Brandeis might consider appending its admissions policy label of "need-blind" to "sort of need-blind." As Dean of Admissions Gil Villanueva told The New York Times last week, the University already accepted 10 percent more international students and expects to increase the number of students accepted through the wait list and transfer applications this year. According to current admissions policy, the University accepts students without prior knowledge of their financial needs and then meets whatever financial needs the accepted students may have. But this is only true for students who reside in the United States who are accepted through early and regular decision admission processes. It doesn't hold true for international students and students that are initially wait-listed.

By increasing the number of students who enter the University through the non-need-blind methods, the University is toying with the very policies that allow it to maintain the "need-blind" label in order to bring in additional tuition money.

I don't question whether this is acceptable action by any legal standards or even the University's own official policies. Fudging with the current policy doesn't officially violate anything at all.

The question here regards the ethics behind the redistribution of spots in future classes so that those who can afford to pay fuller tuitions have increasingly higher chances of acceptance at this university. And any ethical issue is only exacerbated by the continued use of the term "need-blind."

When, in a New York Times article about how some colleges are creatively circumventing the requirements of their "need-blind" statuses, our University's dean of admissions is cited as saying that the University will be accepting more international students, it's quite clear to me that this is not being done to simply increase campus diversity. It's for the tuition money.

And when in that same context, we read that the University anticipates accepting more transfer and wait-listed students, an even more problematic situation materializes. The University has already accepted its regular and early admission students. While the number of spots available to transfer students likely depends on the retention rate of the current first-year class, the only issue that should affect how many students get off the wait list is the number of already accepted students that ultimately decide to matriculate here, not the tuition money that the University will potentially receive.

When universities admit students, they have a fairly decent idea of how many students will end up deciding to enroll. Of course, this isn't an exact science. But the anticipation of accepting more wait-listed students implies (in a rather straightforward fashion) that the percentage of initially wait-listed students in the incoming class will be higher than in past years. This means that the University at least tried to skew the numbers in such away that would allow it to accept more students off the wait list-thus permitting the University to quietly toss aside its need-blind policy to a greater extent than in past years.

This apparent manipulation of the system undermines the concept of a need-blind admissions process. If the University is setting aside more slots per class for wait-listed students, then it is intentionally increasing the pool of students for whom wealth may be prioritized over merit.

The wait list should be used as a "Plan B" to ensure that the University fills each class to the intended capacity. It's deceptive and unprincipled to use the wait list to deliberately create an entirely separate category of applicants for whom a need-blind policy need not apply.

In a February interview with the Boston Globe, President Jehuda Reinharz referred to our need-blind admission policy as a "cardinal principle" of this University. He said, "Many of our peers play tricks. They say, 'We are need-aware.' Well, need-aware means you peek, and you see can this kid pay or not pay? We don't peek."

Unfortunately, it's now apparent that this University is peeking more and more purposefully. The Department of Undergraduate Admissions may be using the wait list as a cover, but the true meaning of its action is nonetheless unacceptable.

Maintaining a "need-blind" status is a point of pride for any university, especially during difficult economic times. If this university cannot afford to carry on with such a practice, then the "need-blind" label should be removed-not manipulated.