Mark Eiger is a 1985 graduate with a bachelor’s degree in accountancy.
When I was a student, I worked directly with now retired dean of admissions Kathryn Napper to design two programs: the Student Admissions Representatives program and the Alumni Admissions Program. I realize that for the current student population, I might as well be a member of a dinosaur species. However, I couldn’t let the most recent bad publicity about my alma mater go without comment.
I am not at all surprised by the recent revelation that GW misrepresented its need-blind admissions policy. This past summer, I visited GW with my daughter, a senior in high school, and I witnessed the GW propaganda machine firsthand.
When I visited GW for the first time in 1981, we were ushered into the lobby of the Marvin Center. So I was surprised when, upon my visit recently, I was escorted into a modern visitor’s center, a sports stadium celebrity box by comparison.
We were treated to a multi-media display of opportunities that GW offers, mostly consisting of famous people who have either visited or taught at GW. Of the 10 or so tour guides in the room, not one was from New York, New Jersey or Long Island, three geographic areas from which GW draws a significant percentage of its undergraduate population.
While the artificial diversity and name-dropping amused me, the thing I found galling was the absence of Thurston Hall on the tour route. Oh, we saw it, as we rounded 20th Street and headed west on F Street (“…this is where University President Steven Knapp lives, and on Thursdays we have pancakes with the Provost…”).
I was shocked, expecting that the Office of Admissions would allow students to tour Thurston since it is such a significant place to the majority of prospective freshman. What does GW have to hide?
As a student in the 1980s, I was proud of my university, anxious to share its qualities and entice prospective students to come. However, I liked to think we were honest and objective. Was my GW experience perfect? Far from it. By giving a realistic account of my experience, students I met on campus, at college fairs and on the phone had a better opportunity to make sure GW was a good fit. As such, they were better students once they matriculated.
I am disappointed that this seems to be no longer the case, but am not surprised. Though many parents want children to continue their legacy, I’m glad my daughter chose not to apply to GW.
