irrelevant records,” the information Zangrillo has recovered is highly relevant. And while it may not pertain directly to his daughter’s case, it raises bigger questions for the University at large.

The most concerning part of this special interest tagging is its lack of oversight and its informality. 

USC attorneys have said that the process “isn’t formalized,” leading to questions about the validity of the process. Assuming the University’s claims are correct, and especially if Zangrillo’s lawyers’ claims are, USC has been ignoring this tagging’s effect on students’ admission. In addition, if 80% of these candidates are admitted, it should be something that the University is fully aware of. The use of the system as a way to correlate students with possible donations appears highly irresponsible and an abuse of the system. USC already has this process set up, and it should become more formalized if it truly has a measurable impact on admission statistics.

Instead of using this special interest tag to single out large donations, the University should use it to flag candidates who might otherwise have been overlooked in the application process. USC prides itself on its holistic admission process. This “special interest” distinction benefits affluent candidates who already have an edge in the admissions process due to access to better education and test prep. 

The University should use this distinction to give an edge to those who may not have the same advantages but who show promise in creative fields like art and film that cannot be assessed by test scores. Giving disadvantaged applicants a deserved leg up in the admission process will help increase diversity in future classes and ensure that USC’s holistic admission process stays intact.