LETTER: Why is one college entrance tactic fair and the other not?

Leroy M. Keeney
York City
FILE - In this April 3, 2019 file photo, actress Lori Loughlin, front, and husband, clothing designer Mossimo Giannulli, left, depart federal court in Boston after facing charges in a nationwide college admissions bribery scandal. Loughlin and her husband Giannulli said in court documents Monday, April 15, 2019, that they are pleading not guilty to charges that they took part in a sweeping college admissions bribery scam. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)

Many colleges are considering the use of “adversity scores” as a means of selecting students. This process would grant entrance to “under-served” student groups who could not gain entrance otherwise. 

Recently, we have read of a similar situation happening where parents paid a fee to get their children into a college. The difference was that money was used to gain entrance in one situation as opposed to “rigging” the test scores as is happening in the other.

Both ways result in the possibly of under-qualified students gaining college entrance. What makes one method fair and the other subject to fines and possibly jail time?

More:Should the SAT be optional? Bribery scandal renews debate