Should Oxford lower its admission standards for
the sons and daughters of generous benefactors?
Introduction: ---------------------------------------------------
Today, I wish to speak of an institution. One that boasts a rich lineage and centuries of tradition. One
that is eulogized all around the world for its great academic standards and devotion to quality,
merit-based education. Yes, you are correct, this institution that I am describing is none other than the
distinguished University of Oxford, a name that resonates all around the world as an aspiration for many
and a dream for ALL.
For long centuries, Oxford has stood as a place where merit, not money, opens the gates to
opportunities like no other. But today, this very ideal faces a quiet but pressing dilemma, because as the
financial pressures increase across the higher education sector, Oxford considers lowering its admission
standards for children of generous benefactors.
At first glance, this might seem like quite a pragmatic compromise, because if you think about it, it
offers much-needed funding that can be used in so many different ways to improve facilities or provide
research funding or even finance scholarships, in exchange for but a few privileged placements. So,
essentially, it seems like a very small cost to pay for institutional sustainability.
However, this essay argues quite the contrary: that such a policy would do more harm than good
because, from an economic standpoint, it forces us to consider trade-offs, opportunity costs, misaligned
incentives, and the potential for systemic inefficiencies. More importantly, it undermines the very
foundation of allocative efficiency on which merit-based institutions, such as Oxford, have historically
thrived.
After all, if education is to remain a public good, who pays the real price when standards are
compromised? Can prestige coexist with privilege without compromising principle? And in the end,
when access is auctioned off to the wealthy, what becomes of the merit?
I. University as a Public Good and the Problem of Funding ---------
Education, particularly at world-leading institutions, creates many positive externalities. This can be
seen as an Oxford graduate contributes not only to their private earnings (core concept of human capital
theory) but to wider society via innovations, leadership, and knowledge dissemination. Yet, despite these
societal gains, in today’s world, higher education remains underfunded, owing to its quasi-public good
nature: non-rivalrous in its external benefits, but excludable in access.
From this perspective, one might argue that accepting the children of donors who fund critical
infrastructure or research can help internalise the externality by injecting capital into a
resource-constrained institution and by doing so, in the short run, Oxford gains from increased
donations, which can be reallocated to scholarships, facilities, and faculty, potentially increasing social
welfare. This resembles a form of a Coasean bargain: the donor receives a place for their child, and
Oxford receives funds that benefit the wider academic ecosystem.
Yet, this rationale assumes Pareto efficiency and ignores the opportunity costs because by admitting a
less qualified applicant over a more capable but less wealthy one, Oxford forgoes future returns in the
form of lost innovation and human capital. According to Gary Becker’s human capital model, this
misallocation results in underinvestment in talent, decreasing the marginal productivity of future
alumni.
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1is a graph comparing the net present value (NPV) of societal returns per admitted student by
academic quartile and visualises a trade-off: wealth-induced misallocation shifts Oxford from a globally
optimal admissions strategy to a second-best equilibrium.
II. Allocative Inefficiency and Opportunity Costs ------------------
Allocative efficiency is a phenomenon that is achieved when resources (e.g., university placements) are
allocated to those who can derive the highest marginal benefits. At Oxford, the key constraint is its
limited capacity. If admissions are influenced by donor wealth rather than academic merit (a proxy for
future societal output), resources are misallocated.
For example, consider two students: Student A (top 1% academically) and Student B (average ability but a
ridiculously wealthy family). If Oxford admits Student B, the marginal social return from Student A is
lost. Over time, this reduces total factor productivity: The output (graduate impact) relative to the input
(teaching and infrastructure).
This can also be analysed through dynamic game theory. As more institutions start to adopt
donor-influenced admissions, a signalling game develops where low-ability but wealthy students crowd
out talented peers. The resulting moral hazard and adverse selection deter high-effort investments by
qualified applicants, creating a market failure in education.
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2is a simplified payoff matrix that illustrates strategic choices between a university and a
donor. If both prioritize merit and unconditional philanthropy, the outcome is stable and reputationally
strong. However, if either side shifts toward donor-linked admissions, short-term gains are offset by
long-term trust erosion, leading to suboptimal Nash equilibria where institutional credibility is
compromised.
III. Negative Externalities and Reputational Capital ---------------
Oxford’s reputation is a form of intangible capital that generates long-term demand and trust. A fair and
meritocratic admissions process strengthens its signalling function (Spence, 1973), increasing the
perceived quality of its graduates.
If Oxford becomes associated with “admissions for sale,” this function deteriorates. Degrees can lose
credibility, alumni networks can weaken, and global rankings may fall. This is a form of negative
externality, where the private benefit to a donor-funded admission imposes social costs on peers,
employers, and society.
Peer effects, well-documented in education economics, further illustrate this harm. High-achieving
students elevate classroom standards. Admitting underqualified students reduces average peer quality,
leading to lower engagement, diluted discourse, and ultimately, reduced academic performance.
This can be represented graphically using a peer effect curve, showing the decline in average academic
outcomes as the percentage of donor-admitted students increases.
IV. Income Inequality and the Equity-Efficiency Trade-off ---------
Proponents often argue that donor-linked admissions can have a redistributive effect, funding
scholarships and grants for underprivileged students (a Pareto improvement). However, this rests on
some flawed assumptions.
Admitting a donor’s child at the expense of a high-achieving, low-income applicant undermines
intergenerational mobility, which is a central justification for public investment in higher education.
According to Rawlsian theory, institutions should be structured to benefit the least advantaged.
This policy entrenches intergenerational inequality. Thomas Piketty’s findings on wealth accumulation
show how capital tends to reproduce itself. When capital also determines access to elite institutions, we
enter a hereditary meritocracy, where opportunity is inherited, not earned.
U.S. data illustrates this well: at Ivy League institutions, legacy applicants are admitted at 4–5 times the
average rate despite weaker academic credentials. If Oxford mirrors this trend, it risks reinforcing
economic stratification under the guise of philanthropy.
V. Incentives and Moral Hazard ----------------------------------
Donor-based admissions distort incentives for both students and universities. For students, it
communicates that financial capital can substitute for human capital. This can demoralise high-effort
applicants, and it might encourage strategic underinvestment in skill development.
For the university, reliance on donations tied to admissions introduces a moral hazard: Oxford may
prioritise short-term liquidity over a longer-term academic integrity. Over time, this could escalate into
a “soft corruption” model, where institutional norms shift quietly but dangerously and the appearance
of meritocracy masks a fundamentally skewed application process.
An incentive-compatible admissions system where merit is preserved and donations are untied from
access would avoid these risks while still welcoming philanthropy. A principal-agent diagram could help
illustrate how tying donor intent (principal) too closely to admission outcomes (agent) misaligns goals.
VI. Addressing the Strongest Counterarguments ------------------
Some argue that, in the face of a constrained fiscal climate, donor-linked admissions are a necessary
compromise. Indeed, donor contributions have funded Oxford libraries (Bodleian Libraries),
Nobel-winning research, and enabled thousands of scholarships. But this rationale fails on three key
grounds:
a) Alternative Funding Models and Mechanisms;
i) Oxford can expand and diversify its revenue through endowments, spin-offs,
international tuition, public-private research partnerships, etc, all without relying on
admission-linked donations and without compromising any standards.
b) Transparency and Signalling;
i) Even if the university admits one student under such a policy, even one opaque
admission decision introduces information asymmetry (Akerlof’s “market for lemons”,
1970), diminishing the trust in the value of an Oxford degree.
c) Sustainability and Brand Value;
i) Immediate capital inflow must be weighed against the depreciation of reputational
capital (damage to brand value, alumni trust, and academic culture), which, once lost, is
very difficult to recover. This reputational harm could, in turn, reduce future
applications, donations, and research partnerships, akin to a depreciating asset.
Cases like Jared Kushner’s Harvard admission (following a $2.5M donation) and the U.S. “Varsity Blues”
scandal exemplify how wealth-based access corrodes institutional credibility. Oxford should heed these
warnings.
Conclusion: ----------------------------------------------------
From an economic perspective, lowering Oxford’s admission standards for children of wealthy
benefactors is a paradigmatic case of short-term private gain versus long-term social cost. While such
policies may provide immediate capital, they incur hidden costs through allocative inefficiency, moral
hazard, peer effects, and reputational damage.
Higher education is not a standard commodity. It is a vehicle for human capital formation, social
mobility, and positive externalities. Oxford must act not merely as a market actor but as a steward of
societal capital. Merit-based admissions are not just ethical, they are economically optimal.
To commodify access is to commodify trust. And in an economy increasingly based on knowledge and
networks, trust is the most valuable currency of all.
Bibliography: ---------------------------------------------------
1) Akerlof, George A. "The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 84, no. 3, 1970,pp. 488–500.
2) Arrow, Kenneth J. "Higher Education as a Filter."Journal of Public Economics, vol. 2, no. 3, 1973,
pp. 193–216.
3) Becker, Gary S.Human Capital: A Theoretical and EmpiricalAnalysis. University of Chicago Press,
1964.
4) Bowen, William G., and Derek Bok.The Shape of theRiver: Long-Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions.Princeton UP, 1998.
5) Britton, Jack, et al.How English-domiciled GraduateEarnings Vary with Gender, Institution
Attended, Subject, and Socio-economic Background. Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2016.
6) Carrell, Scott E., et al. "Does Your Cohort Matter? Measuring Peer Effects in College
Achievement."Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 27,no. 3, 2009, pp. 439–464.
7) Chetty, Raj, et al.Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility. National
Bureau of Economic Research, 2017.
8) Coase, Ronald H. "The Problem of Social Cost."Journalof Law and Economics, vol. 3, 1960, pp.
1–44.
9) Dale, Stacy, and Alan B. Krueger. "Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 117, no. 4, 2002,pp. 1491–1527.
10) Deming, David, et al. "The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or Agile
Predators?"Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 26, no. 1, 2012, pp. 139–164.
11) Dynarski, Susan.Loans, Liquidity, and Schooling Decisions.NBER Working Paper No. 10245, 2005.
12) Epple, Dennis, et al. "Admission, Tuition, and Financial Aid Policies in the Market for Higher
Education."Econometrica, vol. 74, no. 4, 2006, pp.885–928.
13) Espenshade, Thomas J., and Alexandria Walton Radford.No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal.
Princeton UP, 2009.
14) Figlio, David, et al. "The Effects of Poor Neonatal Health on Children’s Cognitive Development."
American Economic Review, vol. 105, no. 1, 2015, pp.392–397.
15) Friedman, Milton. "The Role of Government in Education." InEconomics and the Public Interest,
edited by Robert A. Solo, Rutgers UP, 1955, pp. 123–144.
16) Galbraith, John Kenneth.The Culture of Contentment.Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
17) Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F. Katz.The Race BetweenEducation and Technology. Harvard UP,
2008.
18) Hoxby, Caroline M. "Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race Variation."
NBER Working Paper No. 7867, 2000.
19) Hoxby, Caroline M., and Christopher Avery.The Missing"One-Offs": The Hidden Supply of
High-Achieving, Low-Income Students. Brookings Paperson Economic Activity, 2013.
20) Kane, Thomas J. "Rising Public College Tuition and College Entry: How Well Do Public Subsidies
Promote Access to College?" NBER Working Paper No. 5164, 1998.
21) Krueger, Alan B. "Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing." InInequality in America, edited by
Benjamin M. Friedman, MIT Press, 2003.
22) Labaree, David F. "Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle over Educational Goals."
American Educational Research Journal, vol. 34, no.1, 1997, pp. 39–81.
23) Lovenheim, Michael F., and C. Lockwood Reynolds. "The Effect of Housing Wealth on College
Choice: Evidence from the Housing Boom."Journal ofHuman Resources, vol. 48, no. 1, 2013, pp.
1–35.
24) Mankiw, N. Gregory.Principles of Economics. 9th ed.,Cengage Learning, 2020.
25) Manski, Charles F. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem."Review
of Economic Studies, vol. 60, no. 3, 1993, pp. 531–542.
26) Mincer, Jacob.Schooling, Experience, and Earnings.Columbia UP, 1974.
27) Murphy, Kevin M., and Finis Welch. "Empirical Age-Earnings Profiles."Journal of Labor
Economics, vol. 8, no. 2, 1990, pp. 202–229.
28) OECD.Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators.OECD Publishing, 2020.
29) Piketty, Thomas.Capital in the Twenty-First Century.Translated by Arthur Goldhammer,
Harvard UP, 2014.
30) Rawls, John.A Theory of Justice. Harvard UP, 1971.
31) Sacerdote, Bruce. "Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 116, no. 2, 2001,pp. 681–704.
32) Sandel, Michael.The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2020.
33) Spence, Michael. "Job Market Signaling."QuarterlyJournal of Economics, vol. 87, no. 3, 1973, pp.
355–374.
34) Stiglitz, Joseph E. "The Theory of ‘Screening,’ Education, and the Distribution of Income."
American Economic Review, vol. 65, no. 3, 1975, pp.283–300.
35) "Why Elite Universities Should Worry About Inequality."The Economist, 2018.
36) "Jared Kushner Got Into Harvard After His Father Donated $2.5m."The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2016.
37) "Global University Rankings and the Role of Donations."Times Higher Education, 2023.
38) Universities UK (UUK).Higher Education in Numbers.UUK, 2019.
39) Weisbrod, Burton A. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption Goods."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 78, no. 3, 1964,pp. 471–477.
40) Wolf, Alison.Does Education Matter? Myths About Educationand Economic Growth. Penguin, 2002.
41) World Bank.The Changing Nature of Work. World BankGroup, 2019.
42) Zimdars, Anna, et al. "Fairness and Access to Higher Education in the UK."British Journal of
Sociology of Education, vol. 30, no. 5, 2009, pp.635–649.
43) Zimmer, Ron W., and John Engberg.Can CharterSchools Impact Educational Outcomes?RAND
Corporation, 2003.
