Two Students, Two Standards
By Greg L | 13 April 2008 | Illegal Aliens, Virginia Politics | 22 Comments

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03674.html has circled back again to discuss the student of illegal alien parents that’s having a hard time getting in-state tuition rates at UVA, this time explaining in more detail why the legal status of the student’s parents impacts the decision about whether to consider the student legally domiciled in Virginia and thus eligible for in-state tuition rates. I have to feel for this student who is a U.S. citizen and a Virginia resident, while at the same time recognizing that this individual is still a dependent, and whatever benefit this student is eligible for largely accrues to his parents. But what about the applicants who aren’t getting into UVA while this student of illegal alien parents who gained admission is trying to get the university to lower his tuition rate?

Juxtaposed in this debate is another Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04052.html which describes how a student — this one without any questions about legal domicile — and who is only one of two National Merit semifinalists from his high school graduating class, was not accepted at UVA because his academic credentials were not competitive enough. With UVA only accepting 3,960 students out of over 20,000 applications, the competition for admission is extremely tough. Despite an SAT score of 2270, absolutely glowing recommendations from his teachers, and strong extra-curricular credentials which include writing novels, this Virginia student doesn’t even get the chance to attend, much less have a debate about what tuition rates should apply to him.

Every time we find a student with illegal alien parents who is clearly worthy of compassionate consideration and decide to provide that student with a break, the reality is that some other student is going to suffer as a result. For every Nelson Lopez we provide with special consideration, there’s a Joe Robinson who isn’t going to find a space in the admissions pool. That’s not to say that one of these students is necessarily more deserving than the other. Perhaps the way this all ended up was the most equitable result we could have hoped for, or maybe this was a complete injustice. The articles don’t tell me enough to feel comfortable with either conclusion.

These articles do however demonstrate that in the current college admissions environment, it’s not useful to talk about all those deserving folks who are worthy of getting a break while ignoring that all those who receive these special favors are effectively taking from some other student, and some other family. Admissions space in our public universities is not indefinitely elastic, making it imperative that the impacts of these decisions be adequately understood. In granting favors to the students of illegal aliens that appear to be contrary to the text of Virginia law, we’re ensuring that an admissions slot for someone else is going to be cut. From a straight policy perspective, it would seem more equitable to require strict compliance with domiciling laws that determine who is eligible for in-state tuition and accept that some rather deserving U.S. Citizens are going to fall victim to the policy, because otherwise a different group of some rather deserving U.S. Citizens will themselves fall victim in a much more arbitrary way.

As long as there’s limited space in Virginia’s public colleges and universities, there will always be the need for some hard decisions. We won’t always be thrilled with the results, but the criteria used to arrive at those results should always be as easy as possible to understand, and thus accept. Otherwise, as the case of these students demonstrates, it’s impossible to determine whether these decisions make any sense at all.
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2008/04/1 ... #more-2262