Is this an ethical problem? Does the rule stipulate that an alum should only write for a friend? If it doesn't, this is probably a particularly good MBA prospect. And even if it does, is this attempt to obtain a letter an ethical violation? Or does the burden rest exclusively on the alum? And would the outcome be different for law applicants as opposed to MBA applicants?

I think it's unethical on both sides. To solicit an endorsement from a stranger with the assumption that the stranger will gladly sell the endorsement for a drink is unethical to me. I suppose one can analogize to getting a letter from a representative or senator to gain entrance to for example, a military academy, but surely the official requires at least an interview, not a $5 gift. I would also think that an alum would be unethical to endorse a stranger's application to his alma mater without so much as an interview or a meeting. I suppose one could say that the applicant is entreprenuerial to realize that the endorsement has a value somewhere between zero (to the alum) and $40 (to the applicant), but I think this crosses the line. I would feel the same about the situation regardless of the academic discipline; I thought it was especially ironic because of our public lamenting of the decline of business ethics.

This applicant is rationally exploiting a loophole in Marquette's process; he should be awarded the free-marketeer medal, which surely is made out of some non-precious metal (to avoid wasting resources on such frivolities).

Perhaps most importantly, he is doing Marquette Business School a favor, not a disservice -- because he is illustrating a flaw in its admissions process. He is an agent of market correction, one of the loftiest roles any of us can play. Huzzah, rationally self-interested amoral applicant!

Some would say that the idea of charging people just because they have no friends that are insiders is a bit unethical.

I'm curious as to why Marquette would have such an exception.

Larry, (hope you're having a good semester!), I think the rationale is to get alumni more involved in the process by seeking out good talent and endorsing applicants. Then, alumni act as scouts of sorts. Application fee waivers for us are "free" in the sense that we merely lose opportunity cost. If the application that is generated in this way would not have been sent without the waiver, then our opportunity cost is zero. I understand that at some schools, the law school must pay the central administration a fee for every application received with a fee waiver.

Apparently, a fair number of people think it is _not_ unethical for a law professor to refuse to write an honest recommendation letter on behalf of a law student who wants to transfer to a rival school. Then, why is it unethical for an alum to write a much less important letter on behalf of a perfect stranger?

If we think it’s ok to undermine a career of a young person for the sole purpose of enhancing the prestige of our jobs, why is it not ok to help deprive a school of $40 for the sole purpose of getting a free drink?