[Mick]

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

I think at least a partial goal of admissions is with an eye to future donations, both from legacies and from the students themselves.  Back when I was really concerned about this stuff and spoke to over a dozen directors and associate directors of admissions and over 100 parents of students admitted to Stanford and the Ivies, I came to the conclusion that, assuming a GPA and test scores consistent with other admittees, there were really only two magic bullets that came close to assuring admission:

1)  If someone on campus really needed you and advocated for your admission.  A coach, a professor, even an administrator.  I won't name the selective school, but one coach essentially told me that he hated all the administration in his job, and if he could find a student to cover it, he would give them the last scholarship. Probably points to the current scandal.

2) A student who created a legitimate business, and I don't mean babysitting or mowing lawns, but a legitimate business; e.g., a for-pay web site, a services organization that delivered meals or some other entrepreneurial effort.  My suspicion is that they foresee someone who will be financially successful and will ultimately donate to the University.

[Mick]

I would be very surprised if a single admissions officer would describe their goal that way. My lay suspicion is that it's actually the opposite - they want to admit a class of students who will not only contribute to the university, but also make the most of it for themselves. Otherwise, why would any college be need-blind in its admissions?

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12...-decision/

I think at least a partial goal of admissions is with an eye to future donations, both from legacies and from the students themselves.  Back when I was really concerned about this stuff and spoke to over a dozen directors and associate directors of admissions and over 100 parents of students admitted to Stanford and the Ivies, I came to the conclusion that, assuming a GPA and test scores consistent with other admittees, there were really only two magic bullets that came close to assuring admission:

1)  If someone on campus really needed you and advocated for your admission.  A coach, a professor, even an administrator.  I won't name the selective school, but one coach essentially told me that he hated all the administration in his job, and if he could find a student to cover it, he would give them the last scholarship. Probably points to the current scandal.

2) A student who created a legitimate business, and I don't mean babysitting or mowing lawns, but a legitimate business; e.g., a for-pay web site, a services organization that delivered meals or some other entrepreneurial effort.  My suspicion is that they foresee someone who will be financially successful and will ultimately donate to the University.