Daniel Golden, Author of “The Price of Admission”

> NOW WE TURN TO THE U.S.

COLLEGE ADMISSION BRIBERY SCANDA THAT SHOCKED BUT HASN'T SURPRISED MANY IN AMERICA.

SURPRISED MANY IN AMERICA.

THAT'S SOMETHING OUR NEXT GUEST THAT'S SOMETHING OUR NEXT GUEST DANIEL GOLDEN HAS DEVOTED MUCH OF HIS CAREER TO UNCOVERING.

HE'S THE AUTHOR OF 'PRICE OF ADMISSION' AND EVEN WON A PULITZER PRIZE FOR HIS WORK ON THE TOPIC BACK IN 2004.

SO HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST 15 YEARS?

DANIEL TOLD OUR MICHEL MARTIN THAT ITS ONLY GOTTEN WORSE.

IT'S PART OF OUR ONGOING INITIATIVE ABOUT POVERTY, JOBS AND ECONOMICS IN AMERICA CALLED 'CHASING THE DREAM.'

DANIEL GOLDEN, THANKS SO MUCH FOR TALKING TO US.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

YOU GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION IN 2006 FOR A BOOK YOU WROTE AND YOUR INITIAL REPORTING ABOUT HOW THE SUPER WEALTHY CAN ENHANCE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR KIDS TO GO TO ELITE COLLEGES.

SO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITUATION THEN AND WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT NOW?

WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE CASE THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT NOW?

THAT BOOK GREW OUT OF A SERIES THAT I WROTE FOR 'THE WALL STREET JOURNAL' IN 2003 AT A TIME WHEN TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR MINORITIES WAS UNDER ATTACK IN A SUPREME COURT CASE.

AND I DID A SERIES POINTING OUT THAT THE PREFERENCES FOR WEALTHY WHITES, WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL WHITE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, ARE FAR MORE PERVASIVE AND HELP A LARGER NUMBER OF STUDENTS.

AND ULTIMATELY THE SUPREME COURT PRESERVED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY A 5-4 VOTE AND I EXPANDED MY SERIES INTO THE BOOK 'THE PRICE OF ADMISSION,' THAT AS YOU SAY, CAME OUT IN 2006.

NOW -- AND I -- MY BOOK DOCUMENTED MANY, MANY INSTANCES WHERE WEALTHY PEOPLE GAVE LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE TIME THEIR -- THEIR MARGINALLY QUALIFIED CHILDREN WERE APPLYING, AND THOSE STUDENTS GOT IN.

NOW, WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE ENSUING DOZEN OR SO YEARS IS THAT THE SITUATION HAS, IN ANYTHING, GOTTEN WORSE.

FOR ONE THING, BECAUSE OF INCREASING INCOME INEQUALITY, WE HAVE AN AWFUL LOT MORE VERY RICH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET THEIR KIDS INTO ELITE COLLEGES.

AT THE SAME TIME, THESE COLLEGES HAVE BECOME EVEN HARDER TO GET INTO, EVEN MORE SELECTIVE THAN THEY WERE BEFORE.

WHY IS THAT?

I'D SAY THEY'VE BEFORE EVER MORE SELECTIVE MAINLY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T INCREASED THEIR STUDENT BODIES.

YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS CONTINUES, YOU KNOW, CONTINUES TO GROW AS THE POPULATION GETS BIGGER.

AND EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT SEEMS TO APPLY TO MORE COLLEGES THAN EVER BEFORE BUT THE COLLEGES ARE NOT KEEPING PACE IN THE SIZE OF THEIR STUDENT BODIES.

THAT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LOOK EXTREMELY SELECTIVE.

THEY WANT TO LOOK DESIRABLE.

YOU KNOW, HARVARD, IT ADDS TO THE -- HARVARD'S MYSTIQUE THAT IT ADMITS LESS THAN 5% OF ITS APPLICANTS.

ANOTHER CHANGE THAT'S HAPPENED SINCE I WROTE MY BOOK IS THAT IN GENERAL THE PERCENTAGE OF ALUMNI WHO DONATE TO COLLEGES HAS GONE DOWN.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, FEWER ALUMNI BY PERCENTAGE TERMS ARE SMALL DONORS, GIVING $50 OR $100 A YEAR.

THAT MAKES THE COLLEGE MORE RELIANT THAN EVER ON BIG DONORS, YOU KNOW, WHOSE GIFTS ARE OF THE SIZE THAT WOULD BE INFLUENTIAL IN OBTAINING A QUID PRO QUO.

IN OTHER WORDS, IN GETTING THEIR CHILDREN INTO THE SCHOOL.

SO TALK A LITTLE BIT IF YOU WOULD ABOUT ONE OF THE PIECES OF YOUR REPORTING THAT GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED DOING IT WAS ABOUT JARED KUSHNER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW.

CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS THAT HIS PARENTS DID TO, IN YOUR VIEW, SMOOTH HIS PATH INTO HARVARD?

THAT'S RIGHT.

I LOOKED AT JARED KUSHNER FOR MY BOOK AS PART OF A STUDY I DID OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF A COMMITTEE AT HARVARD CALLED THE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY RESOURCES, WHICH IS A COMMITTEE ESSENTIALLY OF HARVARD'S BIG DONORS.

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY OF THEIR KIDS WENT TO HARVARD BECAUSE IF A LOT OF THEM DID, IT WOULD SHOW A PREFERENCE FOR MONEY OR WEALTH.

I NOTICED THAT THE KUSHNERS WERE ON THAT COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS SURPRISING BECAUSE JARED'S PARENTS WERE NOT HARVARD ALUMNI.

I LOOKED INTO THEIR SONS, BOTH OF WHOM HAD GONE TO HARVARD, AND JARED IN PARTICULAR, AND WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT AROUND THE TIME HE WAS APPLYING TO HARVARD, HIS FATHER HAD PLEDGED A $2.5 MILLION DONATION TO THE UNIVERSITY.

AND I ALSO FOUND THAT JARED WAS NOT A PARTICULARLY OUTSTANDING STUDENT AND THE CLASSMATES AND STAFF AT HIS HIGH SCHOOL WERE UNIVERSAL IN AGREEING THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN INTO HARVARD ON MERIT.

YOU STARTED LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE PLACING EMPHASIS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION I ASSUME FOR FACE -- FOR REASONS OF, YOU KNOW, RACE AND ETHNICITY --

RIGHT.

AND POVERTY, RIGHT?

YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS NOW WHITE CONSERVATIVES JOINED BY THE OCCASIONAL BLACK CONSERVATIVE, LIKE CONNERLY, HAVE BEEN RAISING A HUGE STINK ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

AND I DID WANT TO ASK YOU HOW THIS CONVERSATION NOW INTERPLAYS INTO THIS.

WE SEE NOW THAT THIS CASE THAT HARVARD IS NOW DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST CHARGES THAT IT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, YOU KNOW, ASIAN AMERICANS.

THE FOCUS, AS IN PRIOR CASES AROUND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, LIKE THE FISHER CASE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, IS DIRECTED AT BLACK AND LATINO KIDS WHO WERE DEEMED NOT TO --

RIGHT.

-- BE WORTHY OR FIT TO BE AT THESE INSTITUTIONS.

I MEAN, HOW DOES THIS EMERGENCE OF THIS SCANDAL PLAY INTO THIS ARGUMENT IN YOUR VIEW OR HOW DOES IT CONNECT TO THAT?

WELL, THIS SCANDAL REINFORCES THE POINT I MADE IN MY BOOK.

COLLEGE ADMISSIONS IS NOT A SYSTEM WHERE EVERYONE GETS IN BASED ON MERIT.

IT'S A CRAZY SYSTEM OF NUMEROUS PREFERENCES, MOST OF WHICH FAVOR WHITE AND WEALTHY PEOPLE.

THERE IS LEGACY PREFERENCE FOR ALUMNI CHILDREN.

THERE IS DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCE LIKE JARED KUSHNER GOT FOR CHILDREN OF NONALUMNI WHO WERE WEALTHY AND PREPARED TO DONATE.

THERE IS ATHLETIC PREFERENCE, WHICH WOULD HELP SOME MINORITIES IN SPORTS LIKE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL, BUT THAT'S OUTWEIGHED BY THE NICHE UPPER CRUST SPORTS FOR RICH WHITE KIDS.

THERE IS OTHER PREFERENCE AS WELL.

SO THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE SKEWS TOWARD WHITE WEALTHY APPLICANTS.

AND ELIMINATING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MIGHT WELL JUST INCREASE THAT DEPENDING ON HOW THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS DETERMINED TO REPLACE IT.

THE OTHER THING I'D SAY IS, I DO HAVE A LOT OF EMPATHY FOR THESE KIDS WHO DON'T QUALIFY FOR ANY OF THE PREFERENCES, EITHER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OR THE PANOPLY OF REFERENCES FOR THE WEALTHY.

MAYBE 50% OR 60% OF STUDENTS IN AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL OR OTHER TYPE OF ELITE UNIVERSITY HAVE ONE PREFERENCE OR ANOTHER.

THE REST ARE STRUGGLING UPHILL, AND THAT INCLUDES ASIAN AMERICANS WHO ARE NOT ADMITTED IN THE PROPORTIONS THAT THEIR TEST SCORES AND THEIR GRADES WOULD SUGGEST.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE HARVARD LAWSUIT IS OSTENSIBLY ABOUT.

AS I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THAT CASE, IT HAS THE RIGHT VICTIM.

ASIAN AMERICANS ARE VICTIMIZED.

BUT THE WRONG VILLAIN.

BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT THE REASON THAT THESE ASIAN AMERICANS ARE NOT GETTING INTO THE ELITE COLLEGES AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD IS BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

YOU KNOW, YOU COULD MORE JUSTIFIABLY SAY THEY'RE NOT GETTING IN BECAUSE OF ALL THE SPACES FOR LEGACIES AND DEVELOPMENT ADMITS AND ALL THE OTHER WEALTHY WHITE KIDS.

AND -- BUT NONETHELESS THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT ASIAN AMERICANS ARE KIND OF THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF THE WAY JEWS WERE TWEETED IN THE ERA OF QUOTAS.

MANY MORE JEWS DESERVED TO GET INTO THE ELITE SCHOOLS BUT THEY WERE LIMITED BY QUOTAS.

THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS QUITE PERSUASIVE THERE ARE INFORMAL QUOTAS KEEPING DOWN THE NUMBER OF ASIAN AMERICANS STUDENTS.

WHEN PEOPLE FIRST LEARNED OF WE'VE BEEN HEARING A LOT OF OUTRAGE FROM STUDENTS, PARTICULARLY FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO TALK ABOUT HOW HARD IT WAS FOR THEM AND, YOU KNOW, HOW HARD THEY HAD TO WORK AND HOW THEY REALIZED THEY WERE KIND OF PLAYING CATCH-UP, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE PARENTS WHO HAD GONE TO COLLEGE BEFORE.

I WONDER IF AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM THESE DONORS.

HAS ANYBODY SAID, LOOK, YOU KNOW WHAT, THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE SELF-FUND, WE'RE SUPPORTING THE INSTITUTION.

WE'RE CREATING OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE IT.

OH, YEAH, THAT'S THE TRADITIONAL DEFENSE OF THESE PREFERENCES, THAT THE MONEY THEY GIVE SOME OF IT GOES TO FUND FINANCIAL AID FOR NEEDY STUDENTS.

AND I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF FINANCIAL AID, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT COLLEGES SHOULD PROSTITUTE THEIR ADMISSIONS PROCESS IN ORDER TO RAISE THAT MONEY.

LOOK, THESE ARE GREAT INSTITUTIONS, THE ELITE COLLEGES.

THEY DO CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH.

THEY HAVE WONDERFUL PROGRAMS IN THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES AND PEOPLE WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE, JUST LIKE THEY CONTRIBUTE TO OTHER EXCELLENT CHARITIES.

THERE HAVE -- THERE ARE COLLEGES THAT HAVE RAISED PLENTY OF MONEY WITHOUT SACRIFICING ADMISSIONS QUALITY.

CAL TECH COMES TO MIND.

I DID A CHAPTER ABOUT THEM IN MY BOOK.

THERE IS ALSO VARIOUS COLLEGES WHERE LEGACY PREFERENCES HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED.

USUALLY IN STATES WHERE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS BANNED BY REFERENDUM OR COURT RULING, YOU KNOW, THOSE COLLEGES FIND IT DIFFICULT POLITICALLY TO DEFEND HAVING LEGACY PREFERENCE, WHICH BASICALLY HELPS RICH WHITE KIDS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR MINORITIES.

IN THOSE COLLEGES, THEY'VE SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE FUND-RAISING JUST FINE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU TALKED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING.

YOU SAID THIS PROBLEM IS ACTUALLY GETTING WORSE.

PART OF THE REASON YOU SAID IT'S GETTING WORSE IS BECAUSE INCOME INEQUALITY HAS INCREASED SO DRAMATICALLY AND SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE SO MUCH MONEY, AT LEAST THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT ACCESS TO THESE MARQUEE SCHOOLS.

SO WHAT IS THE -- WHAT'S THE -- WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT?

FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THEIR KIDS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

I MEAN, THESE ARE KIDS FROM FAMILIES THAT ARE WEALTHY ENOUGH SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL BE SECURE FOR LIFE NO MATTER WHERE THEY GO TO COLLEGE.

I THINK IT IS ABOUT THE BRAND.

IT'S ABOUT FEELING LIKE AN INSIDER, ABOUT BEING PART OF AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB.

I MEAN, THERE IS STILL A WAY IN THIS COUNTRY IN WHICH THE IVY LEAGUES REPRESENT HAVING MADE IT, YOU KNOW?

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT, MOST OF THE MEMBERS WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AT A BRAND NAME UNIVERSITY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE U.S. SENATE, A LOT OF SENATORS COME FROM ELITE UNIVERSITIES.

THERE IS A SENSE IN WHICH THE HALLS OF POWER -- THE CORE OF AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT IS SOMEHOW IN THESE SCHOOLS.

EVEN IF THEY AREN'T ANY BETTER EDUCATIONALLY THAN A LOT OF OTHERS, AND EVEN IF THEY DON'T LEAD TO GREATER INCOME THAN A LOT OF OTHERS.

SO I THINK THAT'S THE INCENTIVE.

IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU DO ABOUT IT, THERE'S KIND OF TWO CATEGORIES OF WHAT YOU DO, RIGHT?

ONE WOULD BE THE TWEAKS IN SCANDAL AND ONE WOULD BE DEEPER FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES.

THE TWEAKS WOULD INCLUDE, AS I MENTIONED, CLOSER SCRUTINY OF ATHLETIC RECRUITS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COACHES ARE ON THE UP AND UP AND PUTTING FORWARD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO PLAY ON THOSE TEAMS IN COLLEGE.

ANOTHER -- ANOTHER TWEAK WOULD BE CRACKING DOWN ON THESE INDEPENDENT COUNSELORS BY LICENSING THEM OR REGULATING THEM, RATHER THAN LETTING THEM JUST BE A ROGUE FORCE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF THE WEALTHY.

THOSE KINDS OF CHANGES MIGHT HAPPEN.

THE DEEPER CHANGES THAT COULD REALLY REFORM THE SYSTEM WOULD BE THINGS LIKE ELIMINATING LEGACY PREFERENCE, LIMITING ATHLETIC PREFERENCE TO SPORTS THAT MOST KIDS ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO PLAY.

THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND I -- BUT I DOUBT THERE'LL BE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE BECAUSE WEALTHY FAMILIES AND CELEBRITY FAMILIES HAVE A LOT OF CLOUT IN OUR SOCIETY, AND THIS CURRENT SYSTEM BENEFITS THEM AND THEY BENEFIT FROM IT ACROSS PARTY LINES.

SO, YOU KNOW, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BENEFIT FROM THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

THEY WANT TO GET THEIR KIDS INTO ELITE SCHOOLS, AND SO WHAT I CALLED IN MY BOOK 'THE LEGACY ESTABLISHMENT' IS A POWERFUL FORCE AGAINST MEANINGFUL CHANGE.

WE SHOULD DISCLOSE YOU AND I BOTH WENT TO HARVARD.

I JUST WONDER IF YOU HAVE KIDS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN GOING TO THESE SCHOOLS, THEY WOULD THEN BE LEGACIES, SO WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT?

DO YOU JUST SAY YOU CAN'T?

ME PERSONALLY, MY SON DID NOT GO TO HARVARD.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE -- I HAVE STEP-GRANDCHILDREN.

THEY'RE TOO YOUNG TO BE MAKING THESE DECISIONS YET, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EXPECT PARENTS TO VOLUNTARILY SACRIFICE THE PREFERENCE THAT THE SYSTEM OFFERS, SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WENT TO AN IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL.

IF THEIR KID IS A TOP STUDENT AND WANTS TO GO TO THE SCHOOL THAT THE PARENT WENT, I DON'T SAY, OH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE USING LEGACY PREFERENCE.

LEGACY PREFERENCE IS PART OF THE SYSTEM.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM NOT TO TRY TO MAKE A BIG DONATION.

NOT THAT I HAVE MANY FRIENDS WHO CAN AFFORD A BIG DONATION, BUT, YOU KNOW, LEGACY PREFERENCE IS PART OF THE SYSTEM, AND IF A STUDENT IS YEARNING TO GO WHERE THEIR PARENTS WENT AND IT'S THE BEST FIT FOR THEM, YOU KNOW, SO BE IT.

I WENT ENCOURAGE THEM IF THEIR CHILD IS NOT ACADEMICALLY ABLE OR STRONG ENOUGH TO BE THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THAT SCHOOL.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO FIND THE SCHOOL THAT'S THE BEST FIT.

IT MIGHT BE THE PARENTS' SCHOOL THAT'S THE BEST FIT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT WELL BE SOME OTHER SCHOOL.

DANIEL GOLDEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

THAT WAS A DETAILED LOOK AT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX AREAS OF AMERICAN LIFE.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

THANKS FOR WATCHING 'AMANPOUR & COMPANY' ON PBS AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.