I wish the focus was not so much on the relatively small numbers of students who are on track to attend Ivy League or similarly "elite" educational institutions. Most of the students who are rejected from Harvard end up attending another selective institution that most students would be more than happy to attend. A bigger problem than the disappointment of a few elite students is the diminishing access the great majority of young people have to any kind of higher education. We have big problems to solve with low achievement among some of our population and the increasing cost of education. The self inflicted problems of over achievement among the elite is relatively easy to solve.
19
How about less reverse discrimination as well? if a child from an affluent family is encouraged to earn his own spending money and learn the value of a dollar, he is questioned for not having put in sufficient community service time. It is felt that he can afford not to work. Even Rockafellar made his kids earn a buck. These flagrant pretend extracurricular bleeding heart activities teach kids to just game the system. It needs to come from the heart--not a means towards admission. Better to learn the meaning of hard work and it be respected at any socioeconomic level.
18
Some portion of the admissions staff positions can be eliminated in a radical simplification of the admissions process, saving money without any noticeable change to the suitability of the student body or the quality of the education provided. The supposed precision of the existing admissions process is simply imaginary. Other than eliminating the clearly unqualified and the likely unsuited, the rest of the kids can be generally categorized and offered admission in the numbers expected to produce the class size and composition desired. Music performance and art portfolios may be required for those seeking admission to such specialized programs. Sports and extra-curricular activities need not be considered at all. The idled admissions staff can be reassigned to provide supportive activities for admitted poor kids and first-generation college attenders, including early orientation and ongoing academic and personal supports.
12
The way how I read all this is that working hard is unfair. This loser and apologist mentality will destroy the US.
16
The more factors considered, the less intellectual diversity colleges will get as they narrow down to specific types of students. Use the essay quality of writing and thought, not the story it tells.
Use test scores and grades. Weigh grades with either a quality factor for the school or standardized test score. Don't count the number of AP courses, do count the scores on AP and IB tests. Leave it at that.
Fewer discriminators will ensure colleges get high performing students while leaving as much opening for intellectual variety as possible.
The more admissions factors schools use, the less intellectual diversity they'll get. Maybe more racial diversity, but there's little value to having a bunch of people of different ethnic backgrounds who think the same way.
We want our brightest solving problems. Solving problems takes thought. Value intellectual diversity by limiting factors that will tend to select similar people.
Use test scores and grades. Weigh grades with either a quality factor for the school or standardized test score. Don't count the number of AP courses, do count the scores on AP and IB tests. Leave it at that.
Fewer discriminators will ensure colleges get high performing students while leaving as much opening for intellectual variety as possible.
The more admissions factors schools use, the less intellectual diversity they'll get. Maybe more racial diversity, but there's little value to having a bunch of people of different ethnic backgrounds who think the same way.
We want our brightest solving problems. Solving problems takes thought. Value intellectual diversity by limiting factors that will tend to select similar people.
9
Education is transformative. The question for colleges is what are they trying to transform students into. I think a reasonable metaphor for this is perhaps a furniture manufacturer that takes lumber and changes it into furniture. Some manufacturers make less expensive furniture out of everything from knotty pine to pressboard. Some make more durable furniture out of hardwoods. Some make designer furniture out of exotic woods. The wood is selected for use based on its qualities, the intended transformation process and final product. In all of these cases, some wood is of the wrong kind for a given transformation process and end product and some wood, even of the right kind, is not mature or strong enough. Furniture manufacturers rely on the forestry industry to supply the kinds of wood that are needed. Should the manufacturers that use knotty pine and make hundreds of perfectly useful pine desks be encouraged to use walnut or judged if they do not? If the forestry industry fails to produce walnut or only supplies immature walnut, surely the quality of furniture from those furniture manufacturers suffers. If manufacturers decide to buy their lumber without examining all they can know of its quality, what does that do to the product? Or if they pretend that poorly grown walnut will make their products somehow better for society, don't we expect the overall quality of the furniture in society to decline? The forestry industry needs fixing, not the manufacturers.
2
Not everyone should expect to or go to college. Many high school students should seriously think about trade schools or informal apprenticeship programs. Too many young people can't find jobs because their high school or college studies did not prepare them for the work force.
Taxpayers should not pay for college education for everyone. College should be for the exceptional students who can get scholarships or be prepared to work to pay for their own education. It's nice to have parents who can afford to send their kids through school, but in my generation this was not expected. Given the state of the economy, free higher education for everyone is totally unrealistic.
Taxpayers should not pay for college education for everyone. College should be for the exceptional students who can get scholarships or be prepared to work to pay for their own education. It's nice to have parents who can afford to send their kids through school, but in my generation this was not expected. Given the state of the economy, free higher education for everyone is totally unrealistic.
7
Let's see how free works for the middle class people in say they're 50's or above in age. They paid for their college education and then their children's college education. Now everyone would like them to pay for the current children's college education. Another great move to destroy the middle class.
7
Even well educated parents often believe that SAT scores are reflection of IQ. That is unfortunate.The high correlation between SAT scores and wealth is clear indication of how the schools rigged the process of admissions against the poor. There are more intelligent kids among poor than among the rich for the simple fact there are more poor families than the rich families. In addition, poor kids learn how to navigate to higher levels from poverty levels. The country cannot afford to waste all that intelligence born in poor families. Hope, the recommendations will be implemented stat.
6
Until one gets rid of the biased RANKING systems of US News and World Report (and others) very few schools are going to make these changes and risk falling in their ranking. The Deans will have some explaining to do their Boards and the wealthy donor alumni. Can the 'ranking businesses' be persuaded to build some of these new criteria in their systems? This would be much harder to do than the simple GPAs and SATs, so I doubt it. Ranking has become an organized business and they are not going to disappear easily. Even a top school like Harvard University is not going to be happy (at least not its alumni and its Boards) to be suddenly ranked #7 rather than #1!
5
Garbage in, garbage out simple as that. It is a fool's errand to think for a minute that easing the end of the pipeline to allow more flow of a "diverse" group of students will make college a better place and the students more successful in the end. We are assuming here that every individual in the pipeline is essentially equal and if, gee, they only had the chance . . . we would achieve economic and social homeostasis. But what these articles never admit, to their collective shame, is how horribly deficient the beginning of the pipeline is. These "disadvantaged" kids at that part of the journey are so far behind, so lacking in every academic indicator, that there is at best marginal hope that they will ever become fully integrated members of the economy and society at large - black, white and green, the problems transcend racial lines. Reducing the weight admissions offices give to legitimately solid indicators like AP courses because disadvantaged kids do not have access to them, is ridiculous and insults "advantaged" kids who work hard and reap the rewards of better preparation for college and life. I learned more in my High School AP courses than most of my real college courses. Why don't we see plans to open the pipeline at the early end, can we demand more from parents, kids, teachers, administrators in these disadvantaged neighborhoods? Why not? Oh that would require a lot of work, like an AP class.
12
Here's the Executive Summary of the "Making Caring Common" report referenced in the Bruni piece. As expected, very thin and destined for zero impact.
http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-mcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_execsumm...
http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-mcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_execsumm...
3
While there is a lot to grumble about college admissions, the real problem is of course that there are many more deserving students then there are spots. As these are academic institutions, the focus should be on academics not on other things (whether they be extracurriculars or charitable endeavors etc). While I understand the impulse to use the carrot of admission to encourage students to "care for others", it seems manipulative and only likely to cause the richer students to be more scrambled for time/stressed and the poorer to be more disadvantaged as they won't have the time/resources to participate. I went to a highly competitive private school and the students there competed heavily to start new charitable organizations or to have leadership roles in existing ones solely because they knew how much it mattered to colleges. These are students who would have volunteered out of true passion anyways but they lost sight of that passion and only saw the merit of volunteering in a manner which a college would interpret most favorably, e.g. have a leadership position or don't bother. Therefore, I think you focus on the true essence of higher education, e.g. education. You use standardized tests because they are the only true objective measure across schools (colleges can weight scores based on factors like economic background, the quality of the test taker's school, etc), you look at APs because they are more rigorous and akin to college, etc.
8
There is something else that needs to be said. Mr. Bruni probably doesn't wish to serve the success ethic—power and position in society at all costs—that is the main cause of the rush to the elite schools, but he is. In my 74 year journey through life, I have met highly educated, top-tier people who don't have a clue about how to achieve a fulfilled life. And I have met people on the lower rungs of the social ladder who can teach us much more about what is real than the upper crust.
We don't need Mr. Bruni's admissions revolution as much as we need a societal revolution. We won't have achieved the America we profess to want until we value the janitor as much as the CEO.
We don't need Mr. Bruni's admissions revolution as much as we need a societal revolution. We won't have achieved the America we profess to want until we value the janitor as much as the CEO.
12
Kudos to this consortium if it proves able to break the stranglehold the College Board has on American higher education. Initially designed to level the admissions playing field, standardized testing and advanced placement courses now, conversely, discriminate: competition, culture bias, and test costs limit eligibility, segregate classes, and constrain course content. This top-down initiative from the most highly selective admissions programs will be necessary for broad educational reform.
3
When only about 60% of students are graduating from 4-year colleges and universities within 6 years, and about 30% of students are graduating from 2-year colleges within 3 years, something is wrong with the way we are doing admissions now, nevermind what is being proposed. This rate of incompletion within 150% of the expected time frame to degree indicates problems with the overall system. 8-year and 4-year graduation rates within 4-year and 2-year colleges, respectively, are not that much higher. We can debate about what kinds of students are best suited for college and whether or not certain pre-college activities should carry weight in the admissions process, but at the end of the day, an alarming percentage of students entering higher education don't end up receiving a degree. Something is wrong with that. Young people are taking on significant financial burdens for a return (i.e., a degree) that many of them never even receive. We need to improve our ability to identify students capable of performing in college, but we also need to figure out how to support admitted students better through the commitment of college. Even well-equipped students run into challenges, and from my vantage point as a professor, I don't think we do enough to work with these students when they hit a roadblock.
5
Much of the blame for the excessive stress endured by college applicants and their families belongs to the serially dumbed-down SAT. When I wrote the test in 1969, there were about 100 points at the top of the scale to distinguish the super-bright from the very bright. Any score over 700 guaranteed that even the pickiest college would at least take a look at you. Today those 100 points are compressed into 40, and an application with perfect scores can land in the ivy league's circular file. High school grade inflation is even worse, thus the mania for extracurricular activities, community service, AP courses, and the like.
http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-indiv...
http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-indiv...
15
Something needs to change, and some of this looks good. The universities better get busy changing their wicked ways, or the Internet will spit out a better model, and we'll be comparing Harvard and Stanford to DEC and Sun in our economics (not AP) history books.
2
I think anyone who sees this as more than an attempt to further obfuscate the factors considered for admission and to strengthen the ability of colleges to set and fit racial quotas is severely misguided. We get caught up in the warm and fuzzy sounding concepts of reduced cutthroat competitiveness and social mobility and forget, through this process, that the main thing you do at a college is take classes and get an education. Everything else; however, important, is ancillary and should be treated as such. It is quite disturbing that it has become a disadvantage to be from a family that values education and makes sure their children get good grades and good test scores. By engaging in folly such as that which is espoused in these new admissions guidelines, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Why would I strive to get an education (full disclosure - I am an MIT graduate of Indian descent) when I know that my children will be discriminated against because of my success. How can I tell my children to study hard when no matter how well they do, a less intelligent, competent and deserving student will take their spot on the grounds of "diversity".
10
Of course higher education should be free - it's investment in the "human resources" of our nation. It also should be managed rationally - I mean made available without cost to those qualified - as it was "in the day" that atozdbf mentioned - CCNY and Hunter were "socialized" weren't they. I too - in the same day - went to college and graduate school - Fordham and Brown- for "free." My sons went to SUNY for basically petty cash.
Capitalism is great for discretionary consumption - for essentials, not so much. Not nearly so much.
Capitalism is great for discretionary consumption - for essentials, not so much. Not nearly so much.
5
The news of colleges considering dropping the SAT/ACT was why I thought the testing companies came after public education. If one market was drying up, legislate a new market. How will high stakes testing affect younger students? Testing starts at Kindergarten and occurs more than once a year.
2
@Eric377: You have touched on a topic dear to my heart: skipping. When I was going to NYC public school in the 1950s, many schools "skipped" students in elementary school, say from second grade to fourth, or from third to fifth. (My school did not.) SP (Special Progress) was ubiquitous in NYC public junior highs (7-9 grade). This meant that you did not have an eighth grade: you went from 7SP to 9SP. You took the SP qualifying exams in sixth grade, and needed (I am told - kids were not privy to this officially, but we all knew it) 8th grade math skills and 9th grade reading skills, as well as an IQ of 140 (slightly flexible). So SP students graduated at age 17, or younger if they had made time by their birthday. A number of SP students had already skipped in elementary school, and thus graduated at 16 or less. It was also possible to make up a year by going to summer school. At that time, many colleges (Harvard, MIT, and Brown among them) had "early admissions" programs, in which they accepted students after their junior year. (I think the term "early admissions" is still in use, but completely differently. It only means notifying a student early that s/he has been accepted.)
Thus, when I entered college from a decent-but-undistinguished neighborhood high school, I was sixteen years old. High school was easy - interesting but not especially challenging - and suddenly I was exposed to a completely new intellectual environment. Best thing that ever happened to me.
Thus, when I entered college from a decent-but-undistinguished neighborhood high school, I was sixteen years old. High school was easy - interesting but not especially challenging - and suddenly I was exposed to a completely new intellectual environment. Best thing that ever happened to me.
5
The owner of a local SAT/ACT prep place was so overbearing and money hungry that we could not stomach paying his company the $1300.00 he was demanding in order to bring my kid's ACT score up by four points. Consequently, our high school senior worked and worked and acquired that 4 point difference all on her own yet she remains slightly below what the top schools want to see in the year 2016. (Nevermind that 10 years ago this would have been an excellent score) Do you think that her individual hard work and effort with respect to this score could at all be recognized?? Not a snow ball's chance in hell! The college process is so disheartening.
8
It's depressing and narrow minded that achievement, because it appears so readily quantifiable, is given more weight (all the weight, perhaps.) than potential. As a society, we don’t want our children to peak in high school. We should not extinguish, through relentless emphasis on grade performance, their enthusiasm, their egos, and their curious nature, all in the narrowly single-minded pursuit of one goal: college acceptance. We want them to peak in life beyond eduction, not in high school, college or even graduate school. The role of institutions of higher learning should be to promote and inspire dynamic engagement of the mind with the goal of improving the world.
It seems to me that while past performance is one metric by which to try and predict future performance it is by no means the only one, nor does it—the way learning is manifest in nearly every high school in the United States—gauge intellectual curiosity, an attribute found in every great scholar, an attribute that cannot be taught but can be extinguished.
It seems to me that while past performance is one metric by which to try and predict future performance it is by no means the only one, nor does it—the way learning is manifest in nearly every high school in the United States—gauge intellectual curiosity, an attribute found in every great scholar, an attribute that cannot be taught but can be extinguished.
4
I challenge any of the commentators who worry about "dumbing down" in the name of diversity, affirmative action or any of the other current right-wing curse words to match my academic credentials: top 600 high school students in the country despite a rural school, modest family income and no tutoring; all-As, undergrad majors and grad school in both humanities and science, three degrees from one of the institutions mentioned in the article with a merit-based free ride throughout (all before affirmative action); academic physician, scholar, teacher, administrator, the usual awards for achievement and altruism, other stuff (including med school admissions committees).
The reason for this arrogance, for which I apologize, is to establish my credibility. I assert that the present admissions practices described in the article are as vacuous and inane as they are destructive. They destroy psyches, demean intellectualism, inhibit both creativity and analytic thought, and nurture drones. Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Michigan, move on!
The reason for this arrogance, for which I apologize, is to establish my credibility. I assert that the present admissions practices described in the article are as vacuous and inane as they are destructive. They destroy psyches, demean intellectualism, inhibit both creativity and analytic thought, and nurture drones. Harvard, Yale, MIT, and Michigan, move on!
8
Economic research has concluded that higher ed is now the largest cause of inequality (as opposed to back in the 50s and 60s when it was the greatest leveler). A while back, I earned $105,000 (the most ever or since, yet an Ivy League college my kid got into provided us with "needs based" tuition grants that brought my out-of-pocket payments BELOW those of the in-state public flagship university! Why? Because my income was consider among the lowest among students accepted! That's how rigged the system is to accepting only the kids of the well-to-do, perpetuating and worsening income and wealth inequality. American college has become just like Japan's -- a reward for work in high school instead of a hotbed of learning and creativity.
8
I am intrigued by the idea that colleges could de-emphasize the need for students to pile on AP classes. I agree with everyone who has commented that AP classes demonstrate intellectual curiosity and tenacity, but when high school students are under pressure to take on as many AP classes as possible, that pressure often doesn't leave them room to pursue other interests or even simply to have time to themselves or with their families. Relieving that pressure could have the effect of improving the overall mental health of students when they enter college. Less pressure leads to less burnout. Less burnout leads to happier and more successful people in the long run.
3
The "rankings game" is what drives the admissions process. Gaming to move up the charts in US News, Kipingers etc...is the goal and our high school kids are the pawns.
2
I don't understand what's wrong with SAT's (or some form of standardized test). If the cost of these tests is a barrier to poor students, then subsidize the tests. That seems like the most fair way to compare students as opposed to some highly subjective and inherently biased system.
3
The barrier is that richer students have parents who can pay for prep services and tutors, which significantly raise scores. The tests are so poorly devised that most students have to be taught how to take them, how to know what is been asked, etc.
3
This column is effectively a call to abandon current standards, but nowhere mentions what should or might replace them. Standards are so darn pesky; they prevent the outcomes we want.
4
At the end of the day, where you went to college is just not that big of a deal. Can't we all just get over it already? Parents should stop putting so much pressure on their fourth graders. Or Kindergarteners! If the elite schools are watered down and the good old boy network no longer works it's magic, then a lot of those institutions will become obsolete (at least to a some extent). That would be a good thing. Colleges shouldn't be so clustered. They aren't in real-life. When the kids from the rich suburbs can't get into their usual schools, the next tier will be lifted up because they will fill those seats. That's not so bad.
5
I don't know what the big deal is in free college. Back in the day, I'm 82, I went to CCNY for my Bachelor's and the total cost was $15/semester for registration plus books. My wife, who is 80, got her BA at Hunter College, also part of the NYC system, for the same. Understandably competition for admission and then remaining in was fierce. Both were and still are highly regarded top shelf institutions.
2
the only courses i enjoyed in high school were the AP ones. sure some of it is vanity and privilege, especially from the parents, but I genuinely enjoyed them.
some of the teachers tried to teach them as if they were college courses trying to give some independence to how to approach problems and stimulate us with real, solid readings. I remember watching The Ascent of Man miniseries in my Calc BC class. It was a life changing moment that got me into philosophy and math. I recall reading Camus and Dostoevsky in AP Lit and being blown away. It is ridiculous to claim that these classes offer no sense of intellectual stimulation. Maybe the problem is that we are putting too many ordinary kids in these classes because parents and schools think it makes them look better?
This is a problem in America. Meritocracy has become mediocrity. Having spent a decade in the workplace I realized most of my corporate peers were just going through the motions. Working hard is often not in the equation. I think this is just another example of bringing our society down to the lowest common denominators. A shame.
some of the teachers tried to teach them as if they were college courses trying to give some independence to how to approach problems and stimulate us with real, solid readings. I remember watching The Ascent of Man miniseries in my Calc BC class. It was a life changing moment that got me into philosophy and math. I recall reading Camus and Dostoevsky in AP Lit and being blown away. It is ridiculous to claim that these classes offer no sense of intellectual stimulation. Maybe the problem is that we are putting too many ordinary kids in these classes because parents and schools think it makes them look better?
This is a problem in America. Meritocracy has become mediocrity. Having spent a decade in the workplace I realized most of my corporate peers were just going through the motions. Working hard is often not in the equation. I think this is just another example of bringing our society down to the lowest common denominators. A shame.
13
Sounds a lot like he's advocating for a 'holistic' approach, which is nothing more than a back door affirmative action program.
5
One of the consequences of open admissions at CUNY was the deterioration of education in the New York City public schools. While the college admission process makes no sense, I witnessed this three years ago with my daughter, it does so because their are so many applicants for each seat. Some means has been made to choose who gets in. Effectively taking full advantage of what high schools have to offer will result in high schools and then most colleges becoming inferior.
2
Parent of a 9th grader here. The stress has filtered down so that 9th graders are now preoccupied by how to "be extra special" so that they can be accepted at an elite college. I very literally spend my evenings trying to counteract these messages. My daughter feels that she can get perfect grades and scores and still have no absolutely reassurance that she'll get into a college she wants to go -- let alone pay for it. That's another part of the equation not mentioned here. How is a smart lower middle/middle class kid whose family makes too much money to qualify for need based aid and too little to feasibly pay $25,000 - $60,000 per year supposed to pay for college once s/he gets in? The stress is almost unbearable. Kids are trying to be perfect to try to earn there way into college and then get scholarships to pay for it.
12
"The report recommends less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income."
Or loosely translated = we can cut more Asians from our list.
Or loosely translated = we can cut more Asians from our list.
4
Yup, we are 'dummying down' American education to accommodate 'diversity'.
7
It is important to note that going "test optional" is not as helpful as it may appear. Colleges that are jumping on the this bandwagon make lofty claims about how doing so will level the playing field by increasing socio-economic and ethnic diversity. But the only thing we know for sure is that colleges that go test optional lower their admit rates by increasing the number of students who apply, and increase their standing in the hateful U.S. News and World report rankings because the only kids who "opt" to send in scores are those with the highest scores. Going test optional is a win-win for colleges. Not so much for kids. If colleges really want to level the playing field, they'd go test blind.
1
Colleges are not the only slaves to the U.S. News and World Report rankings. I work for a major academic medical center, and the main measure of research faculty's performance is NIH funding - because it drives the U.S. News and World Report rankings, which I presume are used to attract wealthy patients and private donations. Important research supported through other sources is just not as valued, creating a huge disincentive to pursue such ideas and opportunities among junior faculty looking to establish themselves.
I don't know at what point the U.S. News and World Report was designated the kingmaker of the world, or how that happened, but it and its influence on academic decision-making across many fronts is at the center of this problem.
I don't know at what point the U.S. News and World Report was designated the kingmaker of the world, or how that happened, but it and its influence on academic decision-making across many fronts is at the center of this problem.
2
I was nodding in agreement with Hammond, a very proud Silicon Valley parent, and his comment against the college admissions status quo. I especially liked when he mentioned he gave his teenage children sage advice that they could do "good to mediocre" at anything and they'd still be loved.
I nodded until I got to this choice clause Hammond wrote, "I'm pleased that both my kids got into 'elite' colleges..." Considering the difficulty of gaining admittance to "elite" colleges, this is definitely a strong clue that Hammond's children really didn't do "good to mediocre" at anything. They got the message loud and clear from Hammond--do as I do, not as I say. In other words, this is likely what they heard from Hammond--"I say that you should explore your passions or be good or mediocre at some things, but in reality what I mean to say is that you have to compete your darndest for my approval, and that is predicated on a getting admitted to an elite college." So off they went.
This cognitive dissonance from high-achieving parents is part of this intractable problem. Parents seem to think that they're allowing their kids freedom the grinding rat race of college admissions, and they avidly criticize other parents for aiding and abetting the insanity, but then these same parents turn around and do the very thing they're criticizing, except more subtly and discreetly. The kids are perceptive--they notice this hypocrisy from their parents and act accordingly, their detriment.
I nodded until I got to this choice clause Hammond wrote, "I'm pleased that both my kids got into 'elite' colleges..." Considering the difficulty of gaining admittance to "elite" colleges, this is definitely a strong clue that Hammond's children really didn't do "good to mediocre" at anything. They got the message loud and clear from Hammond--do as I do, not as I say. In other words, this is likely what they heard from Hammond--"I say that you should explore your passions or be good or mediocre at some things, but in reality what I mean to say is that you have to compete your darndest for my approval, and that is predicated on a getting admitted to an elite college." So off they went.
This cognitive dissonance from high-achieving parents is part of this intractable problem. Parents seem to think that they're allowing their kids freedom the grinding rat race of college admissions, and they avidly criticize other parents for aiding and abetting the insanity, but then these same parents turn around and do the very thing they're criticizing, except more subtly and discreetly. The kids are perceptive--they notice this hypocrisy from their parents and act accordingly, their detriment.
8
Back before most of us attended college, the admissions process focused on selecting students for their basic academic skills and intellectual curiosity. The problem was that his process resulted in limited ethnic diversity and poorly performing athletic teams. Then came the era of the well-rounded student (my generation) to be replaced by the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-one (or two) that we see today. It's truly an arms race when teenagers start to feel as though they need to set sports records, start a tech company, or brainstorm a scientific breakthrough to gain admission to a good school.
I see no reason to abandon AP courses. Though they aren't perfect (usually not as open-ended or rigorous as college courses) they are egalitarian in nature and focus on learning rather than the bling. But wherever the new lines are drawn, you can be sure that the most affluent famlies will tap into their resources to ensure that their kids are at the front.
I see no reason to abandon AP courses. Though they aren't perfect (usually not as open-ended or rigorous as college courses) they are egalitarian in nature and focus on learning rather than the bling. But wherever the new lines are drawn, you can be sure that the most affluent famlies will tap into their resources to ensure that their kids are at the front.
1
Good for affluent families I say if what you mean is the preparation of the family's next generation takes priority over another Maserati.
1
This is Tesla country, and there will be no change in priorities. But instead of supporting the child's effort to win a science award, for example (I've seen parents start a school science fair solely to ensure that their child won first prize!) the parents will now help the child start a nonprofit or whatever is deemed "evidence of compassion and caring" in the next iteration of the college admissions game.
7
Lets stop trying to make college's fix our social ills. They are place of higher education. We aren't doing any students a favor by admitting those who are unprepared regardless of the reason. Those without adequate preparation, regardless of their innate ability, quickly realize they are ill-equipped to succeed. The measure of a college's success is not who it admits but who it graduates. Admitting the ill-prepared who then fail to graduate is not doing anyone any good.
5
I went to a superelite boarding school. There was a huge black market for study-enhancing drugs there. Hospitalizations for stressed teenagers. I had a nervous breakdown my junior year. 10% of my senior class went to Harvard. Senior Tea was where alumni and graduating seniors sat in a circle and the seniors announced where they were going to college: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Brown. Columbia for those whom the students secretly mocked as the "stupid" ones. Each name recited got a proud smile from the alumni. Except mine: I was not good at math, so I only got into President Obama's alma mater. My shame at saying the name and receiving blank embarrassed looks from the alumni before they hurried past me to the next Harvard incumbent lingers.
I went to good colleges and a top graduate school. But I'm still not good at math or computers and where I live, that means I recently applied to work as a hotel maid. (And got rejected.) College doesn't guarantee security. It doesn't prepare you for anything. It should only be undertaken for the love of learning, for curiosity about the world, and for a hunger for information. And a lot of what really matters can't be learned in a classroom.
My little boy is very smart. But I'm not going to push him. Only internal motivation is worth anything. *What* you do is irrelevant; *why* you do it is everything. I'll let him lead.
I went to good colleges and a top graduate school. But I'm still not good at math or computers and where I live, that means I recently applied to work as a hotel maid. (And got rejected.) College doesn't guarantee security. It doesn't prepare you for anything. It should only be undertaken for the love of learning, for curiosity about the world, and for a hunger for information. And a lot of what really matters can't be learned in a classroom.
My little boy is very smart. But I'm not going to push him. Only internal motivation is worth anything. *What* you do is irrelevant; *why* you do it is everything. I'll let him lead.
10
This sounds like an attempt to make admission random. An admission lottery would accomplish that but at the expense of dumbing down the students admitted. Perhaps they should just allow in "legacy" students and stop pretending that these schools serve any other purpose. After all, the whole point of entering Harvard or Princeton is to rub shoulders with other rich kids and establish business contacts for the future. Why pretend life is fair?
5
I don't hate social mobility, but the most common methods of measuring it involve quintile (or decile) income comparisons between individuals and their parents. Moving up only works if people are moving down and is it really a valuable effort for admissions to search out applicants for rejection hoping they will thereby be more likely to move down socially? About how many folks end up in the top quintile? About 20%, usually all the time. Is the composition of that 20% better if it includes A, B, C or D, E, F? Angels on the head of pins kind of deep thinking needed to answer this.
2
I'd add to the list the need to change marketing practices. Mailings, emails, texts, and tactics geared to increase their applications (often to students who clearly don't meet their admission criteria), to enhance the patina of selectivity and elite status. Kids from families with little experience in these games live under the impression that they are being "recruited" by a school based on these marketing contacts, leading to applications that were dead in the water. That will help with diminishing the frenzy.
2
A problem is that the College Board is probably already working on how to capitalize on these changes to keep their pockets well lined. So they will standardize, quantify, and essentially sabotage efforts by colleges and universities to make genuine change. After all, it is the College Board that's been in the forefront of the push for more and more AP's and maintaining the importance of the SATs. Their efforts with the SATs result in millions of kids spending oodles of hours learning worthless material that is not just benign but harmful (especially on student writing skills and on increasing confusion between gaming of tests for grades vs genuine learning/education). And, they have a stronghold on the public educational system in the US via the APs, something that has probably been one of the most harmful influences on education and on our kids. And they are behind the push to rack up more and more "AP's" with their claims that they are similar to college classes (which they are not) and with their Scholar Awards. It's not even worth discussing the Common App or CSS/Profile! The College Board is used to a nice hefty (obscene) profit margin and are unlikely to go quietly into the night, something genuine changes will necessitate.
5
When I was in high school in the mid-70s, I did well in school (National Honor Society) but I had a 20 hour per week evening and weekend job, so that was pretty much my extra-curricular activities. Getting into college basically meant taking the SAT once, filling out a 2-3 page application, and that was it. I went, finished in 3.5 years, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. With that background, I doubt I'd even gain admission now.
When my kids got to that age, I was very surprised to hear of kids with spreadsheets to keep track of accomplishments so that they could easily see gaps in their course work or extra-curriculars. Almost everybody knew some award winner who padded the resume with clubs and groups that they'd attended once or twice. No one took the SAT or ACT once. No one. One girl took the SAT every year from 7th grade on. Very few had part-time jobs because Cashier at McDonalds won't get you as far as cheerleader, debate team, or sports star in the admissions process
When my kids got to that age, I was very surprised to hear of kids with spreadsheets to keep track of accomplishments so that they could easily see gaps in their course work or extra-curriculars. Almost everybody knew some award winner who padded the resume with clubs and groups that they'd attended once or twice. No one took the SAT or ACT once. No one. One girl took the SAT every year from 7th grade on. Very few had part-time jobs because Cashier at McDonalds won't get you as far as cheerleader, debate team, or sports star in the admissions process
6
Why the admissions environment at top colleges so overheated? The causes lie in the current economic environment where a college degree is a must to get even a 'survival level' job. A degree from an elite university is now required for a career where a degree from a second tier university sufficed a generation ago. Job opportunities are now limited and therefore competition is greater. Knowing this tough environment, success focused parents and students start building competitive admissions resumes early. This is to be expected in any competitive situation where a lot of preparation is necessary, be it a startup business or an individual sport or a team sport. No one will find fault with a marathon runner putting in extra practice to win the medal. So, why is this an issue when students and parents put in extra effort and spend extra resources toward admission to an elite college ? One is forced to return to the tough economic environment to answer this. Doing away with objective criteria, e.g. test scores, and GPA etc. will not solve this problem, rather this will increase resentment in rejected candidates. For them, it will be discrimination, based on the principle of 'reversion to the mean'. Subjective criteria that assess the 'personality' and 'aptitude' have serious problems, as much as the objective ones. This is why the objective criteria based on test scores, though known to be imperfect, were started in the first place, i.e., to make the playing field appear level.
4
absolutely nothing about foreign students who pay big bucks and decrease U.S. student places... MIchigan??
1
I haven't read the report, only Mr. Bruni's column, so that's my preface. Follow the money. I worked for top-tier universities for 22 years until recently. My role placed me in meetings with University presidents, provosts, deans, and Trustees. This report's approach is through the experiences of prospective and current students and the objective of shaping intelligent citizens. The relevant angle would be to investigate this from the top-down to uncover a college's or university's value set to admit students paying "full freight" over those who require aid to enroll. This equation is calculated to cover promises made to faculty recruited in the great "scholar arms race" of the last 20 years. Using the model of free agents in professional sports, faculty "stars" and University administration eager to bring the stars' federal grants to the university forge a financially untenable bargain. These free agents zig-zag through the academic system escalating the costs with each new and higher professorial title they garner. The debts incurred in the negotiation of these packages trickles down to students.
The ratings business (USN&WR, etc) values metrics such as new dorms. new education buildings, new athletic facilities. The money is also going to those purposes only so universities can compete to gain a higher ranking.
Plainly, universities can neither afford to admit students who don't pay full tuition nor students who don't have 1% wealthy parents to make donations.
The ratings business (USN&WR, etc) values metrics such as new dorms. new education buildings, new athletic facilities. The money is also going to those purposes only so universities can compete to gain a higher ranking.
Plainly, universities can neither afford to admit students who don't pay full tuition nor students who don't have 1% wealthy parents to make donations.
2
The thing about curtailing the number of AP classes is that for some students taking those classes is the only way in some school districts for academically talented students to be in a class that is sufficiently challenging. Too much pressure is a concern, but spending years in public schools learning very little is a huge waste of time too. Some aspects of this article seemed to amount to more babying of students. They already seem pretty immature to me. Also I read the entrance requirements for a top medical school, which emphasized being a good person (to put it simply). But we still have doctors committing fraud and doing unnecessary procedures. Some doctors are good people and some are only so so. Maybe a few are kind of bad. Emphasizing goodness in the admissions process doesn't seem to fix the problem.
3
Let's be pragmatic: ultra selective colleges will remain ultra selective, and the competitive frenzy to find seats in those schools will remain at fever pitch. Assorted tweaks here and there might have a feel-good quality to them, but let's not kid ourselves: the colleges that generate the more angst-ridden longing among high school seniors have a huge investment in their maintaining their mystique. After all, what better way to grow an endowment than to boast of admissions rates in the single digits? The bottom line is that business, our society, our planet, are ultra competitive. "The World’s 62 Richest People Hold as Much Wealth as the Bottom 3.5 Billion, New Report Says," is the title of an article published a few days ago. The blisteringly unforgiving college admissions process is simply a minute manifestation of a much larger phenomenon known as the human condition. That's neither good nor bad. It's simply a fact of life.
3
So, colleges will no longer try to admit the smartest, best prepared and most hard-working students. This is how you destroy the higher education. Feelings and emotions are more important than actual knowledge. Do you want your bridge to be built with emotions? How about discovering a new cancer treatment? Do you want your dentist to explain to you that he does not know how to fill the cavity, but he came from the "underprivileged background", so it's okay?
6
Interesting, but it misses a major contradiction. If, unfortunately, college is regarded as a means to get a job, not a place of learning, then, the process for getting into college is a form of shaping for success as an adult. Careers in business, medicine, law, indeed just survival in a corporate environment, require the same set of sharp, intense behaviors as getting into the best schools. If, on the other hand, college is a place of learning, of sharing ideas openly, of expanding your mind, in other words, the ancient idea of an academy, then schools should vie for the best and brightest. Based on this opinion piece, and the reported comments of college administrators, college is neither a preparation for life nor an academy. It is merely one more institution that must be tweaked in the holy name of diversity. However that is fashionably defined du jour.
2
Follow the advice given by these college officials will hasten the process of receiving a rejection letter.
3
I am not sure how this fits into the discussion, but I was surprised to learn that one reason Asian parents put such a heavy emphasis on education and pressure their children to succeed is that they are trying to overcome the fact that these students don't have the social "connections" to get good internships or jobs after graduation. They have to compete with outstanding grades.
5
It's noble that colleges and universities are showing some humility in reevaluating admission policies, but they continue to ignore the elephant in the room: cost. There is no greater barrier for poor and middle-class students who could otherwise attend top-tier institutions. College costs are also dragging down the nation's economy because seemingly insurmountable loans are preventing graduates from purchasing cars, homes and other goods. Out-of-state tuition and housing at the University of Michigan is $70,000 a year. Other than the "one percent", who can afford that?
3
This is part of the systematic dumbing down of the students: Do not take hard AP classes, do not worry about your abysmal score on SAT, you were psychologically stressed! SAT 2 subject tests, no we do not need that, who needs it anyway!! This is trying to shield elite white kids who maneouver their way through high school taking the easiest classes. The question is will these kids be ever able to compete globally and how? India has the IITs, French and Germans have their own tests to separate the wheat from the chaff. How and where will these kids compete? No wonder nothing of intellectual substance comes out from here.
8
Admission to "selective" schools is pretty much a lottery, since there are so many well-qualified applicants who meet all the requirements and more. You really can't get to know each applicant as an individual. As for essays, writing well is its own special skill. One of my daughter's friends is gifted at humor writing, and her essays earned high marks and a scholarship—but she has no particular career or life goals.
I'd like to propose, then, that we make admissions an actual lottery. Each school would devote half its freshman slots to students they choose by whatever criteria they please, and half to students drawn from a lottery. Students are entered in the lottery by meeting all the admissions standards. The 2,000 students to be admitted to Harvard would then be half selected (including legacies and athletes), and half drawn randomly from the 40,000 applicants. I'd bet that would result in greater diversity especially in regional and class origin.
I don't know about de-emphasizing AP courses. Taking AP courses shows motivation and a desire to achieve and learn. If you take the regular version, you're less likely to have engaged classmates who participate in discussion and do all the work, and the bar for learning is set lower. My daughter has felt well-prepared for college work because of her AP classes, even though she's a so-so performer on tests and didn't get a lot of AP credit. Benefitting from the course is its own reward.
I'd like to propose, then, that we make admissions an actual lottery. Each school would devote half its freshman slots to students they choose by whatever criteria they please, and half to students drawn from a lottery. Students are entered in the lottery by meeting all the admissions standards. The 2,000 students to be admitted to Harvard would then be half selected (including legacies and athletes), and half drawn randomly from the 40,000 applicants. I'd bet that would result in greater diversity especially in regional and class origin.
I don't know about de-emphasizing AP courses. Taking AP courses shows motivation and a desire to achieve and learn. If you take the regular version, you're less likely to have engaged classmates who participate in discussion and do all the work, and the bar for learning is set lower. My daughter has felt well-prepared for college work because of her AP classes, even though she's a so-so performer on tests and didn't get a lot of AP credit. Benefitting from the course is its own reward.
3
It's a nice idea but I doubt it would result in greater diversity by region or class. Since the students would still have to meet the admissions standards (which would be pretty selective for Harvard), a lottery would turn out a representative sample of our country's most elite students, without giving an advantage to students from poorer backgrounds or underrepresented regions, which is what Harvard does now.
I wonder if medical schools can do the same... MCAT 2015, right? I kid... the AAMC has specifically urged medical schools not to compare the new MCAT to the old version, but several programs I've asked are doing just exactly that. Perhaps institutions of higher education simply pay lip service to the whole 'holistic' evaluation of applicants. At the end of the day, schools still want the applicants who look good on paper (i.e. they have great numbers). After all, aren't they a 'safer bet' to graduate on time? Unfortunately, that leaves out the 'mediocre' kids, those who have the potential to succeed and flourish if only given the chance.
Life is full of chance outcomes, starting with getting the "right" parents. Elite schools should consider perhaps the top 20% of the applicant pool as all being qualified and then using a random lottery to select the winners. There is no evidence that current admissions criteria are sufficiently accurate to distinguish between the top 5% of students and someone in the top 6%. It would also change "I was smart enough to get into ___" to "I was lucky enough."
3
I have been struck, over the years, by how much schools like Harvard do that is JUST RIGHT: Non-academic intangible things like how they match room-mates and blocking groups, the mix of social organizations (not a huge emphasis on Greek life, the variety of Final Clubs--again just a small percentage of students choose to participate--and numerous other political, charitable, and athletic clubs), along with the remarkable successes of its students. Rather than trying to tear all this down and start over, why not learn from institutions like these and improve the quality of the many other schools that students end up at. We don't improve society by simply throwing-out what produces exceptional individuals and remaking them according to some unproven ideal!
6
College admissions offices have created a monster. At best applicants exaggerate accomplishments - at worst they commit fraud. Brian Williams syndrome is rampant and admissions officers seem unable to conduct even minimum fact checks on applicant claims. They often rely on local interviewers who are untrained. The interview process is amateur at best and to call it a process gives it more credibility than it deserves. Regional admissions officers claim to know the local high schools' curricula strengths and weaknesses but with high turnover among officers, with some being hired by private schools to up their Ivy League admit numbers using inside information, admissions officers are not well-versed on local public and private high school demographics or academic rigor. If admissions officers are serious about fixing the monster they have created they need to start by seriously vetting applicants and their claims. For starters I suggest using Google.
1
How about not interviewing any students, just take the grades from high school and admit the kids with the best grades.
Kind of a strange discussion. We live in times where there are all sorts of new ways to provide education, yet we persist in elevating one old model as the Holy Grail for young people. I do scientific research at an elite institution. My colleagues come from all kinds of backgrounds and most were trained at public institutions. It's what you do with the education you get that's much more important than where you get it - except in perhaps some fields such as finance, and we can see where all that eliteness has gotten us there.
4
glad to see this article. in my view, things started going haywire when admissions directors created a hack track for themselves (which has since spread to all levels of college administrations), and to spread the false wisdom of the "well-rounded" student. the well-rounded were, first, exclusively defined by upper middle class values. they had high GPAs in suburban high schools, played at least one sport, at least one musical instrument, and volunteered for approved charities. they come to college over-scheduled and permanently unfocused. second, the "well-rounded" were by definition good at a great variety of things of brilliant at nothing. they were destined to become the well-formed mediocrities that now people the financial and professional sectors (including higher education itself). not only were the less advantaged disadvantaged by the "well-rounded" ideology, so were the unevenly developed, even if brilliant. painters, poets, non-classical musicians, writers and scholars with oblique perspectives and no athletic enthusiasms were also left out. opening the criteria will do nothing until the "well-rounded" flim-flam disappears. there is nothing wrong with an 18 year old classicist who cares nothing for baseball, boy scouts or courses for "leaders of tomorrow."
7
I have to wonder if the reason that these elite schools are thinking about admitting more well-adjusted, well-rounded, "academically hungry" students over the high-achieving test takers is that the schools are realize that sometimes these students are more work and more money to educate than someone who doesn't constantly need the reassurance of a participation trophy.
2
In the 1950s and 1960s, the SATs were used by elite colleges to identify promising students from public high schools. The SATs gave the admissions staff a way to compare the records of students across the country. Prior to this, the Ivies filled their classes from Andover, Exeter, and Groton. Once SATs became important, the rich started paying for SAT prep courses. When GPAs became more important than SATs, the rich intimidated teachers into giving their children higher grades. When extra-curriculars became important, the rich paid for sports, music, and arts camps. When volunteering became important, the rich organized humanitarian trips to Central America. Unless we have a national curriculum with testing that cannot be gamed, the admissions process to elite universities will always be grossly unfair.
5
"But they still need to stop filling so much of each freshman class with specially tagged legacy cases and athletes and to quit worrying about rankings like those of U.S. News and World Report. "
Amen to that. Especially legacy admissions, the "affirmative action" program for the demographic that doesn't deserve it or need it. The US News and World Report rankings should also be boycotted by universities. It is nothing more that an attempt to keep a dead magazine brand afloat that offers no real added value to prospective students and their parents when making a choice of school to attend.
Amen to that. Especially legacy admissions, the "affirmative action" program for the demographic that doesn't deserve it or need it. The US News and World Report rankings should also be boycotted by universities. It is nothing more that an attempt to keep a dead magazine brand afloat that offers no real added value to prospective students and their parents when making a choice of school to attend.
5
Colleges and universities should set minimum qualification and conduct a lottery to select freshmen from the pool of qualified applicants. This would ensure campus racial, ethnic and gender diversity matches that of the applicant pool. Colleges and universities should stop awarding degrees and diplomas. The purpose of degrees and diplomas is to stigmatize students who pass courses but fail to complete proscribed degree plans for a variety of reasons, including finances. Instead, students should be free to take the courses he or she thinks will help them meet their career goals or life objectives without fear that potential employers will reject them because they don’t have a degree or a diploma. Students short on financial resources could skip course they regard as nonessential. Job applicants would still show employees transcripts, but employers would not ask for degrees or diplomas; they would simply look to seek what courses are relevant to the job the applicant is seeking.
Admission to elite educations is a scarce resource. Whatever non-random admission criteria are put in place, there will be intense competition to satisfy those criteria and the students who work the hardest and smartest will be the ones who tend to gain admission to elite schools. You cannot reduce pressure merely by changing admission criteria (unless you make the process more random, as some has suggested). Parents need to take the lead in reducing pressure on their kids by setting realistic goals for them, monitoring their mental health, and helping them realize that not getting into their first (or second or third) choice school is not the end of the world. What matters vastly more is how you perform wherever you go to school.
2
If AP access is a problem, couldn't some of these elite schools open up their enormous tax-favored endowments to help fund access to AP courses for at least some select high performing kids in some underprivileged schools? They are tax advantaged because they are supposed to help advance some public goals, but clearly aren't. They can help create the pipeline.
Here's an ugly thing they do instead. Spend a lot of money sending promotional materials to high performing high school students in the name of outreach without any intention of admitting them. Why? Because they can puff their selectivity ratings by enticing kids to apply with the knowledge they will almost certainly reject them. My son actually received an expensive full color book from Yale. They have no intention of welcoming him to their school. Spend that money helping some underprivileged kids get AP courses, and stop the ugly game of screwing with the minds of solid but unspectacular middle class midwestern kids.
Here's an ugly thing they do instead. Spend a lot of money sending promotional materials to high performing high school students in the name of outreach without any intention of admitting them. Why? Because they can puff their selectivity ratings by enticing kids to apply with the knowledge they will almost certainly reject them. My son actually received an expensive full color book from Yale. They have no intention of welcoming him to their school. Spend that money helping some underprivileged kids get AP courses, and stop the ugly game of screwing with the minds of solid but unspectacular middle class midwestern kids.
2
I applied to Georgia Tech and was accepted, although my high-school grades were not exceptional. After a BS in Electrical Engineering, I applied to graduate school at Stanford and was accepted. Two years later I received MS in EE and continued for several more years. Why did I have no problems? This all happened in 1952 and 1956.
2
My daughter is a high school senior and was accepted through early decision in December to her first choice college. She opted to apply early decision because we understood that her odds of being accepted were double that of regular decision. She has spent the last four years preparing to apply to college. The courses she took, the standardized tests she prepped for and the long term commitments she made to her mock trial team were all part of a strategy to be a serious candidate to top tier schools. Interestingly, she was not drawn to the Ivies, but to small liberal arts colleges that offer close relationships with professors and collaborative, not competitive, relationships with fellow students. The application process takes into account GPA, rigor of her courses, SAT scores, SAT subject scores and extra curricular activities. Her particular college placed the most importance on her own essay and the letters of recommendation. Her reading and writing scores were in the 99th percentile, but her math scores were in the low 600s. Did they accept her because of the glowing letters of recommendation? Her own skills and talent as a writer? Or simply because their only other student from Hawaii will be gradating this year? We will never know, but it was our daughter's own motivation and desire, along with our support, that created the opportunity for her to receive a higher education that is just not offered in the public universities in our remote state.
3
Applicants from wealthy families have an advantage when it comes to references and essays as well. Wealthy families have more connections, hence an advantage when it comes to references. And wealthy applicants will just replace their SAT tutors with college essay tutors. Or worse, hire someone to write the essay.
2
The focus on SATs is a sideshow. We need standardized tests, and a nation that allocates spots for 1.6 million college aspirants will inevitably have to rely on a test that can be scored by computers, ie a multiple-choice test.
And as standardized tests go, the SAT and ACT do a very good job of assessing basic logical reasoning and critical reading skills.
If you don't like the social sorting that results, consider whether a more rigorous set of subject tests, or the abstract, MENSA-style testing that is included in the British entrance exam, would yield a social ranking more to your liking. In reality, even more high-achieving, focused middle-class and upper middle-class kids would achieve top scores.
Bruni writes that the elite colleges "need to stop filling so much of each freshman class with .. legacy cases and athletes and to quit worrying about rankings."
The opposite is true. Our colleges' financial model requires them to select not only on merit but also on the basis of revenue contributed and on "yield." This is why the ivies routinely fill 40% or more of their classes with kids who are paying full freight, ie who are from the top 0.1-1% income stratum.
Despite the blather about opening up admissions, and despite earnest editorials like Bruni's, the revenue and yield imperatives mean that middle-income and low-income kids will continue to face far steeper odds than applicants whose parents can pay $250,000 out of pocket for an undergraduate degree.
And as standardized tests go, the SAT and ACT do a very good job of assessing basic logical reasoning and critical reading skills.
If you don't like the social sorting that results, consider whether a more rigorous set of subject tests, or the abstract, MENSA-style testing that is included in the British entrance exam, would yield a social ranking more to your liking. In reality, even more high-achieving, focused middle-class and upper middle-class kids would achieve top scores.
Bruni writes that the elite colleges "need to stop filling so much of each freshman class with .. legacy cases and athletes and to quit worrying about rankings."
The opposite is true. Our colleges' financial model requires them to select not only on merit but also on the basis of revenue contributed and on "yield." This is why the ivies routinely fill 40% or more of their classes with kids who are paying full freight, ie who are from the top 0.1-1% income stratum.
Despite the blather about opening up admissions, and despite earnest editorials like Bruni's, the revenue and yield imperatives mean that middle-income and low-income kids will continue to face far steeper odds than applicants whose parents can pay $250,000 out of pocket for an undergraduate degree.
3
If you want 50 percent or more of HS grads to go to and finish college, and if HS continues to be what it is, this is a tough problem. When fewer people went to college, applications (at many places) could be considered individually. When universities grow to 50,000 or more, not so much.
We often hear that we need more college grads. We seldom hear that we need more educated people. More college grads? We can do that. Hell, Phoenix U can crank 'em out by the thousands. Want those grads to know something? Now that's a horse of a different color.
We often hear that we need more college grads. We seldom hear that we need more educated people. More college grads? We can do that. Hell, Phoenix U can crank 'em out by the thousands. Want those grads to know something? Now that's a horse of a different color.
6
Racial and ethnic disparities in college admissions are not nearly as great as most people imagine. White students are slighlty under-represented on college campuses nationwide, including many “flagship” public universities and elite private schools. According to a recent Pew Research survey, white students make up 59 percent of high school graduates and 58 percent of college students nationwide. Blacks make up 16 percent of high school graduates and 14 percent of college students. Hispanics make up 18 percent of high school graduates and 19 percent of college students. Asian make up 6 percent of college graduates and 7 percent of college graduates. Students categorized as “other” make up 1 percent of high school graduates and 2 percent of college students. Since non-Hispanic white students are under-represented nationwide, it’s not as if they are taking slots that should go to minorities. The racial and ethnic gap appears in the percentages of college graduates, not in the number of college freshmen. Non-Hispanic whites make up 69 percent of college graduates, Hispanics make up 9 percent, blacks make up 9 percent and Asian make up 11 percent.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-en...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-en...
2
I've always known that I'm not university material. I don't know why but it certainly was not something I would let stand in the way of having a rich intellectual life, friends and family. If I needed to master a subject matter it was always easier to teach it to myself. At the same time I have a deep respect for academia and professionalism. I enjoyed a successful and productive career in technical fields and still find the world and it's challenges fascinating.
2
Higher Ed is in the business of making rich alumni who then contribute and perpetuate the institution's endowment. Even public schools are forced by declining state funding to go begging, and the richer a school's graduates are, the more they can give. Since parental income is a good predictor of the income of offspring, admitting richer kids is good strategy.
2
About a year and a half ago my great nephew and his dad stayed with us in Delaware while he visited several colleges on the East Coast, including Brown University. After they left we found a piece of paper in the trash can in the bedroom they were staying. I know other people are very aware of this, but the paper had a Brown University header and tuition alone was/is some $60,000 a year! For the life of me I will never understand how the Ivy League and other "elite" colleges get away with this. He was a white male which didn't help his case.
Excuse my skepticism but allowing the admissions office more leeway to accept the 'right sort' is not a step forward but rather a return to the past when top colleges were only for the 'right sort'.
Mr. Bruni, have you ever looked at an AP Curriculum? Ever sat in an AP Class as opposed to a CP class? Ever read an essay written by an AP Student? I'm guessing, no. Because if you were aware of the stark differences between a college prep class and an advanced placement class, you would clearly see that the AP Curriculum is probably the best thing going in American Education.
You missed the point entirely here: college admissions officers should reward hard work, but they should be "need blind". In other words, at most schools, a large part of the decision as to whether a student gets in or not is whether or not his or her parents can pay for it. This is what creates the imbalance more than anything. In an educational utopia, the person making that decision would have no clue about that student's financial background.
You hit the nail on the head in criticizing the stress students are under, especially in wealthy districts, but isn't this just a metaphor of what said student will be doing in eight years at the law firm, bank, or tenure process?
You missed the point entirely here: college admissions officers should reward hard work, but they should be "need blind". In other words, at most schools, a large part of the decision as to whether a student gets in or not is whether or not his or her parents can pay for it. This is what creates the imbalance more than anything. In an educational utopia, the person making that decision would have no clue about that student's financial background.
You hit the nail on the head in criticizing the stress students are under, especially in wealthy districts, but isn't this just a metaphor of what said student will be doing in eight years at the law firm, bank, or tenure process?
5
1984! By isolating the over simplified left wing goal of universal diversity you are playing with a complex social system, much more intricate and inter-related than you'll ever understand, which has worked extraordinarily well in our modern society. The development of the current system has been organic and incremental is best described as Darwinian: the result of hundreds of millions of individual decisions, genetic advantages, and chance over hundreds, maybe thousands of years. It is naive to think that social engineering such as this will improve the system...it is far more likely that it will generate a bump in the road and make societal progress incrementally slower.
It's true that a bit more of "caring for others" would have served well all the Harvard graduates at Goldman Sacks and other places of that kind.
5
I have been an alum interviewer for a major Ivy, and I am amazed at the degree that parents put pressure on their children to get into a nameplate college. My rule of thumb is that once a student is accepted, they are nearly always totally happy with their choice, and make it work for them. Parents want a child to be a hood ornament for their BMW. Give these kids a break. It's killing them, and the admissions staffs are arbitrary enough to make us interviewers scratch our heads every year as well.
4
Frankly the "bold" changes recommended seem quite modest.
For many suburban kids, AP course selection has as much to do with making college cheaper or quicker to complete. Not everyone is consumed by an Ivy credential, and Mr. Bruni ought to get out of the Ivy League echo chamber to see that there are many great colleges with many great programs and many people who have long recognized those facts and saved a lot of money and heartbreak. Our kids don't scream at administrators for safe places, either. They know it's a hard world out there, and they need to compete for jobs with skills. AP courses help kids acquire those skills. Encouraging schools to abandon a path of rigor because some people fail to figure out what matters risks damaging rigor and the acquisition of skills. While not all AP classes are great, and many are surveys without depth, most schools, particularly public schools, use APs as a cost effective path to rigor and enhanced skills.
Here is something he can do to further his cause. For the next 5 years, the Times should hire reporters or interns who are Ivy grads only in their proportion to the applicant pool at large.
Let's see how far that goes. The simple fact is that competition sometimes, but not always, improves people and their skills. Dumbing down standards, particularly educational standards, is not the answer. Genuine pursuit of interests and extracurriculars is a good idea and is already encouraged by good parents and good high schools.
Here is something he can do to further his cause. For the next 5 years, the Times should hire reporters or interns who are Ivy grads only in their proportion to the applicant pool at large.
Let's see how far that goes. The simple fact is that competition sometimes, but not always, improves people and their skills. Dumbing down standards, particularly educational standards, is not the answer. Genuine pursuit of interests and extracurriculars is a good idea and is already encouraged by good parents and good high schools.
2
Online and Internet based learning will be the primary mode of post secondary schooling in 20 years.
This article seems to indicate that changes are to be made in order to help students whom they feel are less privileged. These students are already helped in the college admission process by financial aid that middle class students cannot get, the ongoing demand for diversity which admits foreign students, minority students, transgender students, gay and lesbian students. This will not help the average middle class student. A students academic record should matter. An athlete is recruited based on their physical skills that is why not everyone can play on a college team. Why do we demand the best from our athletes but not our students? We should admit students from the USA to our institutions first. Whatever new criteria is set people will manipulate. It is difficult to manipulate tests scores. Why would you want your child to get into a school that he or she is not scholastically able to handle?
3
"The report also suggests that colleges better use essays and references to figure out which students’ community-service projects are heartfelt and which are merely window dressing."
That, my friends, is:
A) pure fantasy to make us feel better
B) already optimized, to the extent colleges actually care to do so and to the extent it's actually possible
C) going to be swiftly reverse-engineered by the Admission Industrial Complex
D) all of the above
That, my friends, is:
A) pure fantasy to make us feel better
B) already optimized, to the extent colleges actually care to do so and to the extent it's actually possible
C) going to be swiftly reverse-engineered by the Admission Industrial Complex
D) all of the above
6
After reading the article , it is obvious that the only way to rationally justify college acceptance practices would be for trained observers to spend several months with each prospective student in order to determine the actual character and intellectual hunger in every case. I'm sure that the public would have no problem with whatever costs accrued , or then again, we could use tests and resumes.
5
Some commenters seem not to have a very accurate picture of what an admitted class looks like at an "elite" school. Perhaps these statistics would help. A total of 37,268 students applied for admission to the Class of 2019 at Penn. From that group, 3,787 (10%) were admitted, and of those 2,435 (64%) enrolled. Of the enrolled students, 51% are female, 49% male, 47% self identify as students of color, 15% are Pell grant recipients, 12 percent are international students, 12% are first generation college students, 16% are legacies, 75% scored 690 or higher on the SAT Critical Reading, 75 percent scored 710 or higher on the SAT Math, and 75% scored 700 or higher on the SAT Writing.
1
What is called "AP Calculus" in the US, was just called Calculus in my high school in India. It was core course for anyone who wanted to continue taking science courses in college. I had a much more solid mathematical background when I joined grad school (Physics) here
I find much admiration for the STEM preparation of international students, why are we shying away from preparing our students?
I find much admiration for the STEM preparation of international students, why are we shying away from preparing our students?
2
Wow, America's university system is becoming a real pile of junk. You take this kind of dumbed-down elitist hogwash and combine it with tuition rates that have been artificially pushed up by about a factor of 5 since the late 80's and you are talking about the destruction of America's youth. For the masses, I would expect to see something like "charter schools" at the university level for kids that want a real education without the liberal nonsense.
1
This is the systematic dumbing of our students. Encouraging them to not try hard, take the easiest courses, make sure that you watch all the TV Series, Football, take AP Art and use your parents legacy to get into College. If SAT is a standardized test, that is one common test that is administered across the country, and students get multiple chances to take it, then why is that being downplayed against school grades? Every school has different grading rigor, even teachers grade differently, why is that being given more preference over standardized test? The real issue is that we want to hide the elite, non-performing kids against competition. The question is what will these kids do when they pass out? The hope is they use their college and parents connections to get a job! This is the crux of the movement against SAT and SAT 2. Hide the incompetence!
2
This quote says it all: "Only 22 percent said caring for others.
The new report contemplates how the admissions process contributes to that psychology and how it might be changed. "
In other words, the idea is political, not educational: Socialism.
What should really be done is that some of the very top schools should take a different course: choose students by SAT scores ONLY. The top applicants win. Charge every student the exact same amount ... low. Other schools could use the "Socialist" methods proposed here.
The new report contemplates how the admissions process contributes to that psychology and how it might be changed. "
In other words, the idea is political, not educational: Socialism.
What should really be done is that some of the very top schools should take a different course: choose students by SAT scores ONLY. The top applicants win. Charge every student the exact same amount ... low. Other schools could use the "Socialist" methods proposed here.
1
Let's be honest. This dumbing down of college application requirements is just another way of maintaining the illegal quotas on Asian applicants who've worked hard at getting good SAT scores and grades, and excelling at music and other extracurricular activities. It's convenient that this is happening now as the Supreme Court is about to do away with affirmative action and Harvard faces a difficult lawsuit challenging the quota system.
3
The changes described here cant hurt anyone except for legacy applicants and athletes, both groups who can't make a faire case why they should go to the front of the line for admission to elite universities. But we'd still be left with structural problems.
The first is the unfair privilege that a degree from an elite school confers on graduates. It comes from the pervasive deference that employers and the rest of society give to elite degrees, an importance that's disproportionate to what a 21-year-old has to contribute to the work force or society on Day One.
It's said that one's first job doesn't really matter, but it matters greatly when having a gilt-edged degree opens doors of opportunity that graduates of lesser institutions do not even know exist. This is not about envy. This is about not using a diploma from an elite school as a proxy for unbounded skills, potential and social capital. Merit must be proven, not assumed.
The second structural problem is that even with the reforms described in this article, each and every Ivy League school and Stanford and MIT could fill their freshman classes many times over with students who could no doubt perform as well as those who were admitted.
The root of the problem is that we stopped establishing "elite" universities a little more than a century ago. Yet the American population has boomed. Either we need found new ones (if our tech billionaires can break their attachment to building gadgets) or widen the circle.
The first is the unfair privilege that a degree from an elite school confers on graduates. It comes from the pervasive deference that employers and the rest of society give to elite degrees, an importance that's disproportionate to what a 21-year-old has to contribute to the work force or society on Day One.
It's said that one's first job doesn't really matter, but it matters greatly when having a gilt-edged degree opens doors of opportunity that graduates of lesser institutions do not even know exist. This is not about envy. This is about not using a diploma from an elite school as a proxy for unbounded skills, potential and social capital. Merit must be proven, not assumed.
The second structural problem is that even with the reforms described in this article, each and every Ivy League school and Stanford and MIT could fill their freshman classes many times over with students who could no doubt perform as well as those who were admitted.
The root of the problem is that we stopped establishing "elite" universities a little more than a century ago. Yet the American population has boomed. Either we need found new ones (if our tech billionaires can break their attachment to building gadgets) or widen the circle.
2
I personally found it was comical for Mr. Bruni to talk about how to take away middle class kids' chance into an elite college before talking about legacy admissions, athlete admissions, AA admissions, kids from rich and powerful families around the world... The list can go on and on. None of these has anything to do children's own potential and none of these is fair to them.
I am not denying there is a real problem in the "arm race". Parents should know better. I know I am not raising my child this way.
But let's not rush to the other extremes, claiming tutoring is an unfair advantage. Unless you only consider raw talents valuable, tutoring can be very beneficial. It's not like a kid actually getting smarter over tutoring. But spending meaningful amount of quality time on a subject is good for kids' mental development. An average American already spend less time in school than most other countries. Taking all these away is dumbing down the kids so that they appear to be "equal". Why cannot we seek a better solution by making them smarter and more productive?
There was also a theory that college admission is less about education but really just a signal that someone is willing to sit down and study. I think there's some validity in it too.
I am not denying there is a real problem in the "arm race". Parents should know better. I know I am not raising my child this way.
But let's not rush to the other extremes, claiming tutoring is an unfair advantage. Unless you only consider raw talents valuable, tutoring can be very beneficial. It's not like a kid actually getting smarter over tutoring. But spending meaningful amount of quality time on a subject is good for kids' mental development. An average American already spend less time in school than most other countries. Taking all these away is dumbing down the kids so that they appear to be "equal". Why cannot we seek a better solution by making them smarter and more productive?
There was also a theory that college admission is less about education but really just a signal that someone is willing to sit down and study. I think there's some validity in it too.
3
No parent 'gets their kid' a grade. The individual sitting the test does that, and I've seen plenty score 2300 on SATs without tutors. If your kid is not one who is comfortable with testing, ask him or her to select test optional schools. Who cares about a school because it's an Ivy? We are middle income, had years of unemployment, and all the difficulties that implies. My sons, like many boys, hated writing the essay(s) that each school required on top of the common application essay. Yes, many schools require several essays! How about easing that barrier to admission? BTW, for bright kids, AP classes in subjects they love are a joy. The kid who loves AP maths, comp sci and sciences may not love AP english or history, and visa versa. Why not give them the challenges they enjoy? Have you ever eavesdropped on their conversations about smart grids and clean energy? CRISPr? Getting money out of politics? These are not burnt out automatons but kids who want to change the world for the better. I'd love to think my kids are spectacular but they're just like thousands and thousands and thousands of others. Just chill, give the kids workbooks, some space. Like state exams for young ones, a big part of kids' problems come adults stressing them out.
4
There is an obsession with highly competitive sports as a ticket to college. Stepping back - what does volleyball have to do with becoming an engineer? Parents driving kids to year-round club sports so they can get into a good college... so they can study and find a career...? It seems unrelated.
All kids should have a chance to exercise - and the least "athletic" need it the most.
All kids should have a chance to exercise - and the least "athletic" need it the most.
2
Until all high schools and students have the resources to offer AP classes, such courses should not serve as a criterion for admission to university. Until the "best" teachers teach the most challenged students (not the least challenged), the playing field will be tilted in favor of the "haves." Until high schools are no longer financed by local real estate taxes, not much will change.
2
I opened my digital edition this morning and clicked on the article first thing. As a mother of teens, I am full participant in the admissions game. If Universities announce a change in rules, you best believe there will be a boatload of us parents working to figure out a new system. Much to my concern, my very bright, talented daughter never would play the game. She's a senior now. Her grades are good but not spectacular. Her test scores are fine, but not perfect. I tried to push her into caring about grades, tests, extra curricular activities, even her seating assignment in her orchestra, and all it did was make her feel bad about herself. So I stopped and apologized and she's happier. She'll go to a public university. She'll work hard and she'll be fine. She is wiser than I am about what's important.
8
In the process of guiding my son to get into college I saw a lot of value in:
1. The AP courses he took
2. Preparing for the SATs and paying for tutoring
3. Writing down his resume of accomplishments and activities
4. Exploring various colleges for fit and aspiration based, in part, on rankings
I got to know my son better, transmitted values that are important to me and my family, and most importantly helped my son figure out who he is and what he wants to become of himself. In the process of getting into college I saw my son grow up, develop a stronger work ethic, develop confidence and take control of his life. Its become popular to say it but I would not be so quick to dismiss all of these things.
1. The AP courses he took
2. Preparing for the SATs and paying for tutoring
3. Writing down his resume of accomplishments and activities
4. Exploring various colleges for fit and aspiration based, in part, on rankings
I got to know my son better, transmitted values that are important to me and my family, and most importantly helped my son figure out who he is and what he wants to become of himself. In the process of getting into college I saw my son grow up, develop a stronger work ethic, develop confidence and take control of his life. Its become popular to say it but I would not be so quick to dismiss all of these things.
5
Once again an article on higher education which is really just about the Ivy Leagues, not where the majority of Americans get their education.
3
A wiser college admissions system would seek out students who do the best, not merely those who do the most: excelling at one AP class is better than mediocre performance in three. The same goes for extracurricular activities and sports: excellence in a few beats mere participation in many.
This would not directly counter the advantage that students from higher-income families have, but it should better predict those students who will continue to push the boundaries of their knowledge, rather than merely completing their four years to get a degree.
This would not directly counter the advantage that students from higher-income families have, but it should better predict those students who will continue to push the boundaries of their knowledge, rather than merely completing their four years to get a degree.
Up with Transparency!
If a college accepts public funds (including guaranteed student loans), its admissions process should be fully transparent.
We should be able to see how the applicants were ranked, what factors the university used, and the weight of each, along with the cutoff point for admission.
Sunlight is, as always, a great disinfectant.
If a college accepts public funds (including guaranteed student loans), its admissions process should be fully transparent.
We should be able to see how the applicants were ranked, what factors the university used, and the weight of each, along with the cutoff point for admission.
Sunlight is, as always, a great disinfectant.
1
While in graduate school at a state college, I and two other classmates had an opportunity to take a class at one of the most elite schools in the U.S. We arrived with some trepidation...and found we were up to the task.
It's not always what school you go to, but what you take from it.
It's not always what school you go to, but what you take from it.
1
I found it a little humorous that the Chapel Hill vice provost would point to height as a totally arbitrary measure, not sure Roy Williams the basketball coach sees a seven footer that way. Or the football coach and neck size, but I guess athletic admissions is a discussion for a different day.
The possible reforms expressed in this article are great. Less emphasis on formulas and more emphasis on evidence of maturity and intellectual engagement--all good. I do get tired of the trite slaps at athletes and legacies present in the last paragraph of this article and in several of the comments. Athletes are incredibly hard working and bring a team ethic and leadership skills that counter the adolescent tendency to withdraw to one's own cloud. And the very elite schools are not admitting legacies that are unqualified--legacy status truly is a mere "tip" that makes sense from the school's institutional standpoint of fostering a sense of tradition and alumni commitment.
But if you merely want to cut down the craziness in the application process, just eliminate applicants from the urban areas of NY, NJ and Conn. Based on my observations as an Ivy League alum who travels the country, that is where things are truly out of balance at the parent and high school level. I joke of course, but let's realize that this is an urban upper and upper middle class phenomenon, i.e., a rich person's problem
But if you merely want to cut down the craziness in the application process, just eliminate applicants from the urban areas of NY, NJ and Conn. Based on my observations as an Ivy League alum who travels the country, that is where things are truly out of balance at the parent and high school level. I joke of course, but let's realize that this is an urban upper and upper middle class phenomenon, i.e., a rich person's problem
Caring for others should be at the bottom of the list. If you cannot be successful, your ability to care for others is dramatically lessened. Happiness well, we should all strive for the pursuit of happiness, but it is nearly impossible to be happy without caring for others.
Americans of Asian and Jewish descent smell more quotas coming, and they are correct. At the university of Texas you need to be in the top 8% of your high school class to be granted automatic admission. Asians are about 6 times over represented at UT compared to their population in the state. UT admits about 75% of their class this way. The remaining 25% are admitted for more holistic reasons, where race comes into play. The same thing is being played out at elite private universities.
2
I would suggest placing even greater emphasis on getting rid of legacy admissions preferences. As has often been said, the legacy preference system is just "affirmative action for rich people". It limits the pool of slots open to general admissions (to an incredible amount at some schools) and simply further stresses kids who are busting their butts for those slots that are left. You want truly diverse classes? Don't start by giving preferences to the kids of people who attended before.
3
My grandson is a high achieving high school junior. He's been stressed since last year over college application. He's been told to take every AP course available, that he must average minimum 2200 on Sat and 35 on ACT. My son pays 2 test tutors $200 an hour each. He and his wife are stressed. Their son has to get into an Ivy or Stanford or Northwestern. If he's turned down at any, he and they can't tell anyone. The competition is intense. It's INSANE. I tell my grandson to relax. It'll be fine. And I'm sure it will be. But nobody listens.
8
Your comment further emphasizes the unfair if not prejudicial nature of the system as it is. Your grandson is quite fortunate that his parents can afford $200 per hour tutors. If this is a necessity, then certainly many deserving students are unable to compete in the process.
3
As the parent of kids who "won" in this competition -- Ivy League and top college admissions -- I can tell you I wish we had never participated. These schools are certainly full of smart people, but so many of the "winners" come from the .1 percent that the level of wealth permeating these places warps the undergraduate experience. It's easy to "follow your passion" when you know there's a big trust fund waiting. The real winners in this generation -- those that have a lasting impact on the world -- are probably going to come out of state schools and community colleges where they learn something about what the world is actually about. Give your kids a chance -- withdraw from this race now.
5
according to a recent report 75% of millennials believe being graduated from college prepares them for the job market, while 75% of employers believe that the opposite is true. probably 50% of college student are unqualified to be in college. the suggestions in this article is just a facade to reach the holy grail of diversity while the achievement of academic excellence is thrown street side to the detriment of the nation.
1
Sorry to disagree, but college is supposed to be about education, not socialization. The admissions process should be seeking students who are most likely to succeed in acquiring an education at the institution. Standardized tests shouldn't be rejected unless they fail to identify at least some of those students.
1
Admissions is an art not a science. There is, quite frankly, no way to know what is the best way to do college admissions.
Unless and until these schools decide to recruit students instead of selecting students they will continue to get the same students. The reason is that the students who want to get into these schools will pad their applications with whatever is necessary to get in. Meaning they will play the game however they need to win.
If these institutions want to change their mix, then they need to go out and recruit specific student groups and students, instead of relying on their application process.
If these institutions want to change their mix, then they need to go out and recruit specific student groups and students, instead of relying on their application process.
It certainly sounds nice, but given any climate for competitive admissions necessarily encourages students to organize the means to overcome the obstacles. If we want to get kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, the colleges will have to hire a cadre of people to go into the communities and schools from which they would like to draw . Seeing those kids in action and talking to the teachers and principals in those areas can give the universities a much better understanding of the abilities of those kids. Talking to and watching those kids in the classroom and in extra curricula activities which in some cases is a part-time job is the only way one gets to understand them. Setting up a paradigm leaves school people to aim for it and short-circuit it. The colleges ought to write a narrative of the disadvantaged kids it has seen and why they are special and deserve admission because it is in keeping with the aims of the university and the country. If the university goes at it barehanded, so to speak, they will not have to be dragged into court by some advantaged disgruntled kid. Instead of the kids writing an essay about why they wish to go to the college, let's have the college write an essay on why they want this particular disadvantaged kid!
1
Uh - did I miss it? The elephant in the room is tuition. Where are these underprivileged kids supposed to come up with $200,000?
1
Uhh, yes you did. There are these little places called public universities that aren't nearly so expensive. Yearly tuition for an in-state full-time undergraduate at City College, a perfectly fine academic institution, is about $6500. Hardly out of reach. Even if a disadvantaged student had to borrow every penny, that's a total of 26k in student loans, also not ridiculously high for the extreme outlier case. You're under the mistaken impression that one's college education is worthless unless $50k per year is spent at a private school.
1
Since my son went to an engineering school, I am much more familiar with the admission process. Even if we admit the SAT score correlate to family income, I cannot imagine an engineering school looking with favor on a candidate whose Math score was not at least 600, unless he was prepared to demonstrate in some other way, that he (or she) was nonetheless prepared to do the work required.
It is easy in liberal arts to imagine that all can be accommodated but when real hard learning is involved, all CANNOT be accommodated.
It is easy in liberal arts to imagine that all can be accommodated but when real hard learning is involved, all CANNOT be accommodated.
2
It seems like we're missing the flip side of the argument here. How much of the additional preparation in advanced studies is needed to insure success at these top tier universities. Although someone may have the inherent skills to succeed at any endeavor, if they haven't had the opportunity to hone those skills will they just fail when they are put into an environment where those skills are needed? This is different then the advantage more sophisticated applicants have when preparing their admission paperwork. They know all the tricks of the trade. But shouldn't these elite schools be able to figure that out also? Seems like that is something they should be able to handle on their own. Why not make the extra effort on that level instead of saying it seems to be a fault in the kids (a survey asking them if caring is important, a bit of a trap there). How about a survey asking university presidents if they care more about their individual students or their US News ranking, and average SAT score? And after they answer the students, let's compare that to the following survey given to their admissions officers, "Are you "guided" to fill slots with students who have potential from less advantaged areas or are you guided to select students who keep our numbers high?" Hmmm, I wonder what that answer would be?
1
I believe in the next ten years, distance learning, globalization, and emphasis on practical knowledge will make these concerns moot.
Anything to make it easier to check the diversity/fairness box. After all, what is more important than a diverse (but still polarized) student body? Gonna need more tutors at Penn, etc. Or, just maybe, in addition to lowering the admissions standards, these institutions make the classes easier. That's the ticket.
2
Mr. Bruni,
You should first read the book "City on A Hill" by James Traub which details the effects of open admissions not only on the schools but how it affects the students who are not able to complete the work assigned and need remediation.
College is not the place for remediation. The problem is in secondary education which does not prepare all for college
You should first read the book "City on A Hill" by James Traub which details the effects of open admissions not only on the schools but how it affects the students who are not able to complete the work assigned and need remediation.
College is not the place for remediation. The problem is in secondary education which does not prepare all for college
2
How about basing admissions on achievement?
What a joke! These schools are guilty of the worst type of social engineering. The colleges should remove race and economic status from consideration and just consider achievement.
Suburban white and Asian kids are treated incredibly unfairly in the process. While the ultra rich and economically challenged slide through and take their spots.
What a joke! These schools are guilty of the worst type of social engineering. The colleges should remove race and economic status from consideration and just consider achievement.
Suburban white and Asian kids are treated incredibly unfairly in the process. While the ultra rich and economically challenged slide through and take their spots.
1
You live in a bizarre world if you think Caucasians and Asians are treated unfairly.
1
Lord protect us from liberals who want to dumb down education to promote whatever their flavor of the month might be! Give me an educational system that requires hard work and rewards intellectual achievement!
3
Then you agree, at least, that legacy admissions should be eliminated.
2
Give me one that admits George W. Bush to both Yale and Harvard based on his brains and achievements.
It isn't what happens in the admissions office that puts high-achieving kids in a frenzy to get into Harvard, it is what happens afterward. Check the resumes of recent presidents, supreme court judges, and high cabinet appointees. They all come from the Ivy Leagues. Try getting admitted to graduate school at one of those Ivy League schools, and see whether it helps to have done your undergraduate at another of them (yes). Try to get a tenure-track faculty appointment these days at a top college or university; you probably won't even get an interview if you don't have one of those schools on your resume. And if you are a math or physics graduate from Harvard, you have a free ticket into Wall Street's instant millionaire club.
It isn't the entrance requirements to the Ivy Leagues that are the problem; it is the overpowering cachet that is attached to their sheepskins. Is it really necessary to pick all our leaders from the same two or three schools? Or is it just one more example of the Good Ol' Boys Club?
It isn't the entrance requirements to the Ivy Leagues that are the problem; it is the overpowering cachet that is attached to their sheepskins. Is it really necessary to pick all our leaders from the same two or three schools? Or is it just one more example of the Good Ol' Boys Club?
6
The stress will not change. The "best of the best" colleges and universities offer their students real advantages in both educational experiences and career building. A kid who graduates from Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech (all sub 10% admission rates) has far more doors open to him or her than one who graduates from UCLA (17% admission rate). The stress, the fight to get in, will continue regardless. All that will happen is that in addition to perfect education stats, the kids will need to identify a true passion by the age of 14 and pursue it fiercely prior to applying to college.
3
"A.P." only has meaning if there are non-A.P. courses. At private schools such as St. John's in Houston, Texas there were just "classes" and all were a bit difficult, especially 8th grade Latin I.
I really don't "get" all this. I am a retired engineer and in my day all engineering freshmen had to have sound math and science academics as well as good scores on the SAT and the more advance SAT math subject matter test. I cant' imagine it will work out well if these universities start admitting freshmen who are STEM know-nothings into STEM majors.
Also, in my day there was no such thing as a "public service requirement", being an Eagle Scout was sufficient proof of good character. These days I imagine the admissions folks of the Ivy League black-ball Eagle Scouts and junior world champions of Skeet shooting.
One of the beauties of our "Texas 10 Percent" system (now more like 8%) is that kids who do well in their high schools, among their peers, get into any Texas state university in "general admissions" liberal arts without having to put up with running a gauntlet of admissions officials who, at the University of Texas - Austin at least, are a strangely abnormal group of people far different socially and politically from mainstream Texans.
I really don't "get" all this. I am a retired engineer and in my day all engineering freshmen had to have sound math and science academics as well as good scores on the SAT and the more advance SAT math subject matter test. I cant' imagine it will work out well if these universities start admitting freshmen who are STEM know-nothings into STEM majors.
Also, in my day there was no such thing as a "public service requirement", being an Eagle Scout was sufficient proof of good character. These days I imagine the admissions folks of the Ivy League black-ball Eagle Scouts and junior world champions of Skeet shooting.
One of the beauties of our "Texas 10 Percent" system (now more like 8%) is that kids who do well in their high schools, among their peers, get into any Texas state university in "general admissions" liberal arts without having to put up with running a gauntlet of admissions officials who, at the University of Texas - Austin at least, are a strangely abnormal group of people far different socially and politically from mainstream Texans.
1
This plan may have worked well enough for a white student In TX years ago but be realistic and look up from your sliderule - this is about who you met and befriend in school and what those relationships may mean to your future. Handy if your roomie's dad is the president of a corporation or bank, a top general, medical giant, etc. Parents do not expect that at community colleges or lesser state schools. This is more about being In Skull and Bones or the Harvard Club than what the students may learn in class.
And now let me tell you about my daughter the doctor.
And now let me tell you about my daughter the doctor.
Frank,
You and the authors you cite avoid a very very big problem at these elite schools: Money/wealth of atendee families.
For example 'students' of oil-rich families from the middle east are regularly admitted with little or no academic criteria checks. The 'checks' that matter are those contributing to the ever growing endowments of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the like.
Once at these schools, these young men (no women of course) don't integrate, forming their own elitist cliques and sneering at everyone else.
You and the authors you cite avoid a very very big problem at these elite schools: Money/wealth of atendee families.
For example 'students' of oil-rich families from the middle east are regularly admitted with little or no academic criteria checks. The 'checks' that matter are those contributing to the ever growing endowments of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the like.
Once at these schools, these young men (no women of course) don't integrate, forming their own elitist cliques and sneering at everyone else.
4
I'm glad I graduated from high school in 1971 instead of today. In my lower middle-class neighborhood, no one expected to go to Yale or Harvard. I can't think of anyone that went to any "elite" school from my graduating class. Most of us that went to college applied to schools that weren't too expensive or too far away. The local CC was popular and the hometown school (think "Orangemen") got lots of commuters that lived at home and took the bus to campus. We played the sports that we wanted (I played ice hockey which was not a school sport in those days so no letters to brag about) and joined the clubs and extra-curricular activities we were interested in. No phony resume padding by joining clubs you had no interest in. I was an average student and got average SAT scores. Applied to two private schools but didn't get the Navy ROTC scholarship that would have paid the way (eyesight below the minimum) so I went to a state school. No stress, no sleepless nights - got a good liberal arts education that has served me well for the past 40+ years. There's too much pressure on kids today. As Frank put it in another column on this issue ' "where you go to college is not who you are".
5
Temple University has already put into practice reducing the reliance on test scores with more emphasis on public service and grades. As an alum, I've seen a diverse, over achieving, intelligent student body with passion about their studies and university. #TempleMade
1
I guess Bruni is a product of American education. QED.
1
College admission is one of the great contributors to inequality in the US. Not to mention selfishness. Frank Bruni tells it like it is, as always.
1
How about having these elite schools identify a minimum threshold of capability that definitively correlate with academic success at the particular institution. Then hold a lottery for the number of enrollment slots available. Everyone who meets the standard has an equal chance of acceptance.
1
"The report recommends less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income."
Yikes! But this is true. I once visited Princeton for a conference. I've never seen so many rich kids in my life. It was enough to make you sick, and I'm glad to hear Admissions groups are finally doing something about this national disgrace.
As for stress on young students, I wish parents would realize that it doesn't matter all that much where you go to college. If you want to get ahead in life, you pretty much have to go to some sort of graduate school, and that's going to be the school that matters.
Look at the colleges of the incoming class at Harvard Law. Yes, some come from Ivys, but the majoity come from non-Ivy schools.
So relax. Send your child to a good inexpensive college, and tell them to work hard and get good grades there. Then they will be able to go to the graduate school of their choice and they will be older and more able to handle the stress of that important application process.
Yikes! But this is true. I once visited Princeton for a conference. I've never seen so many rich kids in my life. It was enough to make you sick, and I'm glad to hear Admissions groups are finally doing something about this national disgrace.
As for stress on young students, I wish parents would realize that it doesn't matter all that much where you go to college. If you want to get ahead in life, you pretty much have to go to some sort of graduate school, and that's going to be the school that matters.
Look at the colleges of the incoming class at Harvard Law. Yes, some come from Ivys, but the majoity come from non-Ivy schools.
So relax. Send your child to a good inexpensive college, and tell them to work hard and get good grades there. Then they will be able to go to the graduate school of their choice and they will be older and more able to handle the stress of that important application process.
2
I think the most interesting point is how all the emphasis on assessments really takes away from intellectual passion and/or ability. My daughter goes to an excellent private school without many AP classes, but the few she has taken have been her least stimulating classes of high school -- too much memorization at the expense of discussion and critical analysis. A 2nd grader I know has weekly standardized assessments in decoding that have done nothing to stimulate a real interest in reading books. And these are both students at good schools. We can do better than this as a country.
1
Another outcome of the admissions process is the large number of employers that will only consider hiring students from a specific set of universities, Admission to one of these institutions really is a golden ticket because a talented graduate of a school not on the list enters college with a number of post-graduate doors already closed.
3
Another study of the "Bleeding Obvious". High school teachers have known this for years.
As a retired teacher I have watched the following over the last 30 year. Much of the "community service" is also just fabricated.
Kids are pushed into AP classes beyond their ability. Subsequently teachers of AP classes are pressured to dumb down the "rigor" so kids can pass. (Of course the AP "business" will deny that fact) I knew one teacher who gave her students and automatic "A" on the final exam just for taking the class. I knew another AP teacher who insisted that high school AP classes were not intended to be "rigorous" but to give the students a "taste" of college expectations. Right.
An industry devoted to "helping" kids write their college essays makes 90% of those essays worthless as diagnostic tools..
If colleges want good students the answer is not simple. Some ideas.
Ignore the GPA from high school, which is sadly bloated.. Ignore the extracurricular activities claims. Give some consideration to an SAT or ACT score as an indication of basic skills and knowledge. Forget the application "essay".
Rely 90% on a personal interview along with a short essay written on the spot during the interview process.
If a college wants to use sports ability or musical ability or ethnicity as part of the process, fine. But stop living under the illusion that the current business of college admissions (and it IS a big business) will provide you with academically superior students.
As a retired teacher I have watched the following over the last 30 year. Much of the "community service" is also just fabricated.
Kids are pushed into AP classes beyond their ability. Subsequently teachers of AP classes are pressured to dumb down the "rigor" so kids can pass. (Of course the AP "business" will deny that fact) I knew one teacher who gave her students and automatic "A" on the final exam just for taking the class. I knew another AP teacher who insisted that high school AP classes were not intended to be "rigorous" but to give the students a "taste" of college expectations. Right.
An industry devoted to "helping" kids write their college essays makes 90% of those essays worthless as diagnostic tools..
If colleges want good students the answer is not simple. Some ideas.
Ignore the GPA from high school, which is sadly bloated.. Ignore the extracurricular activities claims. Give some consideration to an SAT or ACT score as an indication of basic skills and knowledge. Forget the application "essay".
Rely 90% on a personal interview along with a short essay written on the spot during the interview process.
If a college wants to use sports ability or musical ability or ethnicity as part of the process, fine. But stop living under the illusion that the current business of college admissions (and it IS a big business) will provide you with academically superior students.
4
The American education system has simply lost its sense of direction. In particular, “higher” education has become a social rather than an educational experience. The value of learning has been subverted to the point that most large corporations have so little faith in its results that they have instituted extensive training programs for newly hired employees. Prior to WWII, less than 10% of the population had college diplomas, and that was more than sufficient to fill all the opportunities that were available. As a consequence of the famed “GI Bill”, 10 million veterans of the war were entitled to free college tuition. The sudden unplanned massive expansion of student bodies inevitably caused a watering down of the content and quality of college curriculums. Students reached graduation with a level of accomplishment that fell short of a High School diploma in years past.
The debates on higher education are centered on “diversity”, racial equality, sexual assault, and the inordinate emphasis and corruption in intercollegiate sport. It can be argued that every one of these issues was inevitable in view of the loss of purpose that enveloped institutions in post WWII.
The necessity for every young person to study four more years beyond the twelve long years that precede it is imaginary. It has become a social custom rather than an economic or intellectual opportunity.
The debates on higher education are centered on “diversity”, racial equality, sexual assault, and the inordinate emphasis and corruption in intercollegiate sport. It can be argued that every one of these issues was inevitable in view of the loss of purpose that enveloped institutions in post WWII.
The necessity for every young person to study four more years beyond the twelve long years that precede it is imaginary. It has become a social custom rather than an economic or intellectual opportunity.
The school I head in Manhattan, The Calhoun School, abolished AP courses a dozen years ago. We don't have class rankings or GPA's and our students are deeply committed, curious and fully alive. And they go to college, including the most selective.
This report may indicate a useful change, but I will wait and see. The factors Mr. Bruni cites - depression, eating disorders, incuriosity, "gaming the system," anxiety, stress - are not sudden manifestations of the trickle down effect that colleges created. A test of sincerity will be to see how many simply refuse to participate in the U.S. News and World Report rankings.
This report may indicate a useful change, but I will wait and see. The factors Mr. Bruni cites - depression, eating disorders, incuriosity, "gaming the system," anxiety, stress - are not sudden manifestations of the trickle down effect that colleges created. A test of sincerity will be to see how many simply refuse to participate in the U.S. News and World Report rankings.
What if all students had to take a year off working or playing before they were eligible to enter college? Would a year without heavy pressures, time to think about their lives and time to make some money hurt anyone? Might it encourage young adults to do some creative thinking about their future and to seek an education, academic or vocational, that really interests "them?"
Funny that colleges seek out the "well-rounded" student, and when these well-rounded students get to college, right off they need "safe places" from all the phenomena of life that they might meet in the future.
That does not say much for their well-roundedness or their intellectual and emotional readiness to face life and its challenges. Seems more like a house of cards. One huff and puff and it all comes tumbling down.
That does not say much for their well-roundedness or their intellectual and emotional readiness to face life and its challenges. Seems more like a house of cards. One huff and puff and it all comes tumbling down.
1
There is much to to what you write here, but it's not perfect either. A.P. courses are effective in weeding out who can do the work at tough colleges, for example, at least in our district. Yes, its a problem that they are not offered in get number in poor districts. But that points to one flaw in all this: the pressure point should be improving schools not figuring out somehow, maybe by magic, who from shoddy schools is capable of doing something they have never done before, learning at a high level.
As you write Mr. Farmer's comments, the conservatives who in the last few years have seized control of his school and state, are doing their best to make it inaccessible to the poor... . They are destroying public education from top to bottom.
But, back to the ACTs etc. You do need metrics of some kind. And athletes, other than those in money sports, are often great admits because they have had to learn time management skills... to take care of their studies and sports practices, travel, games etc. And legacies... not a great thing, but on the other hand, colleges need donations for endowments that re being made ever more vital as the Free Market types cut state funding to state schools like Mr. Farmer's, your alma mater.
As you write Mr. Farmer's comments, the conservatives who in the last few years have seized control of his school and state, are doing their best to make it inaccessible to the poor... . They are destroying public education from top to bottom.
But, back to the ACTs etc. You do need metrics of some kind. And athletes, other than those in money sports, are often great admits because they have had to learn time management skills... to take care of their studies and sports practices, travel, games etc. And legacies... not a great thing, but on the other hand, colleges need donations for endowments that re being made ever more vital as the Free Market types cut state funding to state schools like Mr. Farmer's, your alma mater.
Narrow view on colleges and careers in this article. The least expensive state school in MA has the highest initial salary ($70k ish) and nearly 100% job placement pre graduation: Mass Maritime Academy. Not everyone serves on a merchant ship since managing harbors and the flow of goods is part of the training.
Parents need to consider skills not just AP. These can make a child an admissions standout at the same time provide wide and highly interesting exploration of careers. Why not learn LIDAR, take mapping software tutorials, etc that have gov jobs, engineering, geology, archaeology, and numerous other jobs that use these. Practical skills build confidence.
Parents need to consider skills not just AP. These can make a child an admissions standout at the same time provide wide and highly interesting exploration of careers. Why not learn LIDAR, take mapping software tutorials, etc that have gov jobs, engineering, geology, archaeology, and numerous other jobs that use these. Practical skills build confidence.
Good.
Now we need to get rid of all the excessive testing in the grade schools that is related to the so-called Common core. My kids are over tested, day after day.
It is taking the joy out of school and learning that they each had until last year.
Now we need to get rid of all the excessive testing in the grade schools that is related to the so-called Common core. My kids are over tested, day after day.
It is taking the joy out of school and learning that they each had until last year.
4
Mr. Bruni seems to ignore the fact there are built in individual differences in academic ability. True, income level correlates with SAT scores -- but there are other truths, primarily that income level and IQ are correlated. Since IQ is built in, if you were to build a causal model, wouldn't it make more sense to assume parents with higher IQ's on avg have higher incomes and therefore their children do better on SATs, particularly given that IQ and SAT are highly correlated? It isn't quite as simple as thinking middle and upper middle class kids have all these advantages and that's why they do better. Far from it.
As far as elite schools go, yes, everyone wants to go to Harvard or another IVY. But -- if you take all the higher level state and private colleges and universities, there are far more bright people in those schools combined than are found in the Ivies and Stanford and a handful of others. If there are roughly 20 million people enrolled in colleges, & let's assume the college population is taken from the upper half of the IQ distribution, then roughly 1 million students, give or take, should have an IQ of 130 or above. The Ivies and the handful of elite schools can't handle that number of students -- and about 6 million or so have an IQ above 115. Again, the Ivies can't admit all of those. So, lot's of bright students out there -- and you have to wonder for bright students with comparable IQs, what difference attending elite schools makes.
As far as elite schools go, yes, everyone wants to go to Harvard or another IVY. But -- if you take all the higher level state and private colleges and universities, there are far more bright people in those schools combined than are found in the Ivies and Stanford and a handful of others. If there are roughly 20 million people enrolled in colleges, & let's assume the college population is taken from the upper half of the IQ distribution, then roughly 1 million students, give or take, should have an IQ of 130 or above. The Ivies and the handful of elite schools can't handle that number of students -- and about 6 million or so have an IQ above 115. Again, the Ivies can't admit all of those. So, lot's of bright students out there -- and you have to wonder for bright students with comparable IQs, what difference attending elite schools makes.
3
The problem with the college admissions process, especially at the elite schools, that has 'flowed' down to high school and below, is that they have basically adopted the model that is used overseas, especially in Asian countries, where everything you do in life depends on how you do on standardized tests. More importantly, in China and Japan and Korea, what school you go to is the determinant of your future, don't go to an elite school, you are tracked into pretty low level careers. Despite their claims to the contrary, college admissions has turned into a bunch of test scores, and numbers (ie how many EC's, how many AP classes). Why? Because it is a lot easier to get a student's application, and look at the numbers and weed them out that way, then look at the student as a person.Intellectual curiousity, expanding a kids mind, mean little when the basic tenet is 'do only those things colleges care about, don't take chances or you'll ruin your chances'.
The biggest problem? That admissions has turned into 'gaming the system', and that is pathetic, once something becomes a system, it becomes inherently corrupted and worthless.
The biggest problem? That admissions has turned into 'gaming the system', and that is pathetic, once something becomes a system, it becomes inherently corrupted and worthless.
1
Wouldn't it be great if all these people spent their time analyzing the lower end of the education system to broaden and deepen the educational process for all our children from age three on up? How about really good day care -- for all our families, on a pay scale that starts at nothing and goes up? How about a society that taxes everyone to adequately pay for grade school classes that are small? And to pay our teachers a better than average wage so that we can attract more superior brains to head up our classrooms? The effort to adjust the admissions process is nice but in terms of effectiveness in providing a superior education for all our children . . . .it has a long way to go. The rich will rig this system too.
As a society we value efficiency and pragmatism, but we don't give a hoot for education. As a consequence, we now have a sizable number of citizens willing to vote for men who proffer authoritarian and fascistic solutions, and too many voters can't think clearly enough to recognize this fact even when they have college educations!
As a society we value efficiency and pragmatism, but we don't give a hoot for education. As a consequence, we now have a sizable number of citizens willing to vote for men who proffer authoritarian and fascistic solutions, and too many voters can't think clearly enough to recognize this fact even when they have college educations!
1
This may be a good step forward in bringing change to the admissions process, but it leaves me wondering this: If they place less emphasis on SAT tests, AP classes and rigorous curriculums, won't that that simply bring more applicants and make the process more arbitrary and difficult to shine through? Now instead of having 25,000 people apply to Stanford, there may be perhaps 50,000 who want to give it a try since they don't have to be concerned about test scores or less rigorous curriculum limiting them. How will colleges sift through this massive increase?
If the colleges' goal is simply to improve access for under represented groups, then perhaps the better way is to provide closer assistance in helping students develop a college list, apply, and most importantly, complete the financial aid process which happens well after the applications are filed. Studies have shown that this is where the process falls short for underrepresented students---not their SAT scores, which the colleges often underemphasize for lower income students anyway.
I'm not sure that the plan as it is now will do anything more than increase applications overall, rather than increase applications from targeted groups. They may be feeding the beast in encouraging more students to apply---more applications, more stress.
If the colleges' goal is simply to improve access for under represented groups, then perhaps the better way is to provide closer assistance in helping students develop a college list, apply, and most importantly, complete the financial aid process which happens well after the applications are filed. Studies have shown that this is where the process falls short for underrepresented students---not their SAT scores, which the colleges often underemphasize for lower income students anyway.
I'm not sure that the plan as it is now will do anything more than increase applications overall, rather than increase applications from targeted groups. They may be feeding the beast in encouraging more students to apply---more applications, more stress.
1
One more thought on this topic. It is truly amazing to me how much credit is given to athletic achievement in the elite college admissions process. I am not just referring to Duke and Stanford either. Other areas of superior accomplishment like music, dance, acting, writing, or school leadership do not give applicants a boost that is comparable to that of an athlete who can compete at the Varsity level. Not even the often cited alumni child gets this lift. Probably only the super-wealthy applicant gets a comparable nod in the admissions office. This is true in all the Ivies but also at Division III schools like Williams, Amherst, Wesleyan etc. I have often wondered how justifiable this approach really is. I would like to see it investigated more openly.
9
The athletes admitted to Stanford are very intelligent and would most likely qualify for admission even if they were not athletes. [ Just notice how well spoken they are when interviewed after games vs your typical college interviewee. ]
Sadly many of the athletes admitted to UC Berkeley/UCLA would never even be
considered - they are part of the one hundred: Less than 3.00 GPA and under 1200/2400 SAT - students admitted each year so the Athletic teams can do "better" - but how does that really help those students
who should really go to Community College and learn how to study - and then
apply to the UC's - achieve their best in the classroom ?
Sadly many of the athletes admitted to UC Berkeley/UCLA would never even be
considered - they are part of the one hundred: Less than 3.00 GPA and under 1200/2400 SAT - students admitted each year so the Athletic teams can do "better" - but how does that really help those students
who should really go to Community College and learn how to study - and then
apply to the UC's - achieve their best in the classroom ?
As a former professor (who is frightened out of my wits by what I know and the public doesn't), I have followed Mr. Bruni's columns with considerable interest. They offer a teaching moment.
Initially, Mr. Bruni's columns seemed to be full of trust in universities (a fatal mistake), that today's college experience was, or could be, like the experience he probably had. It isn't, and in his recent columns one could see that he was realizing that.
But, now there is this column, not skeptical - which it should be -- just hopeful. That is a concern for those of us who want to see change through education - education ABOUT universities
Most of us want universities to be like our wonderful, wise, well dressed (in tweed), and highly respected (Let's make him British) uncle; someone who cares about us and wants to teach us well.
Instead, we get something like Bernie Madoff - but much worse. This uncle steals our kids' futures.
But, like some of Bernie's customers, we can't emotionally deal with the idea that Bernie (or our British Uncle) could be that unscrupulous.
We can't accept that anyone could steal a youth's education and future.
What are we going to do if our uncle is a crook? He has the keys to our future.
That is why I think most of us have trouble dealing with what our system of higher education has become. That is what we can learn from this column.
(To review Frank Bruni's columns on education, look under his name on my blog, inside-higher-ed .)
Initially, Mr. Bruni's columns seemed to be full of trust in universities (a fatal mistake), that today's college experience was, or could be, like the experience he probably had. It isn't, and in his recent columns one could see that he was realizing that.
But, now there is this column, not skeptical - which it should be -- just hopeful. That is a concern for those of us who want to see change through education - education ABOUT universities
Most of us want universities to be like our wonderful, wise, well dressed (in tweed), and highly respected (Let's make him British) uncle; someone who cares about us and wants to teach us well.
Instead, we get something like Bernie Madoff - but much worse. This uncle steals our kids' futures.
But, like some of Bernie's customers, we can't emotionally deal with the idea that Bernie (or our British Uncle) could be that unscrupulous.
We can't accept that anyone could steal a youth's education and future.
What are we going to do if our uncle is a crook? He has the keys to our future.
That is why I think most of us have trouble dealing with what our system of higher education has become. That is what we can learn from this column.
(To review Frank Bruni's columns on education, look under his name on my blog, inside-higher-ed .)
1
Nice but should we care? The elite colleges serve fewer than ten per cent of college going students. They serve an even smaller number of poor or "rising" Americans. Thier marketing and economic structure makes it unlikely they would do more.
Most Americans-80 percent-attend public colleges and universities. They suffer from public cutbacks, little support from the wealthy, invidious comparisons to the elites, and a distortion of thier mission to educate into job preparedness. More attention is needed where more can be achieved.
Most Americans-80 percent-attend public colleges and universities. They suffer from public cutbacks, little support from the wealthy, invidious comparisons to the elites, and a distortion of thier mission to educate into job preparedness. More attention is needed where more can be achieved.
1
Yeah, but since I'm a legacy admission at an Ivy League school I don't have to have a social program, or write a very good essay. My APs are awesome and multitudinous. I have a load of internships at non-profits (unpaid) and a ton of references from my mom and dad's former classmates. And really, once we get in, I and the other legatees set the social tone of the school, not the lower class and ethnic kids. (S)
"that they better use essays and references to figure out which students’ community-service projects are heartfelt and which are merely window dressing; and that they give full due to the family obligations and part-time work that some underprivileged kids take on."
Obviously, Bruni and the people who wrote this report don't send their kids to schools where there are disadvantaged kids. Essays and references are two of the biggest application barriers for disadvantaged kids and immigrant kids who want to apply to school where these are required.
Obviously, Bruni and the people who wrote this report don't send their kids to schools where there are disadvantaged kids. Essays and references are two of the biggest application barriers for disadvantaged kids and immigrant kids who want to apply to school where these are required.
I think too much attention, time and money is being paid to get into "elite" schools. The top 10 schools are not much better than the top 100, and vastly more expensive. I know too many who have achieved much success and haven't gone to the top 10, or even college, and have very fulfilling lives, and others who have gone to one of the top ten with miserable lives.
2
Are the Ivies ready to admit the truth, that the two largest demographics in their admitted classes are legacies and recruited athletes?
The absence of "athletic scholarships" doesn't slow them down at all in the second demographic. Other than three of Cornell's 7 undergraduate colleges, all are private institutions sitting on huge endowments. The school is free to offer a free ride, a grant-in-aid, to any student it wishes to, which is even better than a D-1 athletic scholarship, because it is not allowed to be tied to athletic participation. That means an injury or disagreement with a coach can't precipitate loss of the ride, as happens in D-1 regularly.
The AP class is the most overrated concept I've seen, having gone through the college admissions scam with my kids in 2007 and 2011.
I took two AP classes in high school, graduating in 1976. My school, Stuyvesant, in NYC, is an elite school with an admissions test. Back then, only seniors could take AP classes, and they really were equivalent to college classes. Having seen my daughters take huge numbers, starting in 10th grade, I KNOW that no longer to be the case. In fact, contemporary AP foreign language is the equivalent of third year, Regents level language, when I was in HS. AP language students are still learning grammatical tenses. The subjunctive is taught in 5th year language now; third year back then. Math is just as diminished.
The absence of "athletic scholarships" doesn't slow them down at all in the second demographic. Other than three of Cornell's 7 undergraduate colleges, all are private institutions sitting on huge endowments. The school is free to offer a free ride, a grant-in-aid, to any student it wishes to, which is even better than a D-1 athletic scholarship, because it is not allowed to be tied to athletic participation. That means an injury or disagreement with a coach can't precipitate loss of the ride, as happens in D-1 regularly.
The AP class is the most overrated concept I've seen, having gone through the college admissions scam with my kids in 2007 and 2011.
I took two AP classes in high school, graduating in 1976. My school, Stuyvesant, in NYC, is an elite school with an admissions test. Back then, only seniors could take AP classes, and they really were equivalent to college classes. Having seen my daughters take huge numbers, starting in 10th grade, I KNOW that no longer to be the case. In fact, contemporary AP foreign language is the equivalent of third year, Regents level language, when I was in HS. AP language students are still learning grammatical tenses. The subjunctive is taught in 5th year language now; third year back then. Math is just as diminished.
2
The current college application process promotes unhealthy competition and overworked students that learn less and study more just so that they can get into their choice of school. As a recent high school graduate, I have seen friends with straight A's have panic attacks over a 10 point difference in their SAT scores because they worried they wouldn't get into their top choice of college. Websites such as Naviance show graphs comparing students' grades to one another, essentially assigning a value to how much that student is worth. Students who took the most difficult AP courses or who slept the least were considered models among the student body, and many students-- myself included-- had to give up their sport or their instrument just to have that extra time to write their essays.
With an increasing number of jobs on the market that require a college-level or graduate-level degree, colleges must take more responsibility in giving the opportunities for people to succeed without such a toxic and expensive atmosphere.
With an increasing number of jobs on the market that require a college-level or graduate-level degree, colleges must take more responsibility in giving the opportunities for people to succeed without such a toxic and expensive atmosphere.
2
In a number of ways this piece makes little sense.
It sounds as if they are saying that if you come from a family that values education and has given you resources and pushed a bit that now those kids will no longer be of interest to the university.
Discrimination of a different sort but discrimination none the less.
If what you are trying to achieve is a university of the mediocre this article certainly describes how to do that and the country will be worse off for it.
It sounds as if they are saying that if you come from a family that values education and has given you resources and pushed a bit that now those kids will no longer be of interest to the university.
Discrimination of a different sort but discrimination none the less.
If what you are trying to achieve is a university of the mediocre this article certainly describes how to do that and the country will be worse off for it.
1
There will be no reduction in tuition anytime soon with the hopes and dreams of so many kids pinned on elite higher education. Degrees from these schools will soon primarily correlate to crushing student debt loads. Maybe that is the new success metric. It certainly has lent itself to the financial success of and public largess paid to these august institutions. Many are more in the future will be educated far beyond their intelligence.
while much of this column makes sense, it fails to identify a basic fallacy about the entire college admissions scenario. Jumping through all the hoops to be admitted to an "elite" college does not guarantee an "elite," or even superior education. Harvard, Yale, Princeton et al are nothing more than brands. We want our children to "own" those brand-name products as signs of superior intelligence, work ethic and all the bells and whistles afforded by a slew of extra-curricular activities. Gucci handbags are nice too, and designer jeans are all made of denim.
The fact, however, is that you can get just as good an education–even better– at almost any state university, not to mention smaller private institutions. I was a teaching fellow at Harvard where I taught my high-paying, highly indebted or highly supported students a full one third of all their classes in my courses. I graded all their papers and even held office hours.
High-school guidance councilors and parents should be encouraging their charges to develop sincere intellectual interests and think seriously about a range of possible careers, then investigate potential universities where they can best fulfill those goals.
The fact, however, is that you can get just as good an education–even better– at almost any state university, not to mention smaller private institutions. I was a teaching fellow at Harvard where I taught my high-paying, highly indebted or highly supported students a full one third of all their classes in my courses. I graded all their papers and even held office hours.
High-school guidance councilors and parents should be encouraging their charges to develop sincere intellectual interests and think seriously about a range of possible careers, then investigate potential universities where they can best fulfill those goals.
3
Here is a specific way in which colleges favor the wealthy. Early Decision allows students to have a better chance of admittance. Statistics reflect this fact. Only families who can afford to commit to full tuition can commit to such a program as academic award monies come after the decision by the college on an applicant or at the least at the same time. Unfair.
2
The bottom line is that the college admissions process will become even more unpredictable and prone to bias (whether personal, economic, or demographic) than it already is. We may have a more "diverse" student body, but it's likely as not to be a little less college-ready than the cadres already making their way through the system.
While I agree that the college admissions process is a mess, I think the problem goes much deeper. First, though, the cited study is problematic. Ask yourself which you care about more, happiness or caring for others. Are the two not interdependent? I am happy while caring for others. Secondly, can't my individual achievement now help secure the happiness of my future family?
Also, economics will always determine priorities. Think about a classroom with a caring teacher who consistently sets an example of empathy as an important character trait. At the end of the day and year, that teacher is forced to give standardized tests and rank students accordingly. What message would you end up with? That your economic survival depends upon your individual achievement, and that empathy is an important, if secondary, priority. Even getting into college is an example of individual student achievement. I became a teacher (caring for others) after getting into a good college (individual achievement).
The ideas in this book will remain lip service until colleges can help translate empathy to economic success--looking to you, Harvard business school...
Also, economics will always determine priorities. Think about a classroom with a caring teacher who consistently sets an example of empathy as an important character trait. At the end of the day and year, that teacher is forced to give standardized tests and rank students accordingly. What message would you end up with? That your economic survival depends upon your individual achievement, and that empathy is an important, if secondary, priority. Even getting into college is an example of individual student achievement. I became a teacher (caring for others) after getting into a good college (individual achievement).
The ideas in this book will remain lip service until colleges can help translate empathy to economic success--looking to you, Harvard business school...
1
College today is no longer only for those students with a desire to learn and lead. Sadly, college has become the basic standard for the average kid, because employment has become so competitive. There simply are less and less places to work. This is due to our lack of manufacturing and our free trade with China. Thanks, NAFTA!
Taking this all one step further, I can only hope that some of these changes if they should become part of the culture would also results in: raising the standards for HS graduation and what is taught in "regular" classes; elimination of "negotiating" grades and pressure on teachers to raise grades; reduction of parents bargaining with and threatening (real or implied) teachers and administrators; lessening of cheating; and better parenting, meaning less time spent on inflating their kids egos, scheduling extra curricular activities to prove how "good" their kid (or they) are and more time spent on nurturing and developing emotional intelligence.
Most problems within this article originate from the amount of financial support a family can provide for their child. Many parents are asking how can their child go to college if they cannot financially provide for them. The SAT/ACT scores cannot be the only measure to dictate how a student will perform in college. If the opportunity arises, many parents will spend numerous amounts money to help their child get an advantage over another student. Kids that can afford test prep and expensive coaching benefit more. Where is the merit in that? If schools are starting to make counter measures against this to make the college process less stressful, where is the real problem?
Just tell the kids the rules. Don't play games with their minds. I agree, the last paragraph is the most significant. If all high school students above a certain threshold are really and truly indistinguishable, then there is one and only one fair solution. Pick their names out of a hat in the final round. Do it on live web cam for all to see with each applicant receiving an assigned # for privacy reasons.
Let's say for Harvard, the threshold is 32 ACT, 3.75 GPA and at least one significant EC (sport, art, etc.) If 5,000 students meet this threshold, throw them all into a hat.
Let's say for Harvard, the threshold is 32 ACT, 3.75 GPA and at least one significant EC (sport, art, etc.) If 5,000 students meet this threshold, throw them all into a hat.
Bruni,
How can you tell if one student has more potential in college and future career if you don't have anything concrete to measure the students cross board? I don't think a kid from a relatively poorer family necessarily have more potential to contribute the society than a kid from a richer family who is working hard on his/her own to get the higher GPA and AP scores. Academic scores shows if this is a responsible person and do what his profession requires him to do. I used to think this society awards hard work, but now you are saying hard work is no good. By eliminating GPA and AP courses, you are punishing those who work so hard to get that level by themselves, not thru their parents' financial support. Are you going to only rely on window dressing essays and recommendations to get an "impression" if a student is going to contribute more than another? To me, a better solution would be to split the GPAs into 2, one for STEMS and one for social sciences, so that the university admission officers can see where a student's passion and potential is. I know many boys don't like courses like history and get a C, and therefore his total GPA is dragged down. But he has huge passion in robots and is now doing very well in a state university. From a total GPA, you cannot see that easily. It is also fair for those who want to study social sciences in colleges.
How can you tell if one student has more potential in college and future career if you don't have anything concrete to measure the students cross board? I don't think a kid from a relatively poorer family necessarily have more potential to contribute the society than a kid from a richer family who is working hard on his/her own to get the higher GPA and AP scores. Academic scores shows if this is a responsible person and do what his profession requires him to do. I used to think this society awards hard work, but now you are saying hard work is no good. By eliminating GPA and AP courses, you are punishing those who work so hard to get that level by themselves, not thru their parents' financial support. Are you going to only rely on window dressing essays and recommendations to get an "impression" if a student is going to contribute more than another? To me, a better solution would be to split the GPAs into 2, one for STEMS and one for social sciences, so that the university admission officers can see where a student's passion and potential is. I know many boys don't like courses like history and get a C, and therefore his total GPA is dragged down. But he has huge passion in robots and is now doing very well in a state university. From a total GPA, you cannot see that easily. It is also fair for those who want to study social sciences in colleges.
I know this sounds crazy but what if students earned their way into the schools through hard work?
2
The athletes you do not want to admit are often from those families who are not affluent and not sophisticated about college admissions. But what those kids did figure out is that spending 20 hours a week at their sport allowed them to become very good. Those work habits allow NCAA athletes to graduate at a higher rate than the general college population. The reality is that athletics are valued in our society, and I do not see a time in the next few decades when it will not help a student get into college.
Why not just admit the top 15 % nationwide to the Admission Roulette Wheel
and randomly pick from that group ?
Might provide for a Diverse and Interesting Mix than choosing from the top
2 % of over-achievers.
and randomly pick from that group ?
Might provide for a Diverse and Interesting Mix than choosing from the top
2 % of over-achievers.
1
So why limit the number of acceptances? Colleges are the only organizations that won't grow to meet their demand. They could add buildings and staff, on satellite locations if necessary, and have internal policies to ensure high quality. Could you imagine the New York Times refusing to print more newspapers if there were consistently ten times the people who wanted to purchase one than what were available?
As a student from Palo Alto, I feel the pressure to excel in academics, as well as have a balance of extracurriculars. Pressure from parents and the people around us, but also, probably most importantly, pressure from our peers and ourselves. We're told from a young age that in order to be happy you need to have a good job and a family. And to have a good job, you need to first be able to get into a good college. And nowadays, to get into a good college, we're told that you need to have a 4.0 GPA, be excellent at sports, be president of a club at your school, and be perfect at everything. It's impossible to say the least, and completely unnecessary. You don't need a 4.0 GPA and 8 AP's to succeed at life, and it's certainly not what defines you. The status quo is slowly changing at my school and community. We're becoming more accepting, and more perceptive towards change. But for people to actually completely change their perspective on things, they need a push, not a gentle tug, and "Turning the Tide" seems like the beginning of something big. Something that will change the perspectives of all the students, parents, and educators, and I'm excited to see that change.
2
The College Board organization losing half its revenue would be a nice side benefit to this scenario unfolding. The AP enterprise has become grotesque: hard on the young students and more quality colleges limiting how much credit they'll grant.
1
Colleges should be focused on one thing...which students will make the world a better place? Being scientifically intelligent, but having no empathy for others, are not traits that embody this and no matter how smart such a person is, educating them is time wasted that could be better spent educating someone else. Don't forget that the Unabomber went to Harvard. Which high school kids have shown promise that they are someone who will make the world a better place? It might not be the kid with the highest test scores or the highest grades.
It's becoming clearer that liberal institutions simply will not be able to survive with anything approaching high standards anymore. Whether it's the Acadeny awards or college admissions demands are made to be included or lower the bar. Few are made to uplift. So I wonder where this race to the bottom will lead us?
Tests are supposedly linked to family income except it's well known in academic circles that poor whites & Asians do as well as wealthy blacks. That's rarely mentioned in the press.
It's also well known that there simply aren't that many low income kids prepared for higher selective college & that test prep on average improves one score 20 points or so. If the guardians of liberal institutions are unwilling to maintain rigorous standards then they should just close their doors.
Tests are supposedly linked to family income except it's well known in academic circles that poor whites & Asians do as well as wealthy blacks. That's rarely mentioned in the press.
It's also well known that there simply aren't that many low income kids prepared for higher selective college & that test prep on average improves one score 20 points or so. If the guardians of liberal institutions are unwilling to maintain rigorous standards then they should just close their doors.
I'm inclined to be hostile towards almost anything Frank Bruni writes about education these days, given his wholehearted embrace of a Privatization Agenda for K-12 education.
Frank Bruni has, sad to say, become a mouthpiece for those hedge funders and affluent public school detractors, willing to accept any negative information they toss his way, confident that he'll echo it accordingly.
Bruni castigates educators, unions, parents, taxpayers and anyone else who doesn't willingly lap up his increasingly hostile and woefully uninformed attacks on our public schools.
Bruni ignores the volumes of evidence---beginning with the definitive, "gold standard," Stanford CREDO Study---that charters perform worse than public schools, that widespread corruption and egregious paychecks are a standard part of charter management, virtually everywhere they've been tried, and that charters split up local school communities and inevitably result in the defunding of nearby public schools.
Frank Bruni has chosen to side with those billionaires and their well-funded toadies who despise anything "public", anything "union" and anything that is majority female; thus his deep antipathy towards our nation's public schools.
Amazing how a lifelong bachelor with no children of his own could be so absolutely smug and arrogant about this subject.
Frank Bruni has, sad to say, become a mouthpiece for those hedge funders and affluent public school detractors, willing to accept any negative information they toss his way, confident that he'll echo it accordingly.
Bruni castigates educators, unions, parents, taxpayers and anyone else who doesn't willingly lap up his increasingly hostile and woefully uninformed attacks on our public schools.
Bruni ignores the volumes of evidence---beginning with the definitive, "gold standard," Stanford CREDO Study---that charters perform worse than public schools, that widespread corruption and egregious paychecks are a standard part of charter management, virtually everywhere they've been tried, and that charters split up local school communities and inevitably result in the defunding of nearby public schools.
Frank Bruni has chosen to side with those billionaires and their well-funded toadies who despise anything "public", anything "union" and anything that is majority female; thus his deep antipathy towards our nation's public schools.
Amazing how a lifelong bachelor with no children of his own could be so absolutely smug and arrogant about this subject.
By replacing measureable and (arguably) objective criteria with whatever squishy criteria that replaces them, this new proposed method should do a nice job of reducing the embarrassment for top schools of had justifying why they're rejecting so many too notch Asian applicants. Well done!
Just make the admissions process a lottery like any oversubscribed suburban magnet school. Set a minimum at the level of questionable legacy student or that of a of a athletically gifted point guard and put all the names in the hopper and draw names for the few select seats at competitive admission colleges.
Can you really tell the difference between a a student who has 5 AP classes and plays lacrosse and the student with 4 AP classes and is first viola. It all lacks transparency because of the complexity and provides those with the ability to game the system. Those who choose to learn and excel will do so for the intrinsic value of learning.
Can you really tell the difference between a a student who has 5 AP classes and plays lacrosse and the student with 4 AP classes and is first viola. It all lacks transparency because of the complexity and provides those with the ability to game the system. Those who choose to learn and excel will do so for the intrinsic value of learning.
I would be more inclined to think that Harvard and Yale, under pressure from the many articles in various esteemed publications about "legacy admissions", have found a better way to let under intelligent, poor performing, white, wealthy kids into their schools, without having to reveal their SAT and poor high school performance.
George W. Bush sparked a spate of articles about "legacy" admission when the University of Texas rejected him due to poor performance, and, he then was admitted to Yale.
So, don't get too excited about the Ivy League changing. They know where their money comes from.
George W. Bush sparked a spate of articles about "legacy" admission when the University of Texas rejected him due to poor performance, and, he then was admitted to Yale.
So, don't get too excited about the Ivy League changing. They know where their money comes from.
1
Why do they need a paper. If the college or university want to change their admissions policy what is stopping them? part of the problem comes down to the numbers of people who apply. Many more people apply than can be accepted. There will have to be some cut off criteria. Whatever the criteria is that is what people will rush to. The real problem is that we need to tach our children to do your best and relax. If you cannot get into one school you will get into another one. It may turn out that what y considered yr second or third choice is a better fit.
The mania does not necessarily come from home. On numerous occasions for both of my kids I have had to ground them in reality, which is did you do your best, then that is all that you can do. We will see how the chips, and modify the plan As we go along.
The mania does not necessarily come from home. On numerous occasions for both of my kids I have had to ground them in reality, which is did you do your best, then that is all that you can do. We will see how the chips, and modify the plan As we go along.
The prestige universities and colleges must have, long ago, realized that admitting students from underprivileged communities does nothing for the size of their endowment.
1
Mr. Bruni, there is nothing in this column with which I take issue. Only that once again your focus is limited to the "elite institutions." There are hundreds, thousands, of small, private colleges in this country that every day, every year, educate people from a variety of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. Why don't you ever look at what some of those institutions are doing. If you would like some names, email me and I will tell you.
33
"They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions."
I thought that they are all entitled, wealthy kids with white privilege. So which is it?
I thought that they are all entitled, wealthy kids with white privilege. So which is it?
1
Watching my daughter drive herself nuts all the way through high school, in order to gain admittance to a fabulous college, was heartbreaking. She was driven, stressed, often sick, and habitually sleep-deprived. Her entire life was designed to make the best-possible impression to a college admissions officer. She was one of the lucky ones. She was admitted to a great school, managed to maintain her sanity, and is soaking up knowledge like a sponge. But for every student for whom this story ends well, there must be dozens who are burned out, stressed out, and some who wound up hurting themselves or worse.
Colleges seeking students always talk about the wonderful, happy, well-rounded citizens they produce—though I don't remember any required courses in happiness or enlightened citizenship. Maybe they should start by not turning kids into driven scholastic zombies, even before they set foot on campus.
Colleges seeking students always talk about the wonderful, happy, well-rounded citizens they produce—though I don't remember any required courses in happiness or enlightened citizenship. Maybe they should start by not turning kids into driven scholastic zombies, even before they set foot on campus.
1
This is nothing more than an attempt to restrict, even further, admissions by Asian-Americans by reducing emphasis on quantifiable, objective parameters and increasing emphasis on non-quantifiable, subjective, race-based parameters.
2
I think the legacy issue that you refer to in passing in your last paragraph is about 80% of the problem, and it's the hardest thing to change. The rest of the changes such as how much to count standardized tests or AP courses are open to debate, but it's really a side show to the main event of legacy preference. So how about starting with the following new approach: there shall be zero preference given to legacies and/or the children of donors.
1
The punch line is at the bottom of Frank Bruni's piece: get rid of the legacy system (and I'm saying the system: "legacy" students merely should be on an even playing field with other applicants, i.e. no "handicap."
1
This proposal won't make things better because it doesn't address the major problem - that college admissions offices have almost unlimited discretion in deciding whom to admit, and that forces applicants to try to guess what will impress some particular admissions officer. The solution is to get rid of "holistic", discretionary admissions and use the CalTech system - just admit students on the basis of grades and SATs in rank order. As a side benefit, think of all the money schools would save by getting rid of all those admissions officers! Note, CalTech doesn't have any legacy, athletic or racial preferences, either.
Somehow I don't really see things changing much. Legacies
and athletes will always have a leg up because the schools
need them. And internal dynamics, i. e. professors, are always
going to demand the brightest students they can find. So little
will be different.
and athletes will always have a leg up because the schools
need them. And internal dynamics, i. e. professors, are always
going to demand the brightest students they can find. So little
will be different.
The people who benefit the most from changing the admission process (making it focus on less objective measures) are the people from families who know how to play the game and who have the means to guide their children to give them the best shot at gaining admission. Making the admission process geared toward "intellectual curiosity" (e.g.) and less towards objective measures of academic achievement will mean even more students from the Exeters, Collegiates, etc. admitted to the top schools. The best prep schools will find the best activities to demonstrate whatever supposed trait should be promoted. Standardized tests help to balance the scales and to give all people a chance to compete on as equal footing as you'll get. If you're very smart (and work very hard) and poor or just middle or lower middle class with parents who did not go to elite colleges (or any college), you would have almost no hope of getting into any elite school if you eliminate standardized tests. Standardized tests and AP classes, etc. are helping many students from modest or working class backgrounds get into top schools. It's just that the people they're helping are primarily Asian and it seems that they're not a group anyone apparently cares about.
I've taught at two exceptionally selective schools (SATs 2100-2400) and one highly selective school (SATS 1700-2100) The difference was immediately apparent. The students at the more selective schools had read more books, they were more independent and inquisitive, and they saw themselves as learners regardless of the discipline. (The good but not great students tended to identify themselves as STEM kids or humanities kids and groaned when you referred to the other) The intellectual horizons of the good students were often circumscribed by their advanced or AP courses. The exceptional kids had gone way beyond their teachers and curriculum. There are plenty of very smart and capable students out there, and we need to do a better job teaching them and developing schools . But the very, very best students (and they come from all backgrounds) are in a class of their own, and their talents need to be cultivated with real care. Yes, parents, background, income level, and systems of privilege do matter, but sometimes I think Bruni wants to forget about talent -- which is both real and, alas, painfully non-democratic.
2
Glad you're examining the stilted admissions process and the role of college admissions in shaping our national priorities (personal advancement over health and helping others). But I am awfully tired of reading about the same elite colleges in article after article. Yes, they help set our standards, but the main problem is our obsession with them -- with the status they convey and thus our own self advancement -- and neglect of the many many other schools that provide similar academic quality and in many cases a superior, more humble and considerate, social environment. Please, stop talking about the Ivies, over and over and over!! Your only fanning the flames you purport to be putting out.
1
What about bringing back a robust network of apprenticeships and trade schools, and ceasing the drumbeat of "everybody can go to college?" Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor, lawyer, biologist or professor - and where is the old respect for the tradesmen or small merchant? For every middle manager with a master's degree unable to find another job once downsized at 50, there is a nurse who is in high demand, or a mechanic with his own shop doing fine for himself and his family. We need to stop brainwashing young people that there is something "less than" about learning a trade or getting a two-year terminal degree that leads to steady employ in a stable industry.
1
this is welcome and overdue. but while we are treating the disease, can we cure a few other symptoms too? i am talking about tuitiion costs.
higher education is practically sanctified in this country. almost any action or event that has to do with a mjaor college or university is treated with great care and almost reverence. it;s higher education! if BU needs to buy up more prvate property or raise tuition or start another bio research company, how dare you question it, it's HIGHER EDUCATION! and i sont meant to pick on BU, put in any school you like. the point is, these are businesses, and the students and their families are the customers. somehow over thr past 30 years the BUSINESS of higher education has beed allowed to morph into one of the only sectors of the economy that prices its products with total disregard for their customers' ability to pay. thats crazy. as the tuition squueze began to have an effect, the schools found a way to keep the trough full - that is government backed student loans - growing ever larger as the "need" for higher tuition grew. your parents make $90,000 a year and you want to go to a name school? no problem, Uncle Sam will, like any good crack dealer, get you on the hoof for a couple of hundred thousand k. the school gets their cash right away, student be damned. we need to CUT by half the available crack dollars and force the system to find mreo affordable programs to offer their customers based on marklet forces and realistic math.
higher education is practically sanctified in this country. almost any action or event that has to do with a mjaor college or university is treated with great care and almost reverence. it;s higher education! if BU needs to buy up more prvate property or raise tuition or start another bio research company, how dare you question it, it's HIGHER EDUCATION! and i sont meant to pick on BU, put in any school you like. the point is, these are businesses, and the students and their families are the customers. somehow over thr past 30 years the BUSINESS of higher education has beed allowed to morph into one of the only sectors of the economy that prices its products with total disregard for their customers' ability to pay. thats crazy. as the tuition squueze began to have an effect, the schools found a way to keep the trough full - that is government backed student loans - growing ever larger as the "need" for higher tuition grew. your parents make $90,000 a year and you want to go to a name school? no problem, Uncle Sam will, like any good crack dealer, get you on the hoof for a couple of hundred thousand k. the school gets their cash right away, student be damned. we need to CUT by half the available crack dollars and force the system to find mreo affordable programs to offer their customers based on marklet forces and realistic math.
This Saturday some of my students are taking the SAT. They're also sitting for midterms this week, and last week some of them had time-consuming projects to prepare for the midterms. I'm sensing a raised eyebrow. Why not eliminate the SAT?
You'll be glad to hear that in a way the SAT, at least the one that tested how well your brain reacted to unfamiliar situations, has gone the way of the dodo. One of my favorite snippets of ironical writing on August 2, 2013 was a PR-type article under an NYT byline that included these opening words: "SAY farewell to vocabulary flashcards with arcane words like ...."
You might not be surprised that "arcane" is a mystery to 95% of my students, most of whom are smart kids from the area's better schools. In fact, other Times articles praising the SAT for eliminating "esoteric words" also brought a chuckle because until I teach them the word, my students have no idea what "esoteric" means either.
The SAT has exposed many bright students' lack of readiness in three areas: logical math, grammar, and vocabulary. You're an elitist if you know what "esoteric" means but you think it's unimportant for students to learn the word. And believe me, most don't.
This year in junior AP English, my students are forced to read two books I couldn't bear past page 10: "Heart of Darkness" and "As I Lay Dying." Essay writing skills are rudimentary, with overstated premises and skimpy evidence.
Testing isn't the problem as much as it exposes the problem.
You'll be glad to hear that in a way the SAT, at least the one that tested how well your brain reacted to unfamiliar situations, has gone the way of the dodo. One of my favorite snippets of ironical writing on August 2, 2013 was a PR-type article under an NYT byline that included these opening words: "SAY farewell to vocabulary flashcards with arcane words like ...."
You might not be surprised that "arcane" is a mystery to 95% of my students, most of whom are smart kids from the area's better schools. In fact, other Times articles praising the SAT for eliminating "esoteric words" also brought a chuckle because until I teach them the word, my students have no idea what "esoteric" means either.
The SAT has exposed many bright students' lack of readiness in three areas: logical math, grammar, and vocabulary. You're an elitist if you know what "esoteric" means but you think it's unimportant for students to learn the word. And believe me, most don't.
This year in junior AP English, my students are forced to read two books I couldn't bear past page 10: "Heart of Darkness" and "As I Lay Dying." Essay writing skills are rudimentary, with overstated premises and skimpy evidence.
Testing isn't the problem as much as it exposes the problem.
3
I certainly agree with Mr. Bruni that the college admissions' system is broken. Many fewer students should be going to college these days. But his plan--to discourage workaholics--seems perverse. Workaholics make the world go round. Had a non-workaholic ever founded a major American company?
It is about time! Jeanie Goddard from Wellesley High School made the point in 1994. If more practitioners would write, journalists wouldn't get all the credit.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/04/20/30godd.h13.html?qs=jean+god...
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/04/20/30godd.h13.html?qs=jean+god...
Yup... I hope to see those changes soon.
"They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions."
"They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions."
OK, Mr Bruni so what's your answer? Now that we will encourage students to NOT challenge themselves and to NOT do testing, how are you going to evaluate them? By GPA? Don't you think that, within schools, GPA correlates very well with income? By essays? There's no way that rich parents will hire editors for their darlings, is there? Or even writers, why bother with editors? What's your answer?
And shouldn't we extend this to all of life, if it's such a good idea? Why make medical students pass the boards? Why make law students pass the bar? Surely those evaluations also correlate well with income, don't you think?
Really, what's your answer?
And shouldn't we extend this to all of life, if it's such a good idea? Why make medical students pass the boards? Why make law students pass the bar? Surely those evaluations also correlate well with income, don't you think?
Really, what's your answer?
2
This lecture is so worth the time. It is an engaging and highly persuasive story of the effect of access to a college education in the life of someone who grew up poor. The poor child who shined shoes and sold newspapers on the street went on to become an accomplished and generous-with-his-knowledge professor. This requires looking at college education as an investment in society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPxulbsWjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYPxulbsWjI
I got into MIT and I have to say that all I cared about was Individual Achievement. Every single thing I did was focused on getting into the best college and then the best medical school ever. I did't focus at all on myself, who I was as a person, or anything besides metrics and numbers. I took the SAT 4 times...and aced it. I am an Eagle Scout, Colorado state champion debater, and blah blah blah. None of it mattered. I of course gained wisdom through all the ridiculous stuff I did to succeed, but it was corrupted because I viewed it all as a means to an end.
I got kicked out of MIT my senior year for being a drug addict. I never became a doctor. Instead, I became myself after losing out on almost guaranteed financial and social success. Fast forward six years, and I am the happiest I have ever been, although I have $186,000 in student loans (without a co-signer, you go to MIT and say you are pre-med and they give you whatever you want, I took out a $40,000 loan when I was 19 years old). I became a trans-woman at 25 and got a BA from CU, and now I'm an award-winning medical marijuana infused product maker.
My advice for is for kids trying to get into college. Stop trying to get into MIT and Harvard. Don't even try. Instead, if you are gifted, take the free ride to the state college. CU offered me sophomore status, a stipend, and a full scholarship. I should have taken that, and worked more on who I was as a human being from age 8-18, instead of as an applicant.
I got kicked out of MIT my senior year for being a drug addict. I never became a doctor. Instead, I became myself after losing out on almost guaranteed financial and social success. Fast forward six years, and I am the happiest I have ever been, although I have $186,000 in student loans (without a co-signer, you go to MIT and say you are pre-med and they give you whatever you want, I took out a $40,000 loan when I was 19 years old). I became a trans-woman at 25 and got a BA from CU, and now I'm an award-winning medical marijuana infused product maker.
My advice for is for kids trying to get into college. Stop trying to get into MIT and Harvard. Don't even try. Instead, if you are gifted, take the free ride to the state college. CU offered me sophomore status, a stipend, and a full scholarship. I should have taken that, and worked more on who I was as a human being from age 8-18, instead of as an applicant.
37
Your little essay should be required reading for all over-achieving
College Applicants.
A little known truth is that you can get a great education at any of the
top 100 Colleges if you just work hard and get to know your professors.
College Applicants.
A little known truth is that you can get a great education at any of the
top 100 Colleges if you just work hard and get to know your professors.
1
This is questionable advice. I feel for your situation and I had a close friend who suffered something similar. However, to dissuade people from aiming to go to a more elite university because of one story is inappropriate. I can give you countless counterexamples.
The best thing I ever did was get into the AP track in high school and go to a top 10 university. Also, taking debt actually helped motivate me to stay engaged and interested in not just intellectual development, but also kept me grounded in finding a good job. Now, taking out 100k in debt is likely too much. I did it and I do not regret it. I believe, not everyone, even at the top schools, will be able to afford to pay that off without great sacrifice. However, I have to admit that without that access to capital I wouldn't have had the access to the intellectual challenges and the career I ended up with.
I am not trying to justify the status quo, but I my story is a warning that we may be focusing on the fact that too many kids are being coddled and pushed into things that they are just not fit for. Rather than lowering standards or telling kids not to strive we should think about the sort of kids who SHOULD be benefiting from these early challenges and accept that most kids, even in affluent white suburban households, are just regular kids.
The best thing I ever did was get into the AP track in high school and go to a top 10 university. Also, taking debt actually helped motivate me to stay engaged and interested in not just intellectual development, but also kept me grounded in finding a good job. Now, taking out 100k in debt is likely too much. I did it and I do not regret it. I believe, not everyone, even at the top schools, will be able to afford to pay that off without great sacrifice. However, I have to admit that without that access to capital I wouldn't have had the access to the intellectual challenges and the career I ended up with.
I am not trying to justify the status quo, but I my story is a warning that we may be focusing on the fact that too many kids are being coddled and pushed into things that they are just not fit for. Rather than lowering standards or telling kids not to strive we should think about the sort of kids who SHOULD be benefiting from these early challenges and accept that most kids, even in affluent white suburban households, are just regular kids.
The biggest problem with college admissions is uncertainty. It’s a problem we face that the SAT’s, the AP’s, nor the grades can help. In selective schools, between the fine line of those rejected and those admitted, there sometimes is simply no visible difference in applicant quality.
However, as a freshman in college who has just come out of the college admission process, and who is currently attending a competitive college, it is evident that one’s socio-economic status, to some extent, is a determinant of whether or not a student is going to be admitted to a selective college. Whether it is the fees that are paid to attend ACT/SAT tutoring, or the legacy and donations that families pay; it is these factors that colleges commonly pay great attention to that those coming from lower income families just cannot afford.
However, as the last paragraph correctly says, until colleges can get themselves to stop caring about legacy and ranking on global platforms, there can be no substantial change in the way the college admissions process reflects significant divides in socio-economic status.
However, as a freshman in college who has just come out of the college admission process, and who is currently attending a competitive college, it is evident that one’s socio-economic status, to some extent, is a determinant of whether or not a student is going to be admitted to a selective college. Whether it is the fees that are paid to attend ACT/SAT tutoring, or the legacy and donations that families pay; it is these factors that colleges commonly pay great attention to that those coming from lower income families just cannot afford.
However, as the last paragraph correctly says, until colleges can get themselves to stop caring about legacy and ranking on global platforms, there can be no substantial change in the way the college admissions process reflects significant divides in socio-economic status.
1
"Only 22 percent said caring for others."
Well, what did you expect from middle and high school students? Mother and Father Teresa?
I learned long ago that personal happiness is most important, and caring for others may contribute to that, even if it means making arrangements so that others are properly cared for by others.
Well, what did you expect from middle and high school students? Mother and Father Teresa?
I learned long ago that personal happiness is most important, and caring for others may contribute to that, even if it means making arrangements so that others are properly cared for by others.
2
Monitoring top ten schools is no way to find clues to diversity. These schools can pick from the cream of every demographic, pay the students way and allow the schools to more or less reflect America. But definition, top ten schools are outliers. It is the conduct of the next 40 that is of concern. It is here where 'need aware' and 'admit-on-grades-deny-on-money' strategies have created genuine barriers to access.
Colleges must limit the number of applicants they admit because they have limited seating. Some colleges will be more desirable due to historic reasons or location. Therefore, some colleges will be harder to get to. There is no another objective criterion to determine if a kid would pass the college than kid's previous academic success. I would prefer if US colleges had entrance exams - the more desirable colleges would have had harder exams to pass through. This would be the only feasible way if higher education was free.
So in a society where a high school degree is no longer proof of literacy and people rail against a common core curriculum as being too demanding you want to remove AP courses from the high school portfolio? And thank god for the SAT's. Without them, my A+ child going to top 100 high school would have never been forced to master basic grammar
Two things I observed as a student at the sorts of places described in this article: YES from a strictly utilitarian point of view, it's worth breaking your back to get into the best school you can, if you can make it to one of the top five or seven schools. At the very top, there is an embarrassment of riches and opportunities for students, and contrary to popular belief, you don't need family or personal connections (or even stellar performance) once you're there to access them. NO the people who attend these schools are not demigods. They are, frankly, often quite underwhelming. Lots of neurotic personalities, herd thinkers, emotional immaturity and fragility, unbelievable insecurity and instinctual self-promotion.
So the article is right -- our current selection system is off. Part of the solution is admitting smart kids from around the country, and convincing them (+ their families) that ivy league schools will welcome them. But that's only half the battle. No one in my short career has seen fit to put me in charge of recruiting (perhaps you can guess why), but I would seek out top performers at 'non-target' schools, state schools, ex-military, etc. Rather than obsess over tweaking the scales in a few elite admissions offices, I wish we (employers, society) could make a commitment to spreading opportunity around to people who distinguish themselves at schools not written about in the Times. That's the only way, in the long run, to tamp down on the admissions rat race.
So the article is right -- our current selection system is off. Part of the solution is admitting smart kids from around the country, and convincing them (+ their families) that ivy league schools will welcome them. But that's only half the battle. No one in my short career has seen fit to put me in charge of recruiting (perhaps you can guess why), but I would seek out top performers at 'non-target' schools, state schools, ex-military, etc. Rather than obsess over tweaking the scales in a few elite admissions offices, I wish we (employers, society) could make a commitment to spreading opportunity around to people who distinguish themselves at schools not written about in the Times. That's the only way, in the long run, to tamp down on the admissions rat race.
The funny thing about faculty and many students at privileged schools, is that while they are very vocal about how their schools should be social justice vehicles and help 'disadvantaged' people get access....not a single faculty member will offer to him/herself resign and hand their position to a minority. Nor will a single student him/herself write a letter asking to be removed and replaced with somebody from a poor neighbourhood.
No, it's 'everybody else' who should pay the price, who should make the changes. People are very good hypocrisy detectors.
No, it's 'everybody else' who should pay the price, who should make the changes. People are very good hypocrisy detectors.
If the Ivies and the like are such great institutions shouldn't they be able to teach just about any child from just about anywhere? If all universities/colleges would get rid of their admission process and replace it with some type of system where students list their preference for a certain number of schools and then a lottery kicks in wouldn't this allow our children to have a somewhat less anxiety ridden K-12 school experience?
For Frank Bruni and the New York Times, college evidently isn't about learning or educational achievement. (Did you notice how it's politically incorrect to talk about merit in polite society?)
Their agenda is to conscript colleges for their social engineering. They reckon that the way to racial balance (a euphemism for quotas) in every occupation and profession is to bully colleges to recruit by race. That is why they want to eliminate the use of admissions criteria that have been found to predict performance at college and after.
Their agenda is to conscript colleges for their social engineering. They reckon that the way to racial balance (a euphemism for quotas) in every occupation and profession is to bully colleges to recruit by race. That is why they want to eliminate the use of admissions criteria that have been found to predict performance at college and after.
1
There is an ubiquitous flaw in college admissions everywhere, and, although they claim otherwise, they do not promote individualism in young people that are already struggling to find their identity. Teenagers know that school admissions are looking for a person with specific qualities, a certain number of extra-curriculars, and a GPA that cannot go below point X. This is why a great number of them will dedicate hours in piano class, soccer practice or debate club, even if they don’t like said activities, in order to “fit into the college cookie-cutter”, losing their essence in the process, and sometimes even, ending up in a place that is not right for them because the ranking of a school is now more important for teenagers (and parents) than how right the person is for the school. Colleges should lose the admission templates and focus on a person’s qualities, passion and eagerness to learn in order to make better decisions with their admissions.
Word Count: 160
Word Count: 160
1
Having seen my smart, incredibly eclectic daughter with a dozen interests go 0-7 to elite colleges and face that demoralizing situation, and then pick herself up and graduate summa and phi beta kappa at a good state university, I despair at the absurdity of the entire process. I despair for the kids jumping through insane hoops, and for the process itself with the Common Ap, by which some students I knew applied to 20 colleges (at $80 a pop!) many of which they don't really want to go to and got accepted when others first choice is denied. I despair for the admissions folks, who face sifting through a deluge of tens of thousands of applications, which in truth, is an impossible task. I feel so sorry for so many kids who think getting into an Ivy or other top school is essential to life and prestige and are crushed by the ridiculous odds and anxiety they went through.
There is no doubt the SAT and ACT disadvantage some and allow those of means to game the system, but I am not sure how you can differentiate students without some yardsticks. Essays? How many kids really write their own? The system is insane.
My one piece of advice to parents, which I probably should have heeded more myself: There are hundreds of quality schools out there who provide an amazing education and inspire and fit students of all kinds. Having a name like Harvard or Vassar versus a state university or non-Ivy on the diploma doesn't mean squat 5 years down the road.
There is no doubt the SAT and ACT disadvantage some and allow those of means to game the system, but I am not sure how you can differentiate students without some yardsticks. Essays? How many kids really write their own? The system is insane.
My one piece of advice to parents, which I probably should have heeded more myself: There are hundreds of quality schools out there who provide an amazing education and inspire and fit students of all kinds. Having a name like Harvard or Vassar versus a state university or non-Ivy on the diploma doesn't mean squat 5 years down the road.
1
If we desire to stop the madness of college admissions process we must improve the quality of public universities. Since these universities will admit nearly EVERYONE I think there is a need to up admissions standards a bit. Therefore, intelligent students need not worry about what college they attend because their local school will be of high quality. Too bad many useless professors and administrators would be unemployed because of this.
Colleges would not need to reject so many applications if there were not such an insane number of applicants.
The reality is that too many students are applying to waste four years of their lives on something they don't need and won't enjoy.
I have taught at the college level for several years and a shocking number of my students just don't belong there. It's not that they're not smart--some of them are incredibly bright--it's that they're not interested. But so many employers require a college degree that the kids feel they have little choice. Many of them could get the skills they need for a satisfying, well-paying career in a vocational program or a two-year "college" -- but they don't, and they won't, at least not until our culture stops stigmatizing every career path that doesn't include a college degree.
The reality is that too many students are applying to waste four years of their lives on something they don't need and won't enjoy.
I have taught at the college level for several years and a shocking number of my students just don't belong there. It's not that they're not smart--some of them are incredibly bright--it's that they're not interested. But so many employers require a college degree that the kids feel they have little choice. Many of them could get the skills they need for a satisfying, well-paying career in a vocational program or a two-year "college" -- but they don't, and they won't, at least not until our culture stops stigmatizing every career path that doesn't include a college degree.
Mr. Bruni makes some good points, especially in his last paragraph. However, he is omitting one major part of the equation: funding. The myth of "need based blind" is just that - a myth; yet it is not acknowledged. My son and his friends were "wait listed" at top schools, while classmates with lesser standings and grades but whose parents could afford the $65,000 yearly tuition were admitted. Instead, they all went to state schools. And though I do not mean to knock a state school education, of which I am a product, it is not the same as that of a top tier private school.
I have read Mr. Bruni's book on the admissions process and seen him lecture. He has much of value add to this discussion.
While we are busy uncovering heretofore underserved potential applicant populations, we do not seem to be interested in discovering those who would benefit the most EDUCATIONALLY from four years of college. I am talking about intelligent kids.
It is true that college education correlates well with achievement in life--especially as compared with those who do not have the benefit of higher education. It would be wise to remember that, at least historically, most who went to college did so because they were smarter and more achievement oriented than their high school only educated peers. That smart, motivated kids would excel once they graduated from college is more a testament to their intelligence and work ethic than the imprimatur of the college degree they achieved.
Not everyone benefits from traditional college. Nor should everyone attend college.
The admission testing that colleges do should be focussed on finding those who might benefit the most from attending college, not trying to grant a worthless degree to 'level the curve' or assuage some moral guilt.
While we are busy uncovering heretofore underserved potential applicant populations, we do not seem to be interested in discovering those who would benefit the most EDUCATIONALLY from four years of college. I am talking about intelligent kids.
It is true that college education correlates well with achievement in life--especially as compared with those who do not have the benefit of higher education. It would be wise to remember that, at least historically, most who went to college did so because they were smarter and more achievement oriented than their high school only educated peers. That smart, motivated kids would excel once they graduated from college is more a testament to their intelligence and work ethic than the imprimatur of the college degree they achieved.
Not everyone benefits from traditional college. Nor should everyone attend college.
The admission testing that colleges do should be focussed on finding those who might benefit the most from attending college, not trying to grant a worthless degree to 'level the curve' or assuage some moral guilt.
25
The system of college admissions has been rigged for several decades, decades that coincidentally coincide with the growing income inequality gap in the US.
None of the information in this opinion piece is new. But restating it serves the purpose of reminding that the gatekeepers at elite institutions of higher learning are but a reflection of the larger society.
That the liberal arts have fallen in esteem over these same decades tells much about what an elite education is all about. They're glamorous finishing and vocational schools (not that there is anything wrong with a vocational education in the real sense).
None of the information in this opinion piece is new. But restating it serves the purpose of reminding that the gatekeepers at elite institutions of higher learning are but a reflection of the larger society.
That the liberal arts have fallen in esteem over these same decades tells much about what an elite education is all about. They're glamorous finishing and vocational schools (not that there is anything wrong with a vocational education in the real sense).
1
The whole idea of college for everyone is a farce. Many graduate from college and graduate schools full of knowledge but unable to find a job. Many more students would be served better by going to a trade school and learning a trade that will ensure a good paying job. Of course there could be a combination trade school, academic school where students could learn a trade and also learn those kinds of things that are learned in academic colleges. Too much credence has been placed on college and graduate degrees. Even medicine these days seems to lack the real need for years of learning and might be better served if looked at as a trade.
1
I may be wrong but it is the competitive parents that create the pressure. The Ivy League is a very small percentage of the overall college population. Harvard is not the key to life. If you don't make the 2400 admissions get on with your life. Let's worry about the education of the other 99%.
1
In his closing paragraph, Mr. Bruni suggests colleges (and presumably families) quit worrying about rankings. Might I suggest one way to do that would be to eliminate the line that asks the student's high school. Without the siren's call of "Chapin" and "Trinity," "Stuyvesant" and "Hunter" that few admissions officers are able to resist, the playing field would immediately be leveled for students with equal scores and talents from lesser known schools. Not only would it improve the chances of ALL qualified children, as a bonus for NYC families, the stress of getting into the "right" high school in NYC would suddenly become a much less stressful and toxic experience.
The reason the schools are so obsessed with the USN&WR rankings is that they are more likely to be able to access rich donors if they have high rankings.. In turn, the endowment is used to feel executive and investment manager compensation. What ever happened to the nonprofit mission?
1
Call me hopelessly naive, but there us one very simple change that colleges can make to improve their admission process, and it wouldn't cost them a thing. Make each applicant list, as a part of application, any kind of assistance received in assembling the package. SAT tutoring? List it. Essay coach? Ditto. It will put things into a perspective when evaluating and comparing kids. I wonder why it hadn't been done so far - maybe because the admission officers know that there is money in admission consulting once they've done it for a while.
1
Here in sunny Australia university admissions is an entirely anonymous, computer controlled event.
Each state has its own end-of-high-school exam in actual subjects such as English, maths, a range of sciences, art, languages - you name it - a huge curriculum specifically designed for the needs & interests of students & society.
The subjects are taught at 2 or 3 levels, with the most advanced level being the equivalent of Year 1 University. In fact, degrees were changed to accommodate this.
The exams are anonymous: your papers have a number for your name & your school. The markers have no idea of your gender, ethnicity, colour etc, but assume your age is 17-19.
Every degree has a cut off mark, and your total for the exams must reach this mark to be eligible for enrolment in the degree of your choice.
Students fill out their university application form at the beginning of Year 12, giving first, second etc choices.
Then a computer sorts through it all & makes first round offers, then second round.
No extracurricular stuff, no exams that can be gamed. If you miss out on the degree of your choice, you start the one you're offered & switch at the end of year 1 because people drop out or change their minds or want to switch too.
The money isn't wasted because you choose subjects the same as students would do in their first year.
Even with the large number of university/colleges & applicants, something like this could be done in the USA using the SAT scores.
Each state has its own end-of-high-school exam in actual subjects such as English, maths, a range of sciences, art, languages - you name it - a huge curriculum specifically designed for the needs & interests of students & society.
The subjects are taught at 2 or 3 levels, with the most advanced level being the equivalent of Year 1 University. In fact, degrees were changed to accommodate this.
The exams are anonymous: your papers have a number for your name & your school. The markers have no idea of your gender, ethnicity, colour etc, but assume your age is 17-19.
Every degree has a cut off mark, and your total for the exams must reach this mark to be eligible for enrolment in the degree of your choice.
Students fill out their university application form at the beginning of Year 12, giving first, second etc choices.
Then a computer sorts through it all & makes first round offers, then second round.
No extracurricular stuff, no exams that can be gamed. If you miss out on the degree of your choice, you start the one you're offered & switch at the end of year 1 because people drop out or change their minds or want to switch too.
The money isn't wasted because you choose subjects the same as students would do in their first year.
Even with the large number of university/colleges & applicants, something like this could be done in the USA using the SAT scores.
Does this mean that there will be a real attempt to address legacy and have it phased out? Somehow I doubt it. Unfortunately, much of this sounds like wishful thinking and unrealistic.
This is all well and good, and even admirable, but here's the thing: Within a year or two of any significant changes in admissions policies, the rich and super-rich will find a way to game the system. It's what they do.
2
Two comments:
1) I wonder how many students use AP courses to shorten their time in college? Graduating a semester or two early can save a lot of money.
2) If hospitals were like universities, they would accept only the healthiest people as patients, and then use the patients' outcomes to take credit for how excellent their treatment has been.
1) I wonder how many students use AP courses to shorten their time in college? Graduating a semester or two early can save a lot of money.
2) If hospitals were like universities, they would accept only the healthiest people as patients, and then use the patients' outcomes to take credit for how excellent their treatment has been.
2
Some hospitals do do this.... :) St. Francis Hospital-Heart Center is an example. It regularly takes healthier, lower-risk patients to keep their numbers up.
1
When my daughter and I visited Yale a few years a back, a parent asked the admissions officer who had just finished his lecture to us, whether it was preferable for a student to receive a B in an AP class or an A in honors class. His reply: An A in the AP class.
Well done. I had a tremendous appetite for knowledge and a strong intellectual curiosity. However, as the son of a middle class family with average resources, an Ivy League Education was a pipe dream.
I did graduate from two "2nd Tier Universities" and completed a graduate program at an Ivy League University later in life but it was financed by my employer.
I did graduate from two "2nd Tier Universities" and completed a graduate program at an Ivy League University later in life but it was financed by my employer.
1
If you are wealthy you are more likely to:
a) graduate high school
b) do well on the SAT
c) take more AP courses
d) have access to tutors
e) go to a "good" school
f) be a legacy
g) have time to volunteer ..........etc
I have to think very long and hard about what advantage does not come with wealth. Sorry not to offer solutions, just more questions.
a) graduate high school
b) do well on the SAT
c) take more AP courses
d) have access to tutors
e) go to a "good" school
f) be a legacy
g) have time to volunteer ..........etc
I have to think very long and hard about what advantage does not come with wealth. Sorry not to offer solutions, just more questions.
2
The answer to college or other standardized anything : Passionate pursuit of knowledge - in everything or anything for the sheer joy of it...how 'bout we try that?
1
Most of the kids I know that have gotten into elite school...take up an obscure sport so that their middle intellectual talent is ignored. Better to be captain of the lacrosse or field hockey team than 2300 SAT student.
The last paragraph is almost on target: We only have a limited number of spots available in our premium educational institutions. Why in the world would we want to give priority to “legacy” students or student athletes? Wouldn’t we all be better served by turning the admissions process into a meritocracy?
The rest of the article is misguided. My daughter is a high school senior and we’re right in the thick of the college admissions process. I can tell you that it’s all but designed to create stress. Why? Because most of us are on the outside, wondering what it takes to gain admission to the best schools. Abandon standardize tests? That’s idiotic! The way to fix the system is to clarify the criteria required for acceptance. Let’s make the standards clear, so students who are ambitious and talented know how to prepare. And let’s fix our public schools so all students have a reasonable chance to compete for these spots. That sounds a lot better than using fuzzy admissions criteria for college acceptance!
Most of this article seems to be supporting the wrong side of an Ayn Rand novel. I’m not troubled that most high school students are interested in “high individual achievement.” I’m thrilled! We all win, when our kids are motivated to excel. Those are the kids we should empower!
The rest of the article is misguided. My daughter is a high school senior and we’re right in the thick of the college admissions process. I can tell you that it’s all but designed to create stress. Why? Because most of us are on the outside, wondering what it takes to gain admission to the best schools. Abandon standardize tests? That’s idiotic! The way to fix the system is to clarify the criteria required for acceptance. Let’s make the standards clear, so students who are ambitious and talented know how to prepare. And let’s fix our public schools so all students have a reasonable chance to compete for these spots. That sounds a lot better than using fuzzy admissions criteria for college acceptance!
Most of this article seems to be supporting the wrong side of an Ayn Rand novel. I’m not troubled that most high school students are interested in “high individual achievement.” I’m thrilled! We all win, when our kids are motivated to excel. Those are the kids we should empower!
Here's an idea...the most selective schools could duplicate themselves....Looking at their endowments, money certainly is not an issue...So,
open additional campuses...As for athletics, eliminate intercollegiate sports...keep intramural and club sports...
open additional campuses...As for athletics, eliminate intercollegiate sports...keep intramural and club sports...
Do away with SAT, ACT and AP exams? Great! That leaves GPA the only game in town. All the smart kids will now choose classes taught by easy graders. And all the smart teachers will now give A's to everyone because they know they need to attract enough students in order to keep their jobs. Everyone will now have a 5.0 GPA. Everyone will now qualify to go to Harvard! Yippee!! Equality achieved!!
BTW, those AP courses, though indeed more intellectually rigorous than non-AP classes, are still not as rigorous as their counterparts in my country of origin (in East Asia). Bruni needs to read this recent article in the NYT to understand that our problem is not too many, but too few, AP classes. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/opinion/the-counterfeit-high-school-di...
BTW, those AP courses, though indeed more intellectually rigorous than non-AP classes, are still not as rigorous as their counterparts in my country of origin (in East Asia). Bruni needs to read this recent article in the NYT to understand that our problem is not too many, but too few, AP classes. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/opinion/the-counterfeit-high-school-di...
All I see here is another way to discriminate against hard-working Asian students who are trying to fufill the American dream.
Why is it that they're called "soulless robots" when Asian kids are excelling academically and via test scores but it wasn't the case when Jews and other white ethnic groups used the very same path to get ahead?
Why is it that they're called "soulless robots" when Asian kids are excelling academically and via test scores but it wasn't the case when Jews and other white ethnic groups used the very same path to get ahead?
2
You write often about what you see as the overhyping of elite schools. Yet you chose to attend elite schools yourself, first as an out of stater at Univ. of No. Carolina and then at Columbia. UNC is notorious for its selectivity when it comes to admitting out of state students and Columbia is Ivy League. You seem happy to have landed a job at the NYT as a result of your resume. You chose to be a professor at Princeton. Seems a tad hypocritical, don't you think.
2
Held hostage. But by whom?
Many high schools that I have spoken with over the years are well aware of the erroneous listing in US News and World Report. Indeed there is a growing desire to place their students into the best colleges as defined as, “those that will help their students grow and thrive” versus the ranking on this list.
Yet, high schools are held hostage by their own report card with its simplified and misleading one data point: where do your graduates go to college?
High schools could change this by placing their graduates into the excellent programs that exist in multiple colleges and universities across the US. However, once they place a student in a school like ASU, when that same student could have gotten into a stronger branded university like Harvard, the child’s parents’ – and prospective parents -- will think the school failed.
High schools therefore remain incentivized to place their students into the “best” college based on this list. The high school receives a better ranking for doing so, even when it is the wrong choice for that student. This is driven by their client, the parent.
If we want this to change we must do a better job of educating the high schools, parents and students. We also must create better tools for students to find their own pathways – rankings, parents, and high schools aside. Portfolios, owned by the student, are an excellent start.
Let’s make this “turning tide” a “rising tide” that lifts all ships.
Many high schools that I have spoken with over the years are well aware of the erroneous listing in US News and World Report. Indeed there is a growing desire to place their students into the best colleges as defined as, “those that will help their students grow and thrive” versus the ranking on this list.
Yet, high schools are held hostage by their own report card with its simplified and misleading one data point: where do your graduates go to college?
High schools could change this by placing their graduates into the excellent programs that exist in multiple colleges and universities across the US. However, once they place a student in a school like ASU, when that same student could have gotten into a stronger branded university like Harvard, the child’s parents’ – and prospective parents -- will think the school failed.
High schools therefore remain incentivized to place their students into the “best” college based on this list. The high school receives a better ranking for doing so, even when it is the wrong choice for that student. This is driven by their client, the parent.
If we want this to change we must do a better job of educating the high schools, parents and students. We also must create better tools for students to find their own pathways – rankings, parents, and high schools aside. Portfolios, owned by the student, are an excellent start.
Let’s make this “turning tide” a “rising tide” that lifts all ships.
"...a survey of more than 10,000 middle- and high-school students that asked them what mattered most: high individual achievement, happiness or caring for others. Only 22 percent said caring for others."
"Caring for others" is one of those mushy Liberal things that, contrary to Liberal prejudice, isn't, and shouldn't be, at the top of everyone's list. And there are lots of people for whom "happiness" and "individual achievement" are synonymous.
"...enough kids from less privileged backgrounds..." affirmative action
"...kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds..." affirmative action "less emphasis on standardized test scores..." affirmative action "...admissions officers won’t be impressed by more than a few Advanced Placement courses..." affirmative action "... made the SAT or ACT optional..." affirmative action.
Blah, blah, blah.
Apparently "Turning the Tide” is compendium of excuses for screwing competent kids for the sole purpose of pampering unqualified "minority" (well, any "minority" who isn't Asian...") kids who stand a good chance of being unable to keep up and drop out after a year.
"...intended in part to diversify student bodies."
I've yet to hear or read any coherent explanation of why "diversity" has suddenly become such an overriding national objective. Basically, it boils down to consciously-managed institutional racism--I was kinda under the impression that the objective was the /elimination/ of racism.
"Caring for others" is one of those mushy Liberal things that, contrary to Liberal prejudice, isn't, and shouldn't be, at the top of everyone's list. And there are lots of people for whom "happiness" and "individual achievement" are synonymous.
"...enough kids from less privileged backgrounds..." affirmative action
"...kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds..." affirmative action "less emphasis on standardized test scores..." affirmative action "...admissions officers won’t be impressed by more than a few Advanced Placement courses..." affirmative action "... made the SAT or ACT optional..." affirmative action.
Blah, blah, blah.
Apparently "Turning the Tide” is compendium of excuses for screwing competent kids for the sole purpose of pampering unqualified "minority" (well, any "minority" who isn't Asian...") kids who stand a good chance of being unable to keep up and drop out after a year.
"...intended in part to diversify student bodies."
I've yet to hear or read any coherent explanation of why "diversity" has suddenly become such an overriding national objective. Basically, it boils down to consciously-managed institutional racism--I was kinda under the impression that the objective was the /elimination/ of racism.
4
This article gives me a lot of hope. Is it foolish to think that where college admissions go, K-12 policy will follow? I chose not to become a high school teacher for a few reasons, not the least of which is the current emphasis on standardized testing and “college readiness” above actual learning and development. The penultimate paragraph of this article states:
“They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions. And they’re acknowledging the extent to which the admissions process has contributed to this.”
Replace the word “kids” with “teachers” and it all still makes sense for many, at least within the public school system. If we can stop depending on standardized test results as indicators of intellectual capacity and future success, then maybe—just maybe—I’ll feel comfortable making a career shift out of the office and into the classroom.
“They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions. And they’re acknowledging the extent to which the admissions process has contributed to this.”
Replace the word “kids” with “teachers” and it all still makes sense for many, at least within the public school system. If we can stop depending on standardized test results as indicators of intellectual capacity and future success, then maybe—just maybe—I’ll feel comfortable making a career shift out of the office and into the classroom.
1
the lib approach to everything....dumb it down....everyone is equal...except for them
1
If I were head of college admissions at a school, I would ask a lot of basic questions on the application to better understand the student, and ideally affect how high school students behave.
1) What is the most decent thing you have ever done to another human being in your life? What is the most disrespectful thing you have ever done? What do you think as you look back on these two extremes?
2) Sexual abuse is a problem on college campuses. What suggestions do you have to reduce this problem?
3) Our college has a code of conduct which all freshmen must sign at orientation. Do you have any concerns that you cannot adhere to this code of conduct? If we find you in violation of the code, what should be your punishment?
4) If you had your life to live over again, what parts would you repeat, and what parts would you omit?
5) If you see someone sitting alone at lunch in the cafeteria, what thought goes through your mind?
I believe the answers to these questions would be far more interesting to read, and likely as informative in choosing a well rounded class. The transcript and teacher recs will shed enough light on intellectual promise. I want to know what makes a kid tick. Bright kids are everywhere. Well adjusted, bright and respectful kids are harder to find. I want to hire those kids. A college that focuses on character (without sacrificing intellectual potential) is the winner.
1) What is the most decent thing you have ever done to another human being in your life? What is the most disrespectful thing you have ever done? What do you think as you look back on these two extremes?
2) Sexual abuse is a problem on college campuses. What suggestions do you have to reduce this problem?
3) Our college has a code of conduct which all freshmen must sign at orientation. Do you have any concerns that you cannot adhere to this code of conduct? If we find you in violation of the code, what should be your punishment?
4) If you had your life to live over again, what parts would you repeat, and what parts would you omit?
5) If you see someone sitting alone at lunch in the cafeteria, what thought goes through your mind?
I believe the answers to these questions would be far more interesting to read, and likely as informative in choosing a well rounded class. The transcript and teacher recs will shed enough light on intellectual promise. I want to know what makes a kid tick. Bright kids are everywhere. Well adjusted, bright and respectful kids are harder to find. I want to hire those kids. A college that focuses on character (without sacrificing intellectual potential) is the winner.
1
I appreciated the suggestion in passing that after school jobs be given more due in the admissions process. In my experience a big predictor of who is going to leave college with a degree in hand is a certain attitude of persistence and hard work. A college application showing a student worked at McDonalds after school every day for two years, rather than a laundry list of clubs, is a better predictor of whether they're actually going to show up to class every day instead of blowing it off because they're hungover.
2
I came away feeling objective, measurable standards for any kind of professional activity are at risk of being watered down as the SAT/ACT gets kicked down the road. If SAT/ACT scores become meaningless because a higher score is associated with higher family income, what metric is next? Do we allow medical students to be licensed physicians able to practice medicine simply based on how eager they are to help, and throw out the licensing exam? Why bother testing? It fits an overall trend in health care that doctors = physician assistants = nurse practitioners when it comes to staffing in hospitals and clinics. Do I want to fly on a plane if pilots don't have to pass a standard exam? There is a risk of the pendulum going too far the other way so that the subjective and objective can't be distinguished any more.
3
Cannot agree more. Who of you want to be put in the hands of a doctor who you know was accepted into the Med school because he/she "seems" to have more passion than another who shows higher academic performances and therefore master more medical knowledge? Do you dare to eliminate MCAT and board exams and just pick doctor candidates just because they "seem" to be more warm-hearted and/or just because he/she comes from a poor family? Does the government dare to put the highly important military projects into the hands of someone who merely shows second-class competence? Where is the fairness of competition? Do any NBA teams dare to select their players based on diversity (4 whites, 3 blacks and 3 Asians, etc.?) or merely passion?
If your family is middle class, white, with income in the $70,000 - $90,000 range, your children are caught in the Bermuda Triangle of college admissions.
The schools you "stretch" for won't want you because they'll have to give you financial aid to make the stupendous annual costs. Which they don't want to do. The schools will much prefer, on one end of the scale, the sons and daughters of Indian and Chinese upper classes,who will pay "full freight" without blinking an eye; and on the other end of the scale, minorities and others who raise the schools's diversity profile, and who will receive handsome aid packages, reduced tuition and similar financial perks. Your kids will not receive anything near such benefits, assuming they are admitted. If you are admitted, your financial aid will consist mostly of loans.
The best solution for those in this situation: forget the "stretch" schools, go instead to your state university, focus on grad school if that's your career path, and basically get off the admissions merry-go-round..
The schools you "stretch" for won't want you because they'll have to give you financial aid to make the stupendous annual costs. Which they don't want to do. The schools will much prefer, on one end of the scale, the sons and daughters of Indian and Chinese upper classes,who will pay "full freight" without blinking an eye; and on the other end of the scale, minorities and others who raise the schools's diversity profile, and who will receive handsome aid packages, reduced tuition and similar financial perks. Your kids will not receive anything near such benefits, assuming they are admitted. If you are admitted, your financial aid will consist mostly of loans.
The best solution for those in this situation: forget the "stretch" schools, go instead to your state university, focus on grad school if that's your career path, and basically get off the admissions merry-go-round..
2
Tell more people "no". Receptionists and file clerks don't need bachelor's degrees.
Master's is the new bachelor's.
Master's is the new bachelor's.
1
So many false choices and unsubstaniated myths. Frank Bruni writes about a survey that asks middle- and high school students to choose between high academic achievement, happiness, and caring for others." Why in the world are those things mutually exclusive? If a student cares for others, is he incapable of achieving academic excellence? Is happiness incompatible with academic achievement? What nonsense.
This country has known that American education has been dumbed down for more than three decades when the Reagan administration issued "A Nation At Risk." Our students are some of the worst educated in the developed world. But Mr. Bruni's solution to poor preparation for college is even weaker preparation for college?
No. As a nation, we should encourage our youth to take pride in educational achievement, to put down their video games and study math- hard, to take difficult AP science courses, and then take pride in having studied hard and succeeded.
That is what our nation should encourage our young people to achieve.
This country has known that American education has been dumbed down for more than three decades when the Reagan administration issued "A Nation At Risk." Our students are some of the worst educated in the developed world. But Mr. Bruni's solution to poor preparation for college is even weaker preparation for college?
No. As a nation, we should encourage our youth to take pride in educational achievement, to put down their video games and study math- hard, to take difficult AP science courses, and then take pride in having studied hard and succeeded.
That is what our nation should encourage our young people to achieve.
1
Why do these discussion always make it sound like getting into the college of one's choice is a matter of success or failure in life? You would almost think after reading these endless debates that people either go to Harvard or they don't go to college at all.
If you don't get into one school you go to another. It probably makes no big difference to most people. I doubt very much that it ever affected my life that I went to Cal State instead of UC.
You get out of your education what you put into it.
If you don't get into one school you go to another. It probably makes no big difference to most people. I doubt very much that it ever affected my life that I went to Cal State instead of UC.
You get out of your education what you put into it.
1
There is something out of whack with this. I definitely agree that parents and kids go way overboard in the admissions process. I also know that grades and test scores can mislead. We sent our kids to the most academically difficult school we could find. There were pros and cons of this approach. What we were looking for was the best education we could find. We drive old, cheap cars. We would rather spend the money on education. My sense is that kids that come out of this kind of school are often at a disadvantage. The view seems to be that they are preordained to do well. It seems a little strange that you should give up things for education and you should be penalized. I understand the other side. My son taught at a lousy, inner city charter school where there was low achievement and little parental involvement. We agreed that if a kid could do just ok in that environment, that the student had actually done pretty well, given all of the obstacles, and should move on to a good school. All of this had led me to believe that upgrading the quality of schools and expectations are the keys. You should not punish folks who stressed education, but each kid should have a good school.
2
Intellectual gifts are like athletic or artistic ones--they are there or they aren't. Pretending otherwise is why Trump is doing so well in the polls.
2
I'm not sure how we got here, turning out students for whom there is no joy in learning, just a grim competition to get into an "elite" college. These are the folks who wake up later in their stress-filled privileged lives wondering "Is this all there is?" This is a step in the right direction, but we are still far away from any real kind of equal opportunity as long as public schools are underfunded and minority students are thrown away by our society every day.
1
The so-called 'elite schools' in this country make their living stroking the insecurities of upper-middle class parents and their kids to the absolute NECESSITY of admission to their hallowed halls. Yet their are many more great schools ALREADY available and readily open to most good students, without the anxiety nor stress-filled admission experience. These schools are not the Ivies or their wannebe cohorts. But they provide hand-crafted educational experiences and transformational opportunties to most who attend. Their focus is on teaching, and only the undergraduate (I'm not going to list them here....that would take too long). If you can look beyond your ego, there are many great American colleges. But first you need to take the US News college list and dump it in the trash - where it belongs.
For better or worse, parents will always have the right to help their kids get an edge. Whether it's staying at home to help them learn to read or paying for an SAT prep course, the upper class will always have the advantage. That is why college admissions (and life in general) will never be fair.
17
Sometimes, the only way to tell if you know math is to check that you know math.
1
The SAT Math exams have always put way too much emphasis on speed reading and comprehension. It is as if the students are given two exams, reading and more reading.
Worst of all, the new SAT math exams have put a heavier focus on speed reading and comprehension. Why is there so much emphasis on speed in math anyway? It is not a race. SATs are inconsistent with the Common Core precepts, which emphasizes persistence for math and science. Speed and persistence are contradictory.
Students from poor areas are typically slow readers. Therefore, the SATs act to filter out these students. I suspect a lot of good math and science prospects are eliminated because of this.
Worst of all, the new SAT math exams have put a heavier focus on speed reading and comprehension. Why is there so much emphasis on speed in math anyway? It is not a race. SATs are inconsistent with the Common Core precepts, which emphasizes persistence for math and science. Speed and persistence are contradictory.
Students from poor areas are typically slow readers. Therefore, the SATs act to filter out these students. I suspect a lot of good math and science prospects are eliminated because of this.
28
I'm looking forward to the day when the math SAT incorporates Common Core, if only to see how much the scores drop.
The SAT is primarily structured so only a certain percent of the students
achieve over 600 out of 800 on any one exam and far fewer achieve
over 700.
There are two basic methods to achieve that goal:
Make the test long enough so most students do not have adequate time
to finish the exam.
Make the test tricky enough so that students make simple mistakes.
So the race goes to the quickest - but not the profoundest
and to those who have prepped, and prepped and prepped for the SAT
so they do not make those simple mistakes.
achieve over 600 out of 800 on any one exam and far fewer achieve
over 700.
There are two basic methods to achieve that goal:
Make the test long enough so most students do not have adequate time
to finish the exam.
Make the test tricky enough so that students make simple mistakes.
So the race goes to the quickest - but not the profoundest
and to those who have prepped, and prepped and prepped for the SAT
so they do not make those simple mistakes.
2
As a former High School principal the changes described in this report would help high school's redefine their mission from credentialing to educating. I found it so difficult to create innovative approaches to teaching and learning, when parents were clamoring for superficial indicators of schooling ---AP courses, ACT/SAT test prep courses, honors courses, weighted grades, subject centered curriculum. The college arms race has created learning environments, now appearing in elementary/middle schools, where teachers and students are "doing school" rather than doing education. I should add, that Mr. Duncan and the Presidents race to the top policies accelerated the reduction of education to painting by the numbers rather than the ability to connect the dots.
1
I have a college degree. I'm still paying my student loans, which, thankfully, are low compared to most of my cohort (thank god for being 40, not 25, and for only staying one year in law school). I don't work in my degree field, however, and I am so thankful for that. After years of middle management corporate stagnancy, I decided to become an electrician. Best decision I ever made. Pension, paid training, great health care. Even though I was groomed from birth to be a "professional," in the words of Judge Smails, the world needs ditch diggers too.
2
Several years ago while a media specialist in a western high school, I previewed an excellent video on Walt Whitman. It covered many of the ideas integral to his life and works, and I immediately felt our AP English teacher would really find this an excellent teaching tool. In addition, I knew her students would learn and enjoy a great deal about Whitman from this video.
When presented with my recommendations and enthusiasm, the instructor only said, "Well thanks, Tony, but I can't possibly fit it in." She then showed me her lesson plan book, with each day carefully blocked out to include teaching a particular skill, that is, drilling students in tactics to best achieve high AP scores. Incredulous, I asked her, "You can't fit this 50-minute video in at all?" Her response, "Sorry."
Apparently teaching kids how to ace a test was more important than showing students how to appreciate the work of a great American writer.
When presented with my recommendations and enthusiasm, the instructor only said, "Well thanks, Tony, but I can't possibly fit it in." She then showed me her lesson plan book, with each day carefully blocked out to include teaching a particular skill, that is, drilling students in tactics to best achieve high AP scores. Incredulous, I asked her, "You can't fit this 50-minute video in at all?" Her response, "Sorry."
Apparently teaching kids how to ace a test was more important than showing students how to appreciate the work of a great American writer.
28
That is the tangible result of the implementation of the excessive testing regime in American public schools. Teachers are judged by their students performance of a set of standardized test. Their pay and even their employment depend on it. So not surprisingly there is little room for other approaches.
2
Sadly the AP is all about the Final Score you earn.
There are very few College courses I would have taken
if they were structured like the typical AP courses.
There are very few College courses I would have taken
if they were structured like the typical AP courses.
2
Nice piece Mr. Bruni and great to hear there is - hopefully - a transition underway. However there was no need to throw the gratuitous "and athletes" into the last sentence. Sure, many athletes come from privileged backgrounds in sports like lacrosse but others are not.
Division 1 football, basketball and track rosters have many athletes that come from diverse and "poorer" backgrounds. Football (FBS schools), basketball and track account for 123 scholarships at Division 1 schools. This is across a total of 234 scholarships allowed across all sports or over 50% of the total. Using the University of Alabama, the recent NCAA football champion as an example, out of 30,000+ undergraduates, there are at most 234 full-time equivalent scholarship athletes or less than 1% (0.78) of the total student body. Alabama doesn't have skiiing or ice hockey teams so the percentage is even lower. Of those 234, I would hazard a guess that the number from underprivileged backgrounds is probably greater than the student body average as whole and most likely by a not insubstantial amount.
So before you go vilifying "athletes" maybe you should consider that athletics is helping rather than hindering diversity. Sure, there are some that will say that the athletes are pushed through or many fail to graduate or take meaningless courses. But there are also many that take the opportunity that their athletic skills provided, graduate, make our society better with their skills.
Division 1 football, basketball and track rosters have many athletes that come from diverse and "poorer" backgrounds. Football (FBS schools), basketball and track account for 123 scholarships at Division 1 schools. This is across a total of 234 scholarships allowed across all sports or over 50% of the total. Using the University of Alabama, the recent NCAA football champion as an example, out of 30,000+ undergraduates, there are at most 234 full-time equivalent scholarship athletes or less than 1% (0.78) of the total student body. Alabama doesn't have skiiing or ice hockey teams so the percentage is even lower. Of those 234, I would hazard a guess that the number from underprivileged backgrounds is probably greater than the student body average as whole and most likely by a not insubstantial amount.
So before you go vilifying "athletes" maybe you should consider that athletics is helping rather than hindering diversity. Sure, there are some that will say that the athletes are pushed through or many fail to graduate or take meaningless courses. But there are also many that take the opportunity that their athletic skills provided, graduate, make our society better with their skills.
If we want to include intelligence as a criteria for admission it stands to reason that there will be more students from affluent families. I am talking about IQ intelligence, which is a good predictor of college success. Generally higher earners have higher intelligence. This may be an uncomfortable reality to some but it is a fact. Intelligence is a heritable trait. Smarter parents will probably have smarter children so if intelligence is a criteria for admission we can expect applicants from affluent families to to have a higher acceptance rate than applicants from less fortunate famiilies.
1
The author missed the fact that access to the academy is determined in part by costs rising faster than the ability to pay. That is also a factor in admissions and attracting the best student candidates. Simple funding by government does not address these root causes as Barry Sanders proposes.
Finally college is not for everyone. Academy and education do not automatically lead to understanding and wisdom. I for one would rather have a relationship with a wise, humble person than a smart, highly educated, arrogant one.
Finally college is not for everyone. Academy and education do not automatically lead to understanding and wisdom. I for one would rather have a relationship with a wise, humble person than a smart, highly educated, arrogant one.
After completing the college admissions process about a year ago, I believe that it is ineffective and must be changed. It has been said by college admissions officers that a large part of the process is a lottery and other large parts of the process are obsolete. One of these parts is standardized testing such as the ACT and SAT. These tests give no indication of how intelligent a student or even show a thirst for hunger in a student. These tests for the most part just show who is able to find the tips and tricks of the test, usually with the help of expensive tutoring. My parents in fact paid for expensive tutoring for me and I can say that I am not more educated for it. I am just now aware how to take a timed test which is most likely not a skill I will need for the future. I believe that change is necessary in order to help mold the ideals and futures of upcoming generations.
11
Yes.
Neither the SAT or ACT, though the ACT, at least, gives you a better
understanding of what the student actually learned in High School,
gives you any true indication of how deep/devoted a learner the applicant is.
You would think Elite colleges would want serious students, not just
highly efficient students.
Neither the SAT or ACT, though the ACT, at least, gives you a better
understanding of what the student actually learned in High School,
gives you any true indication of how deep/devoted a learner the applicant is.
You would think Elite colleges would want serious students, not just
highly efficient students.
1
What's missing from the educational experience of American children and by default, produces a glaring gap in the minds of admissions committees is consensus. Reaching a consensus on controversial issues requires education, articulation, the power of persuasion, excellent listening skills and finely honed social skills. Without the ability or the will to reach a consensus, democracy crumbles - and what is an education for, other than to produce good, caring and productive citizens? We witness the failure of consensus in our society everyday with a government in paralysis due to members of Congress that don't understand what it means to put the whole before the individual - to strive to achieve governance for 'the greater good'. Striving to reach a consensus should be taught from the earliest ages, and practised through the high school and college years. Being 'the best' at everything - which has dominated admissions for too many decades - does not help rebuild and sustain a viable, fair, democratic nation. Trying to relieve our kids of anxiety and pressure in the classroom will not help them do better than we have; and failing that, we are rather doomed.
Consensus has provided nothing to this country. Nothing. Only politicians form consensuses.
Every great achievement comes from the individual. The individual conceives a thought, studies it, plans it and gathers others to implement that idea. There has never been nor will there ever be a great thought come from consensus.
In this country we are not collectivists. We are a body of individuals who all strive to be our personal bests in order to make society better. We undertake challenges which will build our individual character and we build our bodies to help us in our daily lives. We instill in ourselves virtues and embody values that enrich our lives and in consequence, the lives of others.
Put the mask on yourself first then you can help put the mask on others. As the stewardess says.
We do NOT live for the state, the state exists for us. We owe others our best selves. That means taking every advantage to increase our prestige and talents in order to use them in the world. To dumb ourselves down so to make others feel we are just one big family is stupid.
So do not fool yourselves into thinking that consensus is good. Compete well, try to outdo yourself in all good things and then you will help civilization advance.
Every great achievement comes from the individual. The individual conceives a thought, studies it, plans it and gathers others to implement that idea. There has never been nor will there ever be a great thought come from consensus.
In this country we are not collectivists. We are a body of individuals who all strive to be our personal bests in order to make society better. We undertake challenges which will build our individual character and we build our bodies to help us in our daily lives. We instill in ourselves virtues and embody values that enrich our lives and in consequence, the lives of others.
Put the mask on yourself first then you can help put the mask on others. As the stewardess says.
We do NOT live for the state, the state exists for us. We owe others our best selves. That means taking every advantage to increase our prestige and talents in order to use them in the world. To dumb ourselves down so to make others feel we are just one big family is stupid.
So do not fool yourselves into thinking that consensus is good. Compete well, try to outdo yourself in all good things and then you will help civilization advance.
I am now a senior undergraduate student in college. I was rejected from my top choice school (UC Berkeley) with a 3.95 GPA and a full list of extra-curricular activities. I had straight A's with only 1 B+ in organic chemistry. Getting rejected from Berkeley is the best thing that ever happened to me. My friends that were admitted continue to compete with each other, even sharing fake data to screw over another student because A's are limited. I go to a different UC and do research in collaboration with my peers, not competition. I am much happier and more productive.
7
The world of super charged admissions to elite schools is so far, in general, from what I experience at a rural midwest state u that we might as well occupy different galaxies, but last summer I did have the experience of teaching several masters of the universe slumming it to pick up credits close to home and do not in the least envy professors at elite schools if this kind of student is what they have to face. Everything was my fault, because how could it be otherwise when these geniuses failed to get their expected grades? In our strange, topsy turvy universe, I am more and more convinced the top students, if only because they lack arrogance, come from the second tier schools.
My eldest is a junior in an excellent suburban school in this area, he is taking all of the high level classes and something which is not mentioned in this article is the emphasis on GPA's lead to a large amount of cheating by the students sometimes directly on the test taking and sometimes on home work and lab work. The complete emphasis on grades leads many of the children to copy homeworks and labs etc. An individual teachers homework and lab policies can actually encourage this cheating. It is very sad that we are creating a group of high achieving students who know that the best way to get ahead is to cheat and authority figures who have structured the system in such a way that cheating really in the most rational thing for their students to do.
3
I moved from the UK to the US as a sophomore high school student. Having a unique perspective on both educational system, I must say that the US system is devastating and heartbreaking. I cant count the number of times I came home crying from school unable to cope with the expectations of my teachers.
Its not that I was stupid. In fact, I excelled in my UK high school, well-liked among teachers and scoring perfect scores on the GCSE exams. I think the UK system succeeds where the US fails among a few basic things:
1. UK schools have smaller classes allowing teachers to have a personalized relationship with students. Whereas in the US, the large class sizes feel like you being shuffled through a factory system: attended class ✓, completed the assignment on time ✓, passed the exam with an A ✓, congrats here is you diploma, exit is here.
2. US schools are rigorous for the wrong reasons wanting to cover too much information too fast, but never breaking the surface of any topic.
3. The US system does not give second chances. Spent last night engrossed in your novel rather then studying? Sorry, say good bye to your 4.0 and chances at Harvard.
4. Finally, the US system rewards deceit and deception. Students who game the system by buying SAT strategies, sweat talking their teachers for good grades and fabricating lousy extracurriculars to make them look like the work of Mother Teresa herself, these are the ones who succeed.
Its not that I was stupid. In fact, I excelled in my UK high school, well-liked among teachers and scoring perfect scores on the GCSE exams. I think the UK system succeeds where the US fails among a few basic things:
1. UK schools have smaller classes allowing teachers to have a personalized relationship with students. Whereas in the US, the large class sizes feel like you being shuffled through a factory system: attended class ✓, completed the assignment on time ✓, passed the exam with an A ✓, congrats here is you diploma, exit is here.
2. US schools are rigorous for the wrong reasons wanting to cover too much information too fast, but never breaking the surface of any topic.
3. The US system does not give second chances. Spent last night engrossed in your novel rather then studying? Sorry, say good bye to your 4.0 and chances at Harvard.
4. Finally, the US system rewards deceit and deception. Students who game the system by buying SAT strategies, sweat talking their teachers for good grades and fabricating lousy extracurriculars to make them look like the work of Mother Teresa herself, these are the ones who succeed.
60
The UK and US secondary school systems are totally different. In the US, the curriculum is broad - one learns a little about a lot; in the UK, one specializes early; one learns a lot about a few subjects.
One can argue which is right and which is wrong but in the end, they're just "different". In addition, our class sizes here ARE larger than in the UK as most leave school in the UK after their GCSE exam and most state laws today in the US, do not allow a student to leave school until the age of 18. So we must educate more students, many of them who have zero interest in still being in schools.
I totally disagree with you about the US system rewarding "deceit and deception". Those SAT strategies are available to all and rarely change ones score by even as much as 100 points, so a mediocre students is still going to have mediocre scores. In order to get those extra 100 points, a students is going to have take practice test after practice test and work very hard for those points - there is no "magic pill". I think few teachers just hand out grades - perhaps a few do but no student would be lucky enough to land 5-6 of these in the same year. And trust me - admissions offices can smell phone extracurriculars from a mile away.
One can argue which is right and which is wrong but in the end, they're just "different". In addition, our class sizes here ARE larger than in the UK as most leave school in the UK after their GCSE exam and most state laws today in the US, do not allow a student to leave school until the age of 18. So we must educate more students, many of them who have zero interest in still being in schools.
I totally disagree with you about the US system rewarding "deceit and deception". Those SAT strategies are available to all and rarely change ones score by even as much as 100 points, so a mediocre students is still going to have mediocre scores. In order to get those extra 100 points, a students is going to have take practice test after practice test and work very hard for those points - there is no "magic pill". I think few teachers just hand out grades - perhaps a few do but no student would be lucky enough to land 5-6 of these in the same year. And trust me - admissions offices can smell phone extracurriculars from a mile away.
1
The US system is based on shielding the non performers and white elite. They encourage you to study in a private school where a C grade is made into an A !! Show these As on your transcript and get into the best college, you will see students having a 4.5 GPA and a SAT score of 1800 !! Now there is a campaign to look away from AP scores as the tests are standardized and it separates the wheat from the chaff. You can take the easiest classes and laugh your way to college while folks who take the most rigorous classes, do well in SAT and SAT subject tests are left behind! American educationists should think what kind of generation we are preparing by hiding kids from real life. That is why there is a cloak around college admissions in the country, and you can never find out why someone with poor scores made it in.
As a Harvard graduate I really like these ideas. I felt my classmates’ community service activities were heartfelt and sincere, but agree that the process of admission to the schools that interested me seemed to value high individual achievement above all else. I thought that was a good thing for both individuals and society at the time, but after a few decades of life experience and service work I have changed my mind. I still value accomplishment, but think great stress on individual achievement can damage both individuals and society.
I am a real intellectual and found kindred spirits among the faculty. I was disappointed to find fewer among my college classmates than I would have liked. I think our society actually discourages genuine intellectual passion and that even many academics are only interested in their careers. This may be due to the value placed on individual achievement above all else.
After college I stopped trying to accomplish in as many areas or with the same consistent level of intensity, because I thought I’d done all the “hoop jumping” society could reasonably expect. I decided those who couldn't see the value in working with me based on my prior accomplishments weren’t worth my time. For better or worse, I still feel that way.
It would be wonderful for the schools to bring in lots more kids from households with less money. Diversity really is all that it’s cracked up to be. Life isn’t as much fun or as rich without it, nor are campuses.
I am a real intellectual and found kindred spirits among the faculty. I was disappointed to find fewer among my college classmates than I would have liked. I think our society actually discourages genuine intellectual passion and that even many academics are only interested in their careers. This may be due to the value placed on individual achievement above all else.
After college I stopped trying to accomplish in as many areas or with the same consistent level of intensity, because I thought I’d done all the “hoop jumping” society could reasonably expect. I decided those who couldn't see the value in working with me based on my prior accomplishments weren’t worth my time. For better or worse, I still feel that way.
It would be wonderful for the schools to bring in lots more kids from households with less money. Diversity really is all that it’s cracked up to be. Life isn’t as much fun or as rich without it, nor are campuses.
30
I have no idea what a "real intellectual" is. But, I do know that intellectualism is faddish. Today, for instance, in the Ivy League, a Marxist theorist and philosopher and expert on the lives of Marx and Engels would be named an intellectual. One hundred years ago theologians who were also experts in the lives of the Apostles and church history in Ivy League schools of divinity were considered to be leading intellectuals.
For many decades, the Ivy League schools systematically excluded Jews in order to prevent these previously WASP bastions from becoming dominated by Jewish scholars. This record is documented in Karabel's "The Chosen". In those same decades, there would be only a few (1 or 2) black students on a typical Ivy League campus. What price do these important institutions have to pay for creating a system of exclusion? Nothing. They are more in demand and more revered than ever.
As student inspired mini-revolutions spread around the world in the late 1960s, the so called elite schools woke up. No longer could they be schools were 80 to 90% from prep "feeder schools" would automatically be accepted. "Merit" was the new order.
Is it possible now to fake your way into a top school by building out an impressive resume? You bet. That's why so many people do it. This practice, among others, is detailed in Deresiewicz's "Excellent Sheep", in which he outlines driven students who perform up to and beyond ordinary expectations, putting in massive study hours and, he says, have no idea why.
Education has been lost as a central purpose of college. It is yet another step up a long, long ladder to big paying jobs, attractive husbands or wives and big houses in the 'burbs. One undergrad at Penn was quoted in a major newspaper saying she can only have casual, non-comital sexual encounters because she is just too busy. Something needs to change and not merely in small increments.
4
I found it interesting. Instead of improving the "lower" tiers of colleges, we are requiring the dumbing down of higher band names. To be honest, I gave never found that a Harvard graduate is any better than someone from 'FSU," Front Street University as we called the local community college. College has become a check off the box experience now but with such a loss of pure academia and an increasing emphasis on useless subjects to get easy A's and a prestigious diploma. Demands have changed. Eggheads are roundly denounced in modern politics, scientists seem only valued if a multinational company takes interest in them.
Really, what are the reforms doing? Those who have the rigor to perfrom are admitted, and that's why scholarships exist. The opportunities are there but we short change kids by having dumbed down grade schools cause we want a test to show we are a success. People fail all the time. Now they are supposed to have a Right to be admitted to the Ivy League without working cause people who say they want reform see those schools as the only ones worth attending?
Really, what are the reforms doing? Those who have the rigor to perfrom are admitted, and that's why scholarships exist. The opportunities are there but we short change kids by having dumbed down grade schools cause we want a test to show we are a success. People fail all the time. Now they are supposed to have a Right to be admitted to the Ivy League without working cause people who say they want reform see those schools as the only ones worth attending?
2
Education without purpose is meaningless. As our society has embraced science, it has rejected religion, spirituality, and compassion. Whatever your thoughts on religion and the existence of a God or Divinity, religion taught values, ethics, morals, compassion. Our children and our society are in dire need of the values taught by religion. Our society lacks a conscience as our citizens has lost their individual consciences. The acceptance of Hillary's transgressions by many citizens is abhorrent. When we embrace leaders that are not trustworthy, it is a reflection of the values of our society. Power trumps honesty, integrity, diligence, honor, duty, selflessness. This is the generation the selfie, of me, not of us. Soon, we will be at one another's throats, narcissistic rats, scratching and clawing for more than the next guy, whatever the cost.
No one here denies the correlation between high income level and high standardized test scores, and no one here disputes the tendency of "assortative mating" to produce income inequality, and no one here disagrees with the characterization of children from high high income families as "privileged" (unless the children in question are also "under represented minorities"), and yet everyone here derides "legacies" as unworthy of admission to the "elite" schools their parents attended. In fact, a very high percentage of legacy applicants to "elite" schools are very well qualified for admission, and the competition for admission among legacy applicants is particularly intense. Legacies who are admitted to these schools are not taking places from better qualified, more deserving URM or "first generation" applicants, but many legacy applicants who are denied admission could argue that they are better qualified and at least as deserving as some of the URM and first generation applicants who are admitted. There is already a lot of "progressive" social engineering going on in elite college admissions.
1
It's refreshing to see colleges rethinking the rightful role of AP classes. Our public high school bravely offers many AP classes, and students bravely sign up for many of them. Alas, the current AP formats don't really approximate the independent thinking, intellectual explorations and spirited discussions of a true, college-level class. Instead, they're much closer to the sort of cram-school ordeals that we decry when we read about them in South Korea, China, etc.
High-school teachers are frustrated. They race through a vast pool of required knowledge, with scant opportunities to break from the script. It's impossible to get students involved in true research papers. Instead, students are steered into 45-minute drills involving ready-made snippets of relevant documents, paired with a stopwatch-style dash to declare a thesis and jam some examples underneath. Then colleges wonder why students' writing skills keep dwindling. Nobody in high school has the time any more to oversee projects with multiple drafts, wide-open exploration of a new area and focused rewriting.
We've got an A/B experiment running in our home, with one child having taken AP American History, and the other opting for the supposedly less-rigorous "college prep" version. Guess what!? In the less competitive version, students have time to do a little urban field research when the immigration unit rolls around. They have time to debate the role of unions in the 1910s and today. They get to think!
High-school teachers are frustrated. They race through a vast pool of required knowledge, with scant opportunities to break from the script. It's impossible to get students involved in true research papers. Instead, students are steered into 45-minute drills involving ready-made snippets of relevant documents, paired with a stopwatch-style dash to declare a thesis and jam some examples underneath. Then colleges wonder why students' writing skills keep dwindling. Nobody in high school has the time any more to oversee projects with multiple drafts, wide-open exploration of a new area and focused rewriting.
We've got an A/B experiment running in our home, with one child having taken AP American History, and the other opting for the supposedly less-rigorous "college prep" version. Guess what!? In the less competitive version, students have time to do a little urban field research when the immigration unit rolls around. They have time to debate the role of unions in the 1910s and today. They get to think!
1
In Finland the applicants to universities are chosen according to test results. For example if you want to study computer science you take math and physics tests. Then the university takes in top couple hundred or so. And this is not multiple selection test, but solving of real problems. Of course we only have government universities and each university has the same tests. naturally in the U.S. education is business and private universities try to maximise revenue.
2
Higher Ed is a business as confirmed by their behavior and the magnitude of the money involved. It is also subsidized by US taxpayers. Higher Ed has wracked up $1 Trillion in student loan debt but only 50% of college entrants graduate.
This is a lot for society to bear for results that would earn someone an F in class. Higher Ed does not need tweaking it needs major reform and it's not the professors fault. They have very little say in many respects. Rather it's the business culture, the elitism, the administrators, the lack of caring if students make it or not (churn and burn) and the lack of focus on educating our young people.
This is a lot for society to bear for results that would earn someone an F in class. Higher Ed does not need tweaking it needs major reform and it's not the professors fault. They have very little say in many respects. Rather it's the business culture, the elitism, the administrators, the lack of caring if students make it or not (churn and burn) and the lack of focus on educating our young people.
Our children are just a reflection of our society and ourselves. f they don't put a lot of value on caring for others, it's likely because our society doesn't put as much value on that as it does on money and success and power. Just look at the most visible people in our society, the most celebrated or the most written about.
Furthermore, the growing sense of financial insecurity since the 1970s has made a victim of the concept of exploring a passion in college. And the above inflation rise of tuition makes that concept even less workable.
Furthermore, the growing sense of financial insecurity since the 1970s has made a victim of the concept of exploring a passion in college. And the above inflation rise of tuition makes that concept even less workable.
1
In this networked and globalized world parents from the north pole to the south pole have been told that a few dozen well known universities are the only ones their children can attend without being labeled losers, and the resulting rush is more like a mob panic than an approach to education.
Ultimately we have to value the development of the intellect over the acquiring of credentials. The first approach requires constant involvement in the world of ideas, the second is simply tending a scoreboard. Mr. Bruni is taking a useful step here, but in the end he's talking about a different way of managing the scoring system. I'd suggest for his next step that Mr. Bruni write about mathematics and how to learn it, or literature and what it does to enlighten us. Until we involve ourselves in the results and not only in the manner in which we pass through the door we won't relieve the worst pressures of our current system.
Ultimately we have to value the development of the intellect over the acquiring of credentials. The first approach requires constant involvement in the world of ideas, the second is simply tending a scoreboard. Mr. Bruni is taking a useful step here, but in the end he's talking about a different way of managing the scoring system. I'd suggest for his next step that Mr. Bruni write about mathematics and how to learn it, or literature and what it does to enlighten us. Until we involve ourselves in the results and not only in the manner in which we pass through the door we won't relieve the worst pressures of our current system.
Colleges need to do more to attract economically as well as culturally diverse students, including providing more need-based financial support and reaching out to students as early as middle school to persuade lower income students that they can realistically set their sights on the very best schools. But let's not at the same time de-value challenging junior and high school courses. By happenstance, my adult daughter was talking yesterday about the joys of taking ancient history and Latin in her prep school, and traveling with her through Italy is a special delight as she regales me with the history of different locations learned first in those courses. We were fortunate to be able to pay for a wonderful education for our children, which excited rather than depressed them and gave them a live-long love of learning.
During the affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan, Justice Scalia said. with tongue in cheek. that if students above certain GPA or test score benchmarks were really equivalent schools should just admit those students at random from the pool of qualified applicants, instead of ranking them by GPA, board scores or both. My thought after reading this article is that, as radical as that sounds, it may be worth considering.
What if schools just set minimums for grades, scores, APs etc. above which students historically have been successful at those schools, and then said we're just throwing names of those kids above the threshold in a hat. If they really want to make sure they get some superstars they could weight those at the very top of pool but in general everyone in the pool would have an equal chance. This would reduce the stress level of students as once they achieved the minimum they would know they had a 1 in 3, or a 1 in 15, or whatever chance of getting in, and could then let fate take its course.
What if schools just set minimums for grades, scores, APs etc. above which students historically have been successful at those schools, and then said we're just throwing names of those kids above the threshold in a hat. If they really want to make sure they get some superstars they could weight those at the very top of pool but in general everyone in the pool would have an equal chance. This would reduce the stress level of students as once they achieved the minimum they would know they had a 1 in 3, or a 1 in 15, or whatever chance of getting in, and could then let fate take its course.
1
There's a simple reason college admissions have become so dysfunctional -- and too often, the culprits are the applicants themselves.
There is no limit on the number of schools to which a student can apply; consequently, many apply to a dozen or more. I remember an anecdote told by my father, about a high school classmate who applied to 20 schools, all Ivy or top-tier. He was rejected by 19 of them and accepted to Duke. "But you know what," my father said with a knowing grin, "he got into Duke, and that was all that mattered."
I repeated the same farce on a smaller scale when I was rejected from Georgetown on early admission: I applied to at least ten other schools, many of which I can't now recall! Why do we allow such frantic shopping around for colleges, like prospective students are Black Friday shoppers rushing the store aisles for any merchandise they can get their hands on?
Far better, it would seem, to make the application process an intimate, multi-year endeavor. Provide guidance counselors with the tools they need to introduce students to schools that match their interests, and to do it at a young age; enlist the help of alumni organizations to speak at high schools, offer guidance to interested students, and conduct substantial interviews on behalf of their alma maters. I could go on and on. But most importantly? Save students from themselves. All students will benefit when their peers make informed, rather than scattershot, decisions about their educations.
There is no limit on the number of schools to which a student can apply; consequently, many apply to a dozen or more. I remember an anecdote told by my father, about a high school classmate who applied to 20 schools, all Ivy or top-tier. He was rejected by 19 of them and accepted to Duke. "But you know what," my father said with a knowing grin, "he got into Duke, and that was all that mattered."
I repeated the same farce on a smaller scale when I was rejected from Georgetown on early admission: I applied to at least ten other schools, many of which I can't now recall! Why do we allow such frantic shopping around for colleges, like prospective students are Black Friday shoppers rushing the store aisles for any merchandise they can get their hands on?
Far better, it would seem, to make the application process an intimate, multi-year endeavor. Provide guidance counselors with the tools they need to introduce students to schools that match their interests, and to do it at a young age; enlist the help of alumni organizations to speak at high schools, offer guidance to interested students, and conduct substantial interviews on behalf of their alma maters. I could go on and on. But most importantly? Save students from themselves. All students will benefit when their peers make informed, rather than scattershot, decisions about their educations.
Higher education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. It has become a rat race where we parents expect our children to achieve academically and advance to the head of their class at any cost. Unfortunately, the phenomenon is global and countries and economies are compared and ranked accordingly. We are afraid to change the criteria of testing, measuring, and ranking because we do not know if the alternatives work better. Our scholastic pursuit is myopic and does not produce well-rounded individuals. We need to experiment more new ideas and approaches and certainly the elite institutions of higher education should help us in that direction. Breaking away from the old standards is daring, unsettling, and distraught. But we should be willing to try new ideas. Disruptive innovation is sorely needed and overdue in this area.
As a recent high school graduate, I have seen friends with straight A's have panic attacks over a 10 point difference in their SAT scores because they worried they wouldn't get into their top choice of college. Websites such as Naviance show graphs comparing students' grades to one another, essentially assigning a value to how much that student is worth.
The current college application process promotes unhealthy competition and overworked students that learn less and study more just so that they can get into their choice of school. Students who took the most difficult AP courses or who slept the least were considered models among the student body, and many students-- myself included-- had to give up their sport or their instrument just to have that extra time to write their essays.
With an increasing number of jobs on the market that require a college-level or graduate-level degree, colleges must take more responsibility in giving the opportunities for people to succeed without such a toxic and expensive atmosphere.
The current college application process promotes unhealthy competition and overworked students that learn less and study more just so that they can get into their choice of school. Students who took the most difficult AP courses or who slept the least were considered models among the student body, and many students-- myself included-- had to give up their sport or their instrument just to have that extra time to write their essays.
With an increasing number of jobs on the market that require a college-level or graduate-level degree, colleges must take more responsibility in giving the opportunities for people to succeed without such a toxic and expensive atmosphere.
2
Can we stop talking about students this way? "Many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents[...]" I go to a top school. I have many friends who go to other top schools. I don't think any of us, or any of our peers, would fit this description, which is not borne of observation of real students at these colleges, but the trend in the news to cast the next generation as oversensitive or brainwashed.
The admissions process is a crapshoot. Why? Because the United States is blessed with so many highly capable students that, according to a woman working in admissions at Stanford, 95 percent of the over 40,000 applicants are easily qualified for the school. These colleges don't need to pick students based on AP tests or SAT scores because most of the people who apply already fit the bill. The stress that pushes students into unhealthy territory is: how to distinguish themselves and ensure their success when everyone else is also doing so well?
The answer should be: it doesn't matter - the United States invests the resources into increasing the number of destinations for high quality higher education. This generation is the highest achieving generation with the lowest crime rates and historically low rates of high school drop out. We should recognize and capitalize on that.
Yes the college admissions process should be changed. But we should have this conversation with the people it's actually about - high school students and recent college applicants.
The admissions process is a crapshoot. Why? Because the United States is blessed with so many highly capable students that, according to a woman working in admissions at Stanford, 95 percent of the over 40,000 applicants are easily qualified for the school. These colleges don't need to pick students based on AP tests or SAT scores because most of the people who apply already fit the bill. The stress that pushes students into unhealthy territory is: how to distinguish themselves and ensure their success when everyone else is also doing so well?
The answer should be: it doesn't matter - the United States invests the resources into increasing the number of destinations for high quality higher education. This generation is the highest achieving generation with the lowest crime rates and historically low rates of high school drop out. We should recognize and capitalize on that.
Yes the college admissions process should be changed. But we should have this conversation with the people it's actually about - high school students and recent college applicants.
Future of education in America?
What does a foolish humanity really believe the future of education to be? In a world of billions of people ravaging the planet, jockeying for position, brandishing weapons, concerned about self, self, self, preferring religious views or a socialism which does little more than make one feel good about helping others, a world awash in drugs and consumerism and triviality of the moment...
Please, such a world is winding down rapidly to an education similar to what one would expect for a space mission or other complex endeavor because the endeavor is in fact complex: The assurance the human race will get through all the overpopulation and pollution and foolishness...
The future of education, in other words, will just be an increase in recognizing genetic potential and arrangement of environment to maximize genetic potential,--increase of biological, social, psychological and environment engineering science--which means the majority of people, not born with any particular gifts, can be expected to merely have a place found for them at best by an increasingly sophisticated and powerful elite in society of superior intellect and discipline.
The human race because of its foolishness and incompetence has got itself in a position of emergency where appeals to morality and conscience and need to help others is dwindling in favor of a creation of a "sophisticated team of humans to ensure humanity survives" type of thinking.
Let's not be naive...
What does a foolish humanity really believe the future of education to be? In a world of billions of people ravaging the planet, jockeying for position, brandishing weapons, concerned about self, self, self, preferring religious views or a socialism which does little more than make one feel good about helping others, a world awash in drugs and consumerism and triviality of the moment...
Please, such a world is winding down rapidly to an education similar to what one would expect for a space mission or other complex endeavor because the endeavor is in fact complex: The assurance the human race will get through all the overpopulation and pollution and foolishness...
The future of education, in other words, will just be an increase in recognizing genetic potential and arrangement of environment to maximize genetic potential,--increase of biological, social, psychological and environment engineering science--which means the majority of people, not born with any particular gifts, can be expected to merely have a place found for them at best by an increasingly sophisticated and powerful elite in society of superior intellect and discipline.
The human race because of its foolishness and incompetence has got itself in a position of emergency where appeals to morality and conscience and need to help others is dwindling in favor of a creation of a "sophisticated team of humans to ensure humanity survives" type of thinking.
Let's not be naive...
1
As a member of the faculty at an ivy league school, one of the issues confronting us is that the extraordinary emphasis that seems to be place on achievement in every possible discipline: math and science, English and History, Community Service, Music and the Arts, School Leadership, means that we are missing those students with real potential for work in one discipline: the math genus may not do very well in foreign languages, the next Picasso or Emily Dickinson may have so-so chemistry grades. It makes for a super-achieving--kids who are really really good at school-- but in the end not very interesting study body.
7
Here's a thought...why not have all High School graduates spend a year or two at the Community College of their choice BEFORE they apply to places like Harvard and Stanford? Students from poorer schools can get the help they need that they couldn't get in High School and they can get it from those who benefited from better public or private schools. This would encourage an environment of "Making Caring Common." This might also help us find more students who excel at teaching others.
Students would spend their time in Community College taking their General Studies courses - English, history, science, liberal arts, etc. - before they lose themselves in their majors.
After this two year program, students could apply to the university of their choice. The admissions could be judged on their performance in school, their success with working with others and their extra curricular activities...whether it be supporting one's family, sports, volunteer or paid work.
Universities could then provide 2 or 3 years of concentrated studies in the subject of the student's choice.
This would lesson the student debt. It would provide students with an education in their chosen field...after getting a well-rounded education.
I realize that there are issues with how this would work. But I truly believe that something like this would help level the playing field for students at the top and the bottom. .
It isn't a perfect plan. Just a starting point.
Students would spend their time in Community College taking their General Studies courses - English, history, science, liberal arts, etc. - before they lose themselves in their majors.
After this two year program, students could apply to the university of their choice. The admissions could be judged on their performance in school, their success with working with others and their extra curricular activities...whether it be supporting one's family, sports, volunteer or paid work.
Universities could then provide 2 or 3 years of concentrated studies in the subject of the student's choice.
This would lesson the student debt. It would provide students with an education in their chosen field...after getting a well-rounded education.
I realize that there are issues with how this would work. But I truly believe that something like this would help level the playing field for students at the top and the bottom. .
It isn't a perfect plan. Just a starting point.
I should feel gratified that some elite university officials at least say they are trying to rethink the admissions process, but to my ear they sound like those hack politicians who every now and then announce -- for reasons of both ambition and anxiety -- they are going "clean up Washington." A frame shift is indeed needed, but probably not the kind these officials have in mind, I believe the biggest changes in elite college admissions won't come from the colleges themselves, but rather from a growing group of teenagers (and their parents) who will begin to conclude that whatever these institutions claim to offer those select and lucky few who gain entrance, it simply is not be worth the time, effort and expense for the many highly qualified students who are rejected. Instead, they may decide to focus their intelligence, energy, ambition and money on entirely different, more promising pathways to their goals, making todays all powerful admissions committees increasingly irrelevant.
On the other hand, the open admissions policy at CUNY was the ruination of places like Hunter College and City College, which once produced our leading scientists and humanists.
A student shouldn't need remediation once he's in college.
Extracurricular activities are fine and good, but it's easy for high school students to pad their resumes with sports and an occasional foray into community service. Essays can, increasingly, be purchased online. Perhaps they should be written in a controlled environment, on paper and in ink.
What's a college to do?
One thing's for sure: Given the nature of human beings, their failures are very often attributed to others, not to themselves. The 18-year-old who has given short shrift to his studies, spent his time with his friends, gotten into a college by the grace and good wishes of his indulgent 11th-grade teachers, and then found his new studies challenging, will blame the college. It isn't supportive enough. It has halls named for men dead for two-hundred years. The professor installed to protect his dorm is called a "house master." Oh, piddle.
"No one understands me" has been the cry of adolescence since . . . forever.
A student shouldn't need remediation once he's in college.
Extracurricular activities are fine and good, but it's easy for high school students to pad their resumes with sports and an occasional foray into community service. Essays can, increasingly, be purchased online. Perhaps they should be written in a controlled environment, on paper and in ink.
What's a college to do?
One thing's for sure: Given the nature of human beings, their failures are very often attributed to others, not to themselves. The 18-year-old who has given short shrift to his studies, spent his time with his friends, gotten into a college by the grace and good wishes of his indulgent 11th-grade teachers, and then found his new studies challenging, will blame the college. It isn't supportive enough. It has halls named for men dead for two-hundred years. The professor installed to protect his dorm is called a "house master." Oh, piddle.
"No one understands me" has been the cry of adolescence since . . . forever.
1
Admission problems exist, too, at community and open-admission colleges. In recent years many of these schools have 'qualified up' to university status and have implemented seemingly bizarre admission hoops.
As a mid-career professional with an honors BA and a 60-hour masters degree (both with 3.8 grade averages from tier-1 institutions) my application to a former community college won't be considered until I invest the time and money to take the GRE or GMAT -- theses tests purport to determine whether or not I am "college material." I would have thought my university transcipts could give adequate evidence of my fitness for university work.
As much as the youth need admissions paths that are fair and logical, consider those of us who were educated to careers that no longer exist.
To enforce general-content standardized testing over bona fide university transcripts can be seen as nothing other than obstructionist or ageist.
As a mid-career professional with an honors BA and a 60-hour masters degree (both with 3.8 grade averages from tier-1 institutions) my application to a former community college won't be considered until I invest the time and money to take the GRE or GMAT -- theses tests purport to determine whether or not I am "college material." I would have thought my university transcipts could give adequate evidence of my fitness for university work.
As much as the youth need admissions paths that are fair and logical, consider those of us who were educated to careers that no longer exist.
To enforce general-content standardized testing over bona fide university transcripts can be seen as nothing other than obstructionist or ageist.
2
Can legacy policy really help colleges gain better reputations?
Admittedly the act of admitting students with better family background can possibly guarantee their general qualification, but it does not mean that students with comparatively lower backgrounds lost their ability to compete with them. With acknowledging that, the reputation of the colleges is not important anymore, considering the education system now is based on more of heritage factors instead of intellect.
The tide of legacy is getting higher and higher. As a high school senior graduated last year, I can truly relate to this topic. When I went on the application websites and they asked me about my parents’ job title and income, I feel like the college application process has nothing to do with the effort I made for the past few years any more; it is more concerned with my parents’ contribution to my family and the society. There is no doubt that being excellent is essential, but doesn’t the policy of legacy jeopardize the real purpose of assessing incoming students or making the testing system seem futile?
word count: 179
Admittedly the act of admitting students with better family background can possibly guarantee their general qualification, but it does not mean that students with comparatively lower backgrounds lost their ability to compete with them. With acknowledging that, the reputation of the colleges is not important anymore, considering the education system now is based on more of heritage factors instead of intellect.
The tide of legacy is getting higher and higher. As a high school senior graduated last year, I can truly relate to this topic. When I went on the application websites and they asked me about my parents’ job title and income, I feel like the college application process has nothing to do with the effort I made for the past few years any more; it is more concerned with my parents’ contribution to my family and the society. There is no doubt that being excellent is essential, but doesn’t the policy of legacy jeopardize the real purpose of assessing incoming students or making the testing system seem futile?
word count: 179
15
This isn't about legacy admissions, the point of money is that kids from family backgrounds with more money can afford things like SAT prep, and generally are sending their kids to schools that feed them into the admissions game.
For the record, legacy admissions have been declining for years, where kids of legacy families, especially money (think George W Bush), pretty much got in because of their family. These days, it is more likely that the legacy student because of family wealth has the mega stats.
For the record, legacy admissions have been declining for years, where kids of legacy families, especially money (think George W Bush), pretty much got in because of their family. These days, it is more likely that the legacy student because of family wealth has the mega stats.
2
The real question: Can legacy policy really help colleges gain wealthier students?
There was a time when being a legacy to an Ivy assured one a place there. That time ended about 50 years ago!!!!
Those questions asked about your parents jobs/titles/income were not to try to find only the elite; in fact, there were looking for high achievers whose families are quite modest!!! The Ivies love to admit students who not only are the first in their family to go to college, but perhaps the first in their family to ever graduate from high school!
You've got this totally wrong...
Those questions asked about your parents jobs/titles/income were not to try to find only the elite; in fact, there were looking for high achievers whose families are quite modest!!! The Ivies love to admit students who not only are the first in their family to go to college, but perhaps the first in their family to ever graduate from high school!
You've got this totally wrong...
2
"Colleges are becoming more conscious of their roles — too frequently neglected — in social mobility." The idea that this has been ignored is unconvincing--it is the premise of affirmative action. The power of admissions offices in class formation (in the double sense of forming both a collegiate cohort and assigning individuals a position within the general social hierarchy) is well understood, by everyone from donors to social workers. This idea that universities should engineer a diverse middle class strikes me as a form of institutional overreach, a kind of arrogance that detracts from the essential purpose of the university, which is to produce knowledge and cultivate wisdom among the members of its community. Intellectual excellence ideally should be the only criterion that matters. Of course, this ideal has never been attained historically, but the notion that we're to welcome a cynical downgrading of intellectual credentials as progressive (e.g. the belief that the SAT is biased because students who go to better schools, benefit from better family circumstances, and have more time to focus on their schoolwork score better on the test) is backward. A kid who had to work and care for his family may be exceptionally responsible and even have a heart of gold--but the distractions from book learning are still an intellectual disadvantage. I propose universities simply regard their role as academic. But that would mean renouncing their will to power, so it'll never happen.
1
This is all well and good, but now colleges need to put their money where their mouth is.
1) If "A.P. everything" is to be discouraged, then college applications must change concretely to reflect that- perhaps asking students to report their top 3 AP scores instead of listing them all, for instance.
2) If colleges are to de-emphasize standardized test scores, the onus is on them to accurately compare, say, an A student coming from a public school in a bad neighborhood, to a B student coming from Stuyvesant. Maybe possible in theory, but can we depend on colleges to make this judgment in an unambiguous, consistent, *publicly available* way?
3) Speaking of public transparency, no strongly-worded report will ever reduce the anxiety of ambitious students and their parents unless colleges become less cagey about how they make their acceptance decisions. Every kid parses "holistic decision process" as a crapshoot influenced by how good the admission committee's lunch was that particular day. "Strongly recommended" courses and bland proposals to "show your best self" on college admissions websites are cruel. Be precise. Clear, minimal policies, such as UT Austin's top 7% policy, give students a clear goal without driving them nuts.
1) If "A.P. everything" is to be discouraged, then college applications must change concretely to reflect that- perhaps asking students to report their top 3 AP scores instead of listing them all, for instance.
2) If colleges are to de-emphasize standardized test scores, the onus is on them to accurately compare, say, an A student coming from a public school in a bad neighborhood, to a B student coming from Stuyvesant. Maybe possible in theory, but can we depend on colleges to make this judgment in an unambiguous, consistent, *publicly available* way?
3) Speaking of public transparency, no strongly-worded report will ever reduce the anxiety of ambitious students and their parents unless colleges become less cagey about how they make their acceptance decisions. Every kid parses "holistic decision process" as a crapshoot influenced by how good the admission committee's lunch was that particular day. "Strongly recommended" courses and bland proposals to "show your best self" on college admissions websites are cruel. Be precise. Clear, minimal policies, such as UT Austin's top 7% policy, give students a clear goal without driving them nuts.
1
Admissions officers at the country's most selective colleges must be aware that many of the students they accept have enjoyed such advantages as private SAT tutors, high-priced college consultants (essay editing and advice on resume padding included), one-on-one sports coaching, summer "service" programs in exotic international locations or academic enrichment programs on elite college campuses, an abundance of AP course options, well-connected college counselors, some with case-loads of fewer than 50 students, and educated parents who know how the system works. This has always been the way into elite colleges, and SAT-optional is a meaningless change if Ivy League-aspirants and their parents believe that taking the option signals weakness. If the most prestigious schools truly want to encourage a more sane approach to the college application process and open their doors to a more diverse array of students, they have the ability to do so. But do they have the will? It will cost colleges money to look beyond their traditional "feeder" high schools and scour the country for promising applicants, and it will cost them a whole lot more to help a more diverse pool of accepted students afford $60,000/yr. in tuition, room and board. A more important question is: Will colleges' alumni donors and trustees support change if it means their own children might lose out on a coveted spot?
1
Based on 40 yeas of teaching.
Bruni is right on AP courses and extracurricular activities. No merit here
Only exception: Activities were you were elected by your peers, not appointed, to lead others.
He is on the wrong on legacy admissions. When I was young, I thought like him but I have since learned that legacy admissions build loyalty, and loyalty builds the very endowments that allow Harvard no tuition fees to children from families with low income.
On balance, done right, legacy admission decreases not increases inequality.
Unless the Federal government wishes to make up the difference, they are necessary.
No admission bonus points for athletes that wind up in revenue raising sports such as football and basket ball , too much conflict of interest here.
But club sports are another matter, in particular when a student who was elected by team mates as a leader. Athletics teaches discipline.
GRA and SAT are useful measures in admission disciplines uch as physics and engineering that require math, but less useful in other discipline.
Finally an advice to parents: To get into an elite school pays off in disciplines such as law, where success depends on networking. The Supreme Court is all Harvard and Yale - with one Stanford thrown in.
It matters much, much less in the physical sciences. You can learn excellent physics at a school you may have never heard off.
Bruni is right on AP courses and extracurricular activities. No merit here
Only exception: Activities were you were elected by your peers, not appointed, to lead others.
He is on the wrong on legacy admissions. When I was young, I thought like him but I have since learned that legacy admissions build loyalty, and loyalty builds the very endowments that allow Harvard no tuition fees to children from families with low income.
On balance, done right, legacy admission decreases not increases inequality.
Unless the Federal government wishes to make up the difference, they are necessary.
No admission bonus points for athletes that wind up in revenue raising sports such as football and basket ball , too much conflict of interest here.
But club sports are another matter, in particular when a student who was elected by team mates as a leader. Athletics teaches discipline.
GRA and SAT are useful measures in admission disciplines uch as physics and engineering that require math, but less useful in other discipline.
Finally an advice to parents: To get into an elite school pays off in disciplines such as law, where success depends on networking. The Supreme Court is all Harvard and Yale - with one Stanford thrown in.
It matters much, much less in the physical sciences. You can learn excellent physics at a school you may have never heard off.
Some quotes from Mr. Bruni's article:
"Some of those alterations would simultaneously level the playing field for kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds."
"The report recommends less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income."
"Colleges are becoming more conscious of their roles – too frequently neglected - in social mobility."
In other words, any objective metric of academic ability (standardized testing) must be sacrificed on the altar of "diversity." Why? Because "diversity" equals a well prepared and capable student body? Hardly. "Diversity" is a recipe for anger and frustration on the part of ill-prepared students who cannot compete on a level playing field. What other country in the world bases its university admissions on racial backgrounds of its students? Where else in the world is intellectual ability and academic achievement so discredited in university admissions?
Universities should remove athletics and extra-curricular pursuits from the admissions process (thereby 'leveling the playing field' of opportunities afforded to wealthier students) and double down on standardized testing as the key component of the admissions process. They then should deploy their considerable resources in ensuring that every high school student in America has access to adequate test preparation.
"Some of those alterations would simultaneously level the playing field for kids applying to college from less advantaged backgrounds."
"The report recommends less emphasis on standardized test scores, which largely correlate with family income."
"Colleges are becoming more conscious of their roles – too frequently neglected - in social mobility."
In other words, any objective metric of academic ability (standardized testing) must be sacrificed on the altar of "diversity." Why? Because "diversity" equals a well prepared and capable student body? Hardly. "Diversity" is a recipe for anger and frustration on the part of ill-prepared students who cannot compete on a level playing field. What other country in the world bases its university admissions on racial backgrounds of its students? Where else in the world is intellectual ability and academic achievement so discredited in university admissions?
Universities should remove athletics and extra-curricular pursuits from the admissions process (thereby 'leveling the playing field' of opportunities afforded to wealthier students) and double down on standardized testing as the key component of the admissions process. They then should deploy their considerable resources in ensuring that every high school student in America has access to adequate test preparation.
1
In a society like ours, the notion of caring for others is largely a bad joke.
The achievement pressures are so intense, the privileged positions so few in a winner take all society, that the only result of the admissions emphasis on caring will be for strategic students to adopt this as a means to an end, without any genuine caring at all.
Short of transformation of our society, involving a wider and more equal distribution of benefits, this change in the emphasis, toward caring, will be meaningless.
Though Bruini is right that the single minded pursuit of academic excellence is a bad warp of personality, his treatment of this in abstract from the distributive context, indicates the shallowness of his analysis.
As a moderate Republican, he is a supporter of the plutocratic distribution of income and power that has come to characterize America.
His pretty boy, Rubio, will do absolutely nada to modify the winner take all system, because Rubio expects to cash in big time, which he will do.
The achievement pressures are so intense, the privileged positions so few in a winner take all society, that the only result of the admissions emphasis on caring will be for strategic students to adopt this as a means to an end, without any genuine caring at all.
Short of transformation of our society, involving a wider and more equal distribution of benefits, this change in the emphasis, toward caring, will be meaningless.
Though Bruini is right that the single minded pursuit of academic excellence is a bad warp of personality, his treatment of this in abstract from the distributive context, indicates the shallowness of his analysis.
As a moderate Republican, he is a supporter of the plutocratic distribution of income and power that has come to characterize America.
His pretty boy, Rubio, will do absolutely nada to modify the winner take all system, because Rubio expects to cash in big time, which he will do.
1
Coming from a college freshman and recent graduate of a Massachusetts prep school, it is incredibly refreshing to hear about the coming changes in the college admissions process (albeit five years too late in my case). I can attest to both the extreme pressure put on students currently to "stand out" and the advantages of the wealthy.
While I was incredibly blessed to attend a private school, I became blinded by the college admissions standards at an early age. I, along with many of my peers, became singularly focused. Grades over learning, quantity of interests over quality of interests. Stuffing as many honors and A.P. classes into our schedules as our sleep deprived minds could handle. We absolutely did not spend enough time chasing our interests and growing our passions. Admittedly, we are struggling to change our "achievement" mindsets into "learning" ones.
But, we were still the lucky ones. We had the time to fill our resumés because many of us did not have to work. We had the "private school" asterisk by our names. We could afford to pay full tuition. Obviously there is still some injustice in the system, because most of us now attend "elite" colleges and universities, while students from my town's public school with character and motivation to spare(much more than many of my classmates have) attend less selective schools.
I agree with Mr. Bruni that changes in admission standards are much needed, and that the wealth factor should be addressed.
While I was incredibly blessed to attend a private school, I became blinded by the college admissions standards at an early age. I, along with many of my peers, became singularly focused. Grades over learning, quantity of interests over quality of interests. Stuffing as many honors and A.P. classes into our schedules as our sleep deprived minds could handle. We absolutely did not spend enough time chasing our interests and growing our passions. Admittedly, we are struggling to change our "achievement" mindsets into "learning" ones.
But, we were still the lucky ones. We had the time to fill our resumés because many of us did not have to work. We had the "private school" asterisk by our names. We could afford to pay full tuition. Obviously there is still some injustice in the system, because most of us now attend "elite" colleges and universities, while students from my town's public school with character and motivation to spare(much more than many of my classmates have) attend less selective schools.
I agree with Mr. Bruni that changes in admission standards are much needed, and that the wealth factor should be addressed.
Why are Americans, and specifically American parents getting all contorted over the admission policy of the Ivy League Schools when most students can get accepted to a local college? There is simply not that great a difference in the quality of faculty between the most selective universities and your local community colleges. At Harvard, you are likely to be taught by a teaching assistant for the core-classes, and even when the class is taught by a well known professor, their homework assignments and exams are either graded by a computer or by low-paid teaching assistants.
A better strategy for most students is to go to your local community or public universities for the first 2 years, get good grades, then transfer to a name brand university and graduate there. Many students would be better served by attending a college or university that have experienced faculty teaching, and they are expected to teach their students rather than focus most if not all their energies to research.
Although some students will thrive in a hyper-competitive environment, others will become despondent and perform more poorly than they would if they attend a school at which he or she would be considered a top student.
A better strategy for most students is to go to your local community or public universities for the first 2 years, get good grades, then transfer to a name brand university and graduate there. Many students would be better served by attending a college or university that have experienced faculty teaching, and they are expected to teach their students rather than focus most if not all their energies to research.
Although some students will thrive in a hyper-competitive environment, others will become despondent and perform more poorly than they would if they attend a school at which he or she would be considered a top student.
1
In a society in which the informational advantage conveyed by a degree from a top school is growing ever larger, the question of how to choose an incoming class will always be contentious. (Why don't these schools simply expand the supply of available spots given the number of qualified applicants.)
I applaud the efforts of these schools to extend their reach to disadvantaged students who may not have considered applying. Though seldom recognized, the endowments for these schools already make them among the most affordable colleges in the country.
However, I question what will replace the reduction in emphasis on historic measures of academic rigor such as SAT's and AP Courses ? We should remember that Harvard actually first instituted the SAT's as a means of recognizing academic merit and diversifying a heavily WASPish incoming class. Though well meaning, are such moves intended to deflect several law suits by Asian students who believe that they must provide superior scores to offset a fear of Asian dominance.
If the goal truly is a "genuine passion" for learning, shouldn't we rise above any pre-existing bias of what an incoming class should look like ? Moreover, research by Hoxby of Stanford and Avery of Harvard suggest that schools can find such low-income scholars without lowering their academic standards. This appears preferable to the social engineering that Bruni would advocate.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring-2013/2013a_hoxby.pdf
I applaud the efforts of these schools to extend their reach to disadvantaged students who may not have considered applying. Though seldom recognized, the endowments for these schools already make them among the most affordable colleges in the country.
However, I question what will replace the reduction in emphasis on historic measures of academic rigor such as SAT's and AP Courses ? We should remember that Harvard actually first instituted the SAT's as a means of recognizing academic merit and diversifying a heavily WASPish incoming class. Though well meaning, are such moves intended to deflect several law suits by Asian students who believe that they must provide superior scores to offset a fear of Asian dominance.
If the goal truly is a "genuine passion" for learning, shouldn't we rise above any pre-existing bias of what an incoming class should look like ? Moreover, research by Hoxby of Stanford and Avery of Harvard suggest that schools can find such low-income scholars without lowering their academic standards. This appears preferable to the social engineering that Bruni would advocate.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring-2013/2013a_hoxby.pdf
1
Interesting, but once again, the Times neglects to include any kind of international perspective. In Europe, there are a far wider variety of options than Americans imagine. They range from super-elite schools like Oxbridge or Polytechnique to open-admission universities that charge no tuition. We need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of all of them.
For example, my daughter studies at an excellent university in the UK, which she entered from a French Lycee (no APs, few extracurriculars, grades essentially based on the bac exams in her last year). It is 3 years for a BA, the total cost of which would be about 1 year at, say, Northwestern. Meanwhile, some of her classmates are prepping for competitive entrance exams in the elite Grandes Ecoles in France - there is very low tuition in them and entry is based completely on their exam scores. Why not look at these and other options systematically?
For example, my daughter studies at an excellent university in the UK, which she entered from a French Lycee (no APs, few extracurriculars, grades essentially based on the bac exams in her last year). It is 3 years for a BA, the total cost of which would be about 1 year at, say, Northwestern. Meanwhile, some of her classmates are prepping for competitive entrance exams in the elite Grandes Ecoles in France - there is very low tuition in them and entry is based completely on their exam scores. Why not look at these and other options systematically?
2
The general themes of the NY Times' Picks are that we don't know ourselves, that we buy into the prevailing competitive zeitgeist, and that there is no time for finding interests, passion, or life-affirming paths. WCampbell almost broke my heart, having arrived at retirement wondering "Was it worth it?" and "What do I want?" "What SHOULD I want?" The last is deeply saddening. Throw "should" away.
I was very fortunate, having been immersed in a technical education, 8 years after college graduation, to have taken two year-long night courses at Seattle University called "Executive Thinking" and "Executive Psychology". The first, taught by a Jesuit, explored the philosophies of Western civilization. The second, led by a lay person, explored the psychology of Western and Eastern civilization. At the end of that time, I wondered where these great thoughts had been all my life and that my technical education was worth far less than I had ever imagined.
If I had may way, nobody could graduate high school without having read in the classics and modern thought. "Man's Search for Meaning" by V. Frankl and "The Undiscovered Self" by CG Jung come to mind. Existentialists like Sartre, Camus, etc., have much to say about becoming human. As does Dostoevsky. But, that would require time and smart teachers who didn't have an agenda other than to introduce new ideas and discuss them. Perish that thought in our current broken educational system. It's broken way before college.
I was very fortunate, having been immersed in a technical education, 8 years after college graduation, to have taken two year-long night courses at Seattle University called "Executive Thinking" and "Executive Psychology". The first, taught by a Jesuit, explored the philosophies of Western civilization. The second, led by a lay person, explored the psychology of Western and Eastern civilization. At the end of that time, I wondered where these great thoughts had been all my life and that my technical education was worth far less than I had ever imagined.
If I had may way, nobody could graduate high school without having read in the classics and modern thought. "Man's Search for Meaning" by V. Frankl and "The Undiscovered Self" by CG Jung come to mind. Existentialists like Sartre, Camus, etc., have much to say about becoming human. As does Dostoevsky. But, that would require time and smart teachers who didn't have an agenda other than to introduce new ideas and discuss them. Perish that thought in our current broken educational system. It's broken way before college.
2
American college admissions are a joke, but no one is laughing. Especially not the kids and parents who, for reasons for lifelong prestige more than actual learning, submit themselves to the soul numbing process of presenting the right portfolio of academics and attributes that would get them considered for the brand name, old line schools.
Harvard regularly rejects students with perfect SAT scores. (Why? Ask them.) This fact can be discerned from the statics on admission and scores. If perfect isn't good enough, what is? Once there, a majority (53%) of undergrad classes are taught by underpaid adjunct professors (Boston.com, one recent yr.)
No one wants to radically change the system because, 1. students and parents are hoping that its bent rules will benefit them and, 2. the most selective colleges know they are better places to attend not because of any magic they have to teach, but because assembling the brightest, most energetic young minds they can get is a fundamental aspect of a rich experience. The students make the school and if you have your choice, why not, as colleges, play the game to the hilt? Where's the downside?
One of the most glaring unfair aspects of admissions goes under the heading of legacies, what I call affirmative action programs for rich white kids. The colleges want the money (donations) the parents can bring. Legacy kids graduate, too.
3 BOOKS: "Excellent Sheep" by Deresiewicz, "The Chosen" by Karabel. "Lost in the Meritocracy" by Kirn.
Harvard regularly rejects students with perfect SAT scores. (Why? Ask them.) This fact can be discerned from the statics on admission and scores. If perfect isn't good enough, what is? Once there, a majority (53%) of undergrad classes are taught by underpaid adjunct professors (Boston.com, one recent yr.)
No one wants to radically change the system because, 1. students and parents are hoping that its bent rules will benefit them and, 2. the most selective colleges know they are better places to attend not because of any magic they have to teach, but because assembling the brightest, most energetic young minds they can get is a fundamental aspect of a rich experience. The students make the school and if you have your choice, why not, as colleges, play the game to the hilt? Where's the downside?
One of the most glaring unfair aspects of admissions goes under the heading of legacies, what I call affirmative action programs for rich white kids. The colleges want the money (donations) the parents can bring. Legacy kids graduate, too.
3 BOOKS: "Excellent Sheep" by Deresiewicz, "The Chosen" by Karabel. "Lost in the Meritocracy" by Kirn.
2
California used to let anyone into its state college and university system who really wanted to be there. U.C. Campuses now let in only the very bright and extremely capable. It sells seats to foreign students at premium prices arguing that it is the only way to offset scholarships for students from communities/homes that are disadvantaged.
The long and the short of it is that there are not enough colleges and college costs too much. A quarter of a million dollars is the cost for sending a kid to Columbia University for an undergraduate degree. What is the kid who comes out of depressed neighborhood going to feel like among other youth whose parents have or have scraped the resources for a B.S. from an elite institution?
Higher academics cost---yes. The alternative is to leave America in a grossly disadvantaged position as we live with an increasingly interernationalized economy. It just seems weird that we can find money to subsidize coal but not fund the cost of an undergraduate degree.
When Bernie Sanders talks about college for everyone it is not pie in the sky or money down a rat hole. California did it for everyone who wanted to attend a university from 1945 through 1974. Why can we not scrape up the commitment our parents made to us: give us enough colleges for everyone then it will be easier to worry about whether or not the tip-top is doing right by the general population.
Mr. Bruni is right the admission process fells unfair and seems irrational.
The long and the short of it is that there are not enough colleges and college costs too much. A quarter of a million dollars is the cost for sending a kid to Columbia University for an undergraduate degree. What is the kid who comes out of depressed neighborhood going to feel like among other youth whose parents have or have scraped the resources for a B.S. from an elite institution?
Higher academics cost---yes. The alternative is to leave America in a grossly disadvantaged position as we live with an increasingly interernationalized economy. It just seems weird that we can find money to subsidize coal but not fund the cost of an undergraduate degree.
When Bernie Sanders talks about college for everyone it is not pie in the sky or money down a rat hole. California did it for everyone who wanted to attend a university from 1945 through 1974. Why can we not scrape up the commitment our parents made to us: give us enough colleges for everyone then it will be easier to worry about whether or not the tip-top is doing right by the general population.
Mr. Bruni is right the admission process fells unfair and seems irrational.
1
I ran an SAT prep business for years and got caught up in the rat race of college admissions. I was heartened to learn many elite colleges are eliminating the SAT as an admission requirement. That's one less burden of anxiety on high school seniors, and I am hoping that in short order the entire SAT enterprise becomes extinct. But it's a small piece of the admissions puzzle. Many highly intelligent high schoolers have no shot at elite colleges because of the intricate codes admissions officials use when selecting a freshmen class, such as AC (Alumni Children) or GA (gifted athlete). True, some top institutions save a few places for students who have the intelligence but not the money to cover incredibly high costs (Penn now runs 66K per year). But to achieve a truly equitable playing field, top colleges should place meritocracy before aristocracy. Many brilliant students who could easily comprise freshmen classes at Princeton and Harvard instead enroll in state institutions such as SUNY Binghamton and West Chester University for no other reason than economics. This is not to say that state schools are inferior, but the problem comes after the undergraduate degree. Only the very top seniors at state schools can compete with those from elite colleges for admission into the top law, business, and medical schools in the country. Anyone who thinks a top 10% graduate of West Chester has an equal chance of getting into Wharton against a top 10% Princeton grad is delusional.
While the IQ or intelligence quotient may show the capacity for learning and support the AP class standing, the EQ or emotional quotient, if taken into account, will probably identify those students who will be more likely both to succeed in their studies, to help others and to engage in some form of community development. But how to measure the EQ. The vaunted marshmallow test has been shown to be a good indicator of people whose temperament allows them to tolerate frustration. My understanding, though, is that the previous system of recommendations and feedback from those who mentored high school students may lead to college admissions that are inaccurately assessed. I do think that high school achievement records, such as the NY Regents Exams, could show some objective measurement to round things out. I also think that integrating information that comes from current neuroscience, such as the EQ, could be helpful. Colleges cannot maintain their reputations by continuing to accept heritage students as well as students with lots of AP courses but with no meaningful community service. As a testing psychologist, I'd recommend fundamental changes along with finding some standardized measures, such as the NY Regents exams as part of admissions. Reassigning the weight of grades and test scores along with brain based data, though not standardized, would be a way of balancing the college admissions better.
The college admissions process is admittedly warped, but increasing admission for those with "potential" but not actual achievement has its downsides as well. The university I taught at, despite being one of those highly selective schools that can choose the best prepared students, has seen the need to offer tons of "writing seminars" to incoming students, as well as writing workshops and walk-in writing tutorials. Being able to write clearly and coherently should be a criterion for admission to top schools, not something that needs to be remediated once students get there. If such schools open their doors wider, how will they deal with even more students who lack good writing skills, which are essential in every field of study? I'm not saying it's wrong to address the current inequities and anxiety-producing hoops of the current admissions process. But students with "potential" need to be identified much earlier than their senior year of high school so that they can be given the extra help they need. Unfortunately we as a country don't seem to value (public) education enough to do so.
1
I've taught at two extraordinarily selective colleges (2100-2400 SATs) and one highly selective college (1800-2100 SATs.) There are major differences. The students at the most selective colleges read widely, had abundant intellectual curiosity, and were engaged across many disciplines. The students at the highly selective college were very smart but tended to be motivated by the desire to please their instructors. They often defined themselves as either Math/ Science or Humanities people. The intellectual horizon of these highly selective students tended to be circumscribed by their accelerated and AP classes. The students at the most selective institutions had intellectual interests and conversations that went way beyond their curriculum and their teachers. We need to do more to develop colleges for our very talented students and to focus our attention on institutions that our meeting their needs. (Bruni very rarely does this.) But we also should recognize the special talent of students who've made it into those exceptionally selective institutions and stop denigrating them as anxious, coddled sheep. And while some come from privilege and some do not, by and large those students at Princeton, Brown, or Stanford are extraordinary. A good tutor might help get a well-heeled student a 2100 on the SAT. The kids who get a 2350 get there on their own.
1
Harvard, Yale and Princeton are not trying to make their admissions process more open out of the goodness of their institutional hearts. What's happened is that they are waking up to the reality (perceived first and foremost by professors in the classroom) that many of their high-end academic achievers are more or less like drones; only a small percentage are intellectually curious or gifted. In the race to be perceived as "the best," elite institutions inadvertently turned admissions into a process that finds high-achieving students very well, but not necessarily the curious or intellectually gifted ones.
Why is it that so many of Harvard's graduating classes head straight to Wall Street? (Before the crash, it was around 50 percent; now it's around a 30 percent.) The answer is that recruiters are on campus offering students jobs before they even graduate. Although this sounds great, especially to anxious students and their parents, it signifies a profound corruption of higher education.
Somehow, over the years, elite institutions have allowed themselves to be turned into the pawns of Wall Street, with their original mission dedicated to higher education transformed into a mission to produce corporate cogs.
Anything--and I mean anything--that can disrupt this corruption is worth the effort.
Why is it that so many of Harvard's graduating classes head straight to Wall Street? (Before the crash, it was around 50 percent; now it's around a 30 percent.) The answer is that recruiters are on campus offering students jobs before they even graduate. Although this sounds great, especially to anxious students and their parents, it signifies a profound corruption of higher education.
Somehow, over the years, elite institutions have allowed themselves to be turned into the pawns of Wall Street, with their original mission dedicated to higher education transformed into a mission to produce corporate cogs.
Anything--and I mean anything--that can disrupt this corruption is worth the effort.
3
Instead of re-jiggering the status quo, how about questioning the very foundation of these elite institutions? No, for Bruni and others, that would be too revolutionary and too disruptive to the elite power structure of the 1% and the industrial-education complex that props them up.
Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of our high school students shouldn't be taking high school courses that are prepping them for college. As such, an equal number shouldn't thus be going on to college - that is the standard, four years liberal arts type of program. These are a waste of time and money except for the most elite who want to be serfs to the power structure of working in investment banking, the law and large corporations.
However, then those sub-serfs who can only make it as pseudo-artist, editors, journalist or, most disdainfully, teachers, would have to compete that much harder or go out and find real productive work. How many of them can be teachers of health care or auto mechanics? Not a lot.
Because that is the real truth - we need our kids to stop wasting time on humanities and liberal arts. They need to focus on useful skills that translate in to real jobs in today's economy - computer technicians, nurses, service workers, etc. The basic three R's and some technical skills that can then be complimented by on the job training are all it takes to get us there.
To close - the worst proponent of our failed education system - Columbia's Teachers College.
about 8:40
Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of our high school students shouldn't be taking high school courses that are prepping them for college. As such, an equal number shouldn't thus be going on to college - that is the standard, four years liberal arts type of program. These are a waste of time and money except for the most elite who want to be serfs to the power structure of working in investment banking, the law and large corporations.
However, then those sub-serfs who can only make it as pseudo-artist, editors, journalist or, most disdainfully, teachers, would have to compete that much harder or go out and find real productive work. How many of them can be teachers of health care or auto mechanics? Not a lot.
Because that is the real truth - we need our kids to stop wasting time on humanities and liberal arts. They need to focus on useful skills that translate in to real jobs in today's economy - computer technicians, nurses, service workers, etc. The basic three R's and some technical skills that can then be complimented by on the job training are all it takes to get us there.
To close - the worst proponent of our failed education system - Columbia's Teachers College.
about 8:40
1
As a college admissions consultant, it will be interesting for me to see the report. Mr. Bruni's column seems to suggest that there will be discussion about the things that many colleges say they consider holistically: work experience, community service, and even time spent on family responsibilities. And they already say that they look at each student based on the offerings of his or her high school, so if a school does not offer APs, for example, then it will not be held against a student.
I agree that the competition is fierce and that students are feeling the pressure; I see that in my practice. Even when schools drop APs, they still seem to offer a range of classes based on student abilities, and colleges still know what classes are accelerated or honors and what classes are not. And some of those students are still taking the AP exams even though AP classes are not offered in their high schools.
So I wonder what high schools can do to lessen the pressure on students and consequently how colleges will be able to effectively assess applicants' abilities to be successful in the wide range of colleges in the United States - and to do so comprehensively and effectively. I certainly support and encourage the continued discussion and applaud college efforts to find solutions to the growing pressure and anxiety experienced by high school students.
I agree that the competition is fierce and that students are feeling the pressure; I see that in my practice. Even when schools drop APs, they still seem to offer a range of classes based on student abilities, and colleges still know what classes are accelerated or honors and what classes are not. And some of those students are still taking the AP exams even though AP classes are not offered in their high schools.
So I wonder what high schools can do to lessen the pressure on students and consequently how colleges will be able to effectively assess applicants' abilities to be successful in the wide range of colleges in the United States - and to do so comprehensively and effectively. I certainly support and encourage the continued discussion and applaud college efforts to find solutions to the growing pressure and anxiety experienced by high school students.
The report will be much more dramatic, and you should be concerned the admission consulting industry will be threatened. The college admission industry started with Stanley Kaplan when elite universities instituted a resume an transcript arms a race called "meritocracy" to determine admissions, resulting in an Animal Farm revolution of instead of old pigs being anointed new ones who as Bruni points out are pathological empty achievement chasers, proletarianized resume/transcript polisher admission slaves, sleepless ones at that, and often ruthless, success at all cost ones at that, who say in surveys caring about others is unimportant. The solution will involve lotteries for qualified students screened online with streamlined online application involving skype and each school constructing simpler tests to screen preparedness of applicants, the tests indivdualized by school.
The problem is that those in control of the admission process see the end coming to their game playing in the name of social justice - in the public sphere through the inevitable end of affirmative action and the private sphere when the "Asian quota" is finally revealed and found to be discriminatory. So how to maintain the social justice goals and still be able to admit who they want? De-emphasize the only objective measures left, test scores and class rigor (AP or IB classes.) The telling phrase is the continuing belief that family income determines test score, as if scores can be bought. The inconvenient truth is that it is the opposite - test scores determine family income and a great deal of intelligence is hereditary. Great education merely brings students up to their potential, it doesn't turn those below average into Einstein's. By all means, let's bring everyone up to their potential, but let's stop pretending that everyone's potential is the same and also look down on those who merely aspire to run their own small business in the skilled trades. That would be true educational progress.
2
How about rethinking the value of expending so much time and energy out of a young person's life to attain the superfluous illusion of external success represented by a lonely old Ivy League brick building with bare leafless trees as illustrated in the cloudless photograph accompanying the op-ed. If such a high percentage of middle and high school kids believe it is more important to be happy than to help other, what is the internal drive motivating so many Type A young people to swim upstream in order to gain the status & prestige of attending the most elite Ivy League? It certainly isn't the societal glue that the professional careers are yearning for which is genuine altruism and the core value of placing the good of the whole above selfish individual egoistic needs. If the approach is to attract more people who are hungry for intellectual fare, why not include different type of intellect rather the status quo Western individual values. In fact, if the intellectual fare was presented as Buddhist, Taoist, Zen, Sufi, Hindi or Confucius, then there wouldn't be one perfect answer as exemplified in an SAT test or any traditional classroom, but rather a roaming search for enlightenment as Jesus, Krishnamurti, Lao Tsu, Buddha, Basho, Socrates, Philo or Pythagoras never attended University and were still able to offer wisdom handed down through the ages. One of my most enlightening classes was taught at a City College by an elderly English professor.
1
We have fetishized "pursuing your passion" to the point that it may blind us. This is a latent 1970s mindset reappearing as education policy. It's the same as giving a kid a trophy just for showing up to soccer or little league - you're special and you don't need to do anything or produce anything to show it.
There is no evidence that in the heyday of the powerful middle class where productivity and innovation were high, and so was the average American's lifestyle, that people pursued their passion. Yet we were happier and better off. Soulless wall street. Before that, soulless Madison Ave coupled with a powerful manufacturing sector were cornerstones of our nation.
Yes, testing matters, though SATs and ACTs shouldn't be used as the Hogwarts sorting hat. Yes AP classes matter. Steve Farmer is way off target when he says they don't show ability or intellectual hunger. They do both. They are considerably more difficult than most other courses. They can provide advanced college credit. And many kids (my son took 11 APs and got 5s across the board in HS) take them specifically because they are more challenging. That's intellectual hunger.
Passion is important. But we can't turn that into the new sole determining factor. You need passion for learning, but you also need a willingness for experiences beyond your realm of knowledge, including tough and boring stuff that will help make you a productive member of society.
There is no evidence that in the heyday of the powerful middle class where productivity and innovation were high, and so was the average American's lifestyle, that people pursued their passion. Yet we were happier and better off. Soulless wall street. Before that, soulless Madison Ave coupled with a powerful manufacturing sector were cornerstones of our nation.
Yes, testing matters, though SATs and ACTs shouldn't be used as the Hogwarts sorting hat. Yes AP classes matter. Steve Farmer is way off target when he says they don't show ability or intellectual hunger. They do both. They are considerably more difficult than most other courses. They can provide advanced college credit. And many kids (my son took 11 APs and got 5s across the board in HS) take them specifically because they are more challenging. That's intellectual hunger.
Passion is important. But we can't turn that into the new sole determining factor. You need passion for learning, but you also need a willingness for experiences beyond your realm of knowledge, including tough and boring stuff that will help make you a productive member of society.
4
"give full due to the family obligations and part-time work"
Historically, the people who attend and work at elite schools love socially conscious projects. They love volunteerism, especially in foreign lands. They love kids who travel around the country to perform music or participate in sports. What they hate is people who work at a fast food restaurant for 30 hours a week to help their family or to earn money for tuition. What they can't fathom is someone who cares for a diseased parent or sibling instead of heading off to practice or camp. What they fail to value is hard work; real work. That must change.
Historically, the people who attend and work at elite schools love socially conscious projects. They love volunteerism, especially in foreign lands. They love kids who travel around the country to perform music or participate in sports. What they hate is people who work at a fast food restaurant for 30 hours a week to help their family or to earn money for tuition. What they can't fathom is someone who cares for a diseased parent or sibling instead of heading off to practice or camp. What they fail to value is hard work; real work. That must change.
22
Not so long ago, students had to type their applications on university-specific applications and more often than not submitted multiple several-paragraph essays. The cost to apply was expensive so students limited themselves to three or possibly four colleges if they could afford to do so. Real thought was given to the process. Miraculously, acceptance rates to the premiere schools and others was actually higher and drop out rates much lower.
2
It's true that students now tend to apply to 15-20 colleges, but the entire scene is different than in the 1980s. Competition is absurd right now as every kid must apply to college or else wind up slinging burgers and fries ; tuition is positively unaffordable. Even the schools that used to admit lower income, "regular" kids are rejecting them. No one wins.
This needs to apply to graduate schools, who need to weigh the originality of research. I have an 800 on my GRE, three respected peer-reviewed publications, and a cutting-edge research proposal, but I cannot get back into a graduate program mainly because my work challenges theoretical orthodoxy. My work is well-received in Europe, where there is absolutely no funding, and where I compete with European students who would like to be able to study in their own continent and country. Their institutions oblige them, and they come here as well and take our positions.
1
Why, when we are facing increasingly difficult competition from Asian countries, would we ever consider reducing the importance of individual achievement in our education system??
Shouldn't "achievement" be of paramount importance? The thought that colleges would focus on yet another factor that is removed from achievement to is baffling.
They are not doing our young people any favor by misleading them into believe their feelings and concerns will matter more than performance in a globally competitive workplace.
Shouldn't "achievement" be of paramount importance? The thought that colleges would focus on yet another factor that is removed from achievement to is baffling.
They are not doing our young people any favor by misleading them into believe their feelings and concerns will matter more than performance in a globally competitive workplace.
8
I do not believe that Mr. Bruni's point was that achievement should be tossed out as a relevant factor, but that the achievement needs to have some greater end than simply the enrichment of the individual doing the achieving. Yes, we need people who get things done, but not necessarily those who get them done by grinding those they associate with into the mud. Someone who works 30 or 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job in order to keep body and soul together, but still aspires to higher education and works at getting good grades, too, is certainly worthy of consideration as an achiever.
1
I think the problem goes beyond admission, although this news is heartening, because my third grader is already academically stressed out. I really wish this country would also focus, like Germany does, on great vocational education and apprenticeships. I loved college, but it's not necessary for every job and the system is clearly broken (and far too expensive). Let's bring back a love of learning and a way to have a job that supports your family without going into massive debt!
11
Admitting legacies can promote social and economic integration. If there were no legacies when I went to Yale, I might have just been hanging around a fancy school with a lot of proletarians like myself.
7
Let me get this straight. For the top kids applying to college, grade inflation has rendered grades fairly irrelevant. Now they are recommending getting rid of standardized test scores too (which, btw, were invented to put kids from lesser known schools on equal footing with kids from fancy schools)? And they want to limit the number of extracurricular you can put on your application? On what basis do they think colleges are now going to chose to admit kids? The reality is that the number of spots at the top colleges is in short supply, which creates a competitive frenzy. No amount of well meaning, but silly tweaks to the application process is going to change that. And even if you get rid of standardized test scores, who do you think is going to figure out how to work the process to get their kid in? Hint: it's not the kids that the this report is trying to help.
13
In the 20's Harvard distinguished itself when it's President A Lawrence Lowell determined that a system of merit based admissions allowed too many Jews to enter the school. "“The summer hotel that is ruined by admitting Jews meets its fate, not because the Jews it admits are of bad character, but because they drive away the Gentiles, and then after the Gentiles have left, they leave also.” By obfuscating admissions and looking at issues of "fit", Harvard was able to reduce Jews from 25 % to 15% within a few years. Rather than allow for capricious and opaque admissions, Harvard and other elite institutions should commit to transparency. We should understand how many admits take place because your are a Cabott or Lodge or whether you meet a social engineering objective. No longer should secrecy and lack of transparency be the practice. Only when clear and unambiguous standards are made available will high schoolers and families be comfortable knowing how to prepare for an elite school.
8
"Nearly one in 10 American college graduates believes Judith Sheindlin, a.k.a the wisecracking Judge Judy from syndicated afternoon television, is one of the nine justices currently serving on the United States Supreme Court."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-judy-supreme-court-justice-college-grad..., let's relax those standards even more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-judy-supreme-court-justice-college-grad..., let's relax those standards even more
9
What is particular galling is the way the Ivy League schools recruit their prepster sportsmen (and women) a year before the real admissions process ever begins. Not only should a great squash stroke (or crew/rowing arm) NOT entitle you to an education at Yale/Princeton/Williams. But only kids coming out of the most privileged backgrounds even know how to play these sports, which only exist at the preppiest of prep schools. In short, sports are just another way in which the Ruling Class tips the playing field at these elite institutions of higher education.
9
You don't watch college basketball? You get a free ride because you are tall. Great criteria for admissions.
2
The most pressing concern for middle class families is being able to pay for the obscene tuition charged by these same administrators.
Yet the most concrete "reform" mentioned here is even less dependence on aptitude tests and even more on soft standards - pretty much a continuance of of recent trends.
Is anyone looking forward to admissions officers interrogating students to weigh how "heartfelt" their community service projects were?
Yet the most concrete "reform" mentioned here is even less dependence on aptitude tests and even more on soft standards - pretty much a continuance of of recent trends.
Is anyone looking forward to admissions officers interrogating students to weigh how "heartfelt" their community service projects were?
3
There is certainly room for improvement along the lines you suggest, but I see the bigger issue at elite American colleges as their unrelenting pursuit of more and more wealth and power through admissions. That's the lesson they are teaching, and today's Ivy undergrads mostly embrace it. I've seen many unqualified children of millionaires, billionaires and international plutocrats admitted over the well-qualified middle class kids -- won't it be convenient when the rich kids won't even have to be outed and acknowledge their poor academic skills by submitting test scores? Sorry to be so cynical.
The colleges "diversify" AND balance their budgets by recruiting highly privileged international students of color, often from non-democracies, who don't get financial aid and pay full tuition. They also compete for the small numbers of Ivy-capable students from lower economic backgrounds, to compensate for all the rich white kids; and then they're shocked when those kids hate the college and bite the hands that are feeding them. The system has become utterly corrupt.
The colleges "diversify" AND balance their budgets by recruiting highly privileged international students of color, often from non-democracies, who don't get financial aid and pay full tuition. They also compete for the small numbers of Ivy-capable students from lower economic backgrounds, to compensate for all the rich white kids; and then they're shocked when those kids hate the college and bite the hands that are feeding them. The system has become utterly corrupt.
9
No one should underestimate the difficulties in college admissions. Each institution wants to find bright and interested students and they try their best to find them. To do so, they use various tools: grades, courses taken, background of schools, social activities, national tests, student essays. Now, it is proposed that many of these tools end up creating unfairness and discrimination. But the problem of separating the good from the mediocre student remains. Take, for example,
Harvard which receives some 39,000 applications for a freshmen class of 1,600. So, how are they going to deal with the merits of each student? Now, there is the added burden of dealing with the socio-economic dimension of the problem. Everyone realizes that students from poor families and/or underachieving schools are faced with many obstacles, but these problems must be resolved earlier, with pre-schooling, better elementary and secondary eduction and not wait until the last moment. The reason why there are AP courses is that the normal curriculum had so lowered its standards that a way out for good students had to be found. AP is the very icon of the failure of high schools. The ideal solution would be to interview every student, but given the impossibility of this solution, institutions can only rely on the evidence presented to them.
The after-class work of a financial stressed student should be rewarded as a valid social
activity, but this student should also be academically prepared.
Harvard which receives some 39,000 applications for a freshmen class of 1,600. So, how are they going to deal with the merits of each student? Now, there is the added burden of dealing with the socio-economic dimension of the problem. Everyone realizes that students from poor families and/or underachieving schools are faced with many obstacles, but these problems must be resolved earlier, with pre-schooling, better elementary and secondary eduction and not wait until the last moment. The reason why there are AP courses is that the normal curriculum had so lowered its standards that a way out for good students had to be found. AP is the very icon of the failure of high schools. The ideal solution would be to interview every student, but given the impossibility of this solution, institutions can only rely on the evidence presented to them.
The after-class work of a financial stressed student should be rewarded as a valid social
activity, but this student should also be academically prepared.
4
Hallelujah. We have two kids in a high performing high school in Silicon Valley , the stress on the kids is ridiculous and most of it is generated by the ever increasing pressure to pad the GPA and the college admissions resume. Teenage suicides linked to the perceived demands of school are not uncommon. It stinks that our children's memories of high school will undoubtedly start like this: "All I remember is I was really stressed out and really tired."
1
I went to CCNY when it was basically free.
I got a great education, and went on to become a successful scientist and professor at a public university.
I have turned down many offers at private universities - why?
My values are simple - if you are a good student, you should go to a public university for free and if you are not such a good student you should go to a private university and pay.
That is the Japanese and Canadian model of higher education.
Private universities are almost unique to the US.
Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, U. Bologna (all much older than Harvard) are free = and public universities.
The US is exceptional
I got a great education, and went on to become a successful scientist and professor at a public university.
I have turned down many offers at private universities - why?
My values are simple - if you are a good student, you should go to a public university for free and if you are not such a good student you should go to a private university and pay.
That is the Japanese and Canadian model of higher education.
Private universities are almost unique to the US.
Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, U. Bologna (all much older than Harvard) are free = and public universities.
The US is exceptional
13
I work st s university. My husband teaches at a university. We have two kids in college and another who will be applying to college in 2 years. Everything on the college resume is marketing -- sports, extra curricular activities and local outreach activities are all just resume building. Some of these activities are actually meaningful to the students but don't kid yourself everything is marketing.and colleges all think alike and they're looking for the same kinds of buzz words on applications and in essays.students do not portray themselves honestly as they know that to do that is a risky strategy. better to give colleges what they want. so colleges can rethink admissions all they want and students will figure out what the colleges are looking for this time and deliver to them. it will just be a different game. But it will be a game.
13
Everyone wants to get into an elite college. Why don't we establish a couple new elite colleges to accommodate more students? (Hint: We could use a Gates University in the Northwest!)
1
Mr. Bruni,
I am a recent graduate of Stanford University and a former All-American athlete for the Cardinal. While I agree that admissions standards ought to be tweaked, I was very disappointed to see "athletes" shoehorned in with "specially tagged legacy cases."
Your doing so shows that you haven't really given thought to what being an athlete at the collegiate level means. Does spending four hours a day at practice tearing myself apart not equate to some sort of drive and passion that is desirable for an admissions committee? When I perform academically and graduate with a degree that will serve me for the rest of my life did I somehow defraud a potential admit with a more cerebral interest? Should Google, Tesla and SpaceX fire my former teammates because they entered college as athletes?
Moreover, let me give you a hint at where to find the most socioeconomically and culturally diverse group of students on campus - they're biking to the track, or the pool, or the weight room, at 6 in the morning, while the rest of campus is still asleep.
I am a recent graduate of Stanford University and a former All-American athlete for the Cardinal. While I agree that admissions standards ought to be tweaked, I was very disappointed to see "athletes" shoehorned in with "specially tagged legacy cases."
Your doing so shows that you haven't really given thought to what being an athlete at the collegiate level means. Does spending four hours a day at practice tearing myself apart not equate to some sort of drive and passion that is desirable for an admissions committee? When I perform academically and graduate with a degree that will serve me for the rest of my life did I somehow defraud a potential admit with a more cerebral interest? Should Google, Tesla and SpaceX fire my former teammates because they entered college as athletes?
Moreover, let me give you a hint at where to find the most socioeconomically and culturally diverse group of students on campus - they're biking to the track, or the pool, or the weight room, at 6 in the morning, while the rest of campus is still asleep.
196
Athleticism is a very worthwhile endeavor, for student's health and character. The skills it hones may also correlate well to the workplace.
But it really has nothing to do with education per se, and it is pretty widely accepted that the entire linkage of sports and academia was merely a device dreamt up by Ivy League admissions a century ago, in order to find a backdoor way to limit the number of Jews accepted and preserve their hallowed halls for the white upper class. It has no legitimate place in admissions in and of itself. Character does have a place in admissions but athletics is not the only way to demonstrate character.
The overarching "problem" is that the value of education (and the more elite the better) has skyrocketed. Why? Because we no longer have a vibrant middle class. If you grew up middle class, you will not be able to replicate that life today without a college degree. This has increased demand for college up and down the food chain.
You can change the paradigm however you would like, but as long at 40,000 kids want 2,000 spots, you are going to see kids do anything they can to get in.
But it really has nothing to do with education per se, and it is pretty widely accepted that the entire linkage of sports and academia was merely a device dreamt up by Ivy League admissions a century ago, in order to find a backdoor way to limit the number of Jews accepted and preserve their hallowed halls for the white upper class. It has no legitimate place in admissions in and of itself. Character does have a place in admissions but athletics is not the only way to demonstrate character.
The overarching "problem" is that the value of education (and the more elite the better) has skyrocketed. Why? Because we no longer have a vibrant middle class. If you grew up middle class, you will not be able to replicate that life today without a college degree. This has increased demand for college up and down the food chain.
You can change the paradigm however you would like, but as long at 40,000 kids want 2,000 spots, you are going to see kids do anything they can to get in.
Hey, you went to Stanford. Athletic skill at Stanford is a plus factor in admissions, like musical virtuosity, entrepreneursip or publishing a novel. Its not the reason someone was admitted. The same at the Ivies. But not so at Division 1 schools that are not in the Stanford/Harvard classification. As money and football are so intertwined in those universes (hey, many top football coaches make tons more money than a nobel prize winning faculty member), your experience is not the norm. Sure,athletic prowess is a plus factor--as it is at Stanford. But unfortunately, in most elite settings (think Big 10 etc), it can be the only thing that counts, as long as a kid can be nursed through to graduate HS and not be so academically ineffective as to not meet NCAA academic qualification standards. Please don't confuse the argument by pointing to the purple cow, which you are...a rare example of intellect and athletic prowess coming together (or like Bill Bradley was as a Knick from Princeton). Sadly, it seems that for many schools, the marketing necessities of sports trump all else. And you are the poster child of the right way to look at athletic prowess; thus, a purple cow--the exception,not the norm.Congrats on being both.But please be honest about the world at large.You were not just an exploited body who would have been better served by making a lot of money as a pro player rather than a student athlete exploited as gladiator in the Bread and Circus of Division I.
3
Here's the reality: athletics is fine for individuals. It does absolute zero for the academic standards and accomplishments of a university.
3
This is all well and good. I notice they failed to mention the skyrocketing costs of attending college, or the societal burden caused by students emerging from undergrad with $250k in student loan debt.
3
My wife and I are sitting here waiting to hear from one of the several schools our high school senior child applied to this last fall. He is not in the top of his class, nor the bottom, his ACT and SAT scores were not tremendous, not awful, merely consistant with his grades and overall 18 year old boy effort!
His mental state, goes up and down with every email he opens waiting to hear! Yes this is a writ of passage but..... The competition to get the grades, get the SAT ACT scores, to discuss where they are applying, how many schools they get into and which schools accepted via early action has been punishing!!!! Put that stress and humiliation factor together with Facebook, instagram, snapchat, twitter, group chats, and and and , and you get the picture of the emotional whipping these young minds are taking day in a day out; probably from the early 11th grade upto April of senior year.
God forbid the top 1% of the students who get into schools where they are now just regular kids; suicide, peer pressure are just the beginning. We are well on our way to creating long lasting anxiety, depressive, bi-polar, instant gratification, kids who do not know how to be just kids.
His mental state, goes up and down with every email he opens waiting to hear! Yes this is a writ of passage but..... The competition to get the grades, get the SAT ACT scores, to discuss where they are applying, how many schools they get into and which schools accepted via early action has been punishing!!!! Put that stress and humiliation factor together with Facebook, instagram, snapchat, twitter, group chats, and and and , and you get the picture of the emotional whipping these young minds are taking day in a day out; probably from the early 11th grade upto April of senior year.
God forbid the top 1% of the students who get into schools where they are now just regular kids; suicide, peer pressure are just the beginning. We are well on our way to creating long lasting anxiety, depressive, bi-polar, instant gratification, kids who do not know how to be just kids.
8
I was always perplexed at why must US colleges rely on some uniform centralized testing, instead of administering their own customized entrance exams in order to better shape their desired student body? The arbitrariness and voluntarism of the current admission process is appalling. That essay/resume/references review is a massive waste of time and resources on top of being susceptible for abuse on both sides. Anyone can write anything in their admission application and no one even attempts to check whether it is all true or not. Neither do the admission officers need to justify their often arbitrary decisions, nor can they really do in most cases - most often than not it is just a hunch they must go on. The whole process is ripe for corruption and it is to some degree corrupt - a racket really which involves a multi-billion dollar testing and preparation industry. Why just not subject all applicants to a set of college- and major-specific entrance tests which could be objectively graded, and set a clear cut-off score an applicant needs to exceed to be admitted?
1
I believe you put your finger on it, and I feel confident the announcement will be as follows. Unnoticed by many, Barry Schwartz, Swarthmore psych prof., has devoted his career to criticism analysis ot what may be termed the industrial-academic-achievement complex which is exactly that: a dysfunctional "complex" psychological and institutional. For decades he's shown the folly of racking up resume achievements for self commodification admissions marketing purposes, and asserted the only solution is to establish preparedness (satisficing admission requirements rather than maximizing in an arms race) and admitting by lottery qualifying students meeting the threshold. This will be the announcement. Each school will exploit technological changes to facilitate the exam and rely on online technology for Skype interview and the like to avoid ghost writing and minimize effects of coaching.
Mr. Bruni writes, "...I get the thrilling sense that something bigger is about to give...". That worries me.
I'm a former math professor who has seen colleges make what appear like legitimate promises that are no more than just clever marketing strategies.
Colleges get away with this for many reasons, one of which is the ability to take in even astute observers like Mr. Bruni. Others include: the fact that their "customers" are, by definition, naïve and uneducated; and, the fact that colleges have the financial and political clout to keep themselves unaccountable.
I have a blog, inside-higher-ed, where I have posted documented examples of what these schools do, and how they do it; but, without even going there, listen to David Riesman (from 1980) on "customers", and then Bill Gross on power.
"...advantage can...be taken of [students] by unscrupulous instructors and institutions...the “wants” of students to which competing institutions, departments, and individual faculty members cater are quite different from the “needs” of students..." - David Riesman
"...Universities are run for the benefit of the adult establishment, both politically and financially, not students. To radically change the system and to question the sanctity of a college education would be to jeopardize trillions of misdirected investment dollars and financial obligations..." - Bill Gross
So, let's not get "thrilled", or, sadly, even hopeful, until we see real change in the PEOPLE running this scam.
I'm a former math professor who has seen colleges make what appear like legitimate promises that are no more than just clever marketing strategies.
Colleges get away with this for many reasons, one of which is the ability to take in even astute observers like Mr. Bruni. Others include: the fact that their "customers" are, by definition, naïve and uneducated; and, the fact that colleges have the financial and political clout to keep themselves unaccountable.
I have a blog, inside-higher-ed, where I have posted documented examples of what these schools do, and how they do it; but, without even going there, listen to David Riesman (from 1980) on "customers", and then Bill Gross on power.
"...advantage can...be taken of [students] by unscrupulous instructors and institutions...the “wants” of students to which competing institutions, departments, and individual faculty members cater are quite different from the “needs” of students..." - David Riesman
"...Universities are run for the benefit of the adult establishment, both politically and financially, not students. To radically change the system and to question the sanctity of a college education would be to jeopardize trillions of misdirected investment dollars and financial obligations..." - Bill Gross
So, let's not get "thrilled", or, sadly, even hopeful, until we see real change in the PEOPLE running this scam.
7
I graduated from Fordham University in 1973 even though my father was a construction worker and there were five kids in the family. Neither of my daughters was able to go to Fordham, over the top expensive. Instead both went the community college route because I am a single mom with pretty limited resources and the thought of them owing $80,000 + or more when they graduated terrified me. My youngest will be transferring from community to 4 year. Once again the cost problem rears it's ugly head. Really good schools are still outside our reach, even if she is offered some scholarship monies -- room and board is a big problem.
I think colleges forgot what their purpose was. I loved college. Loved all I learned and experienced. It was truly the most inspiring time in my life and the lessons I learned have stayed with me my entire life. We were not so geared to a future job that we didn't have time to dream. Colleges need to downsize, get rid of that international campus, stop trying to be a vacation resort and get back to simply educating.
I think colleges forgot what their purpose was. I loved college. Loved all I learned and experienced. It was truly the most inspiring time in my life and the lessons I learned have stayed with me my entire life. We were not so geared to a future job that we didn't have time to dream. Colleges need to downsize, get rid of that international campus, stop trying to be a vacation resort and get back to simply educating.
13
As a senior currently awaiting college decisions, this article speaks to me. I entered high school with the understanding that I had to do everything right if I was to go to an elite school. I was very successful academically until I reached my junior year- I piled on as many AP courses and extracurriculars as I could. This was my last shot to show colleges that I deserved a spot in their classrooms. The result was my depression reaching its peak- I could no longer look at a textbook without bursting into tears let alone be "that" student. What really let me know that my future was "shot" however, were my SAT scores. I expected 700s. I performed much lower than that. With private tutoring however, I raised them over 120 points. Keep in mind that if my parents did not have the money to do this, my application would be laughable.
This article is the first ray of sunlight at dawn. Students deserve to know that their ambition is worth something. It is so painful to be inhibited by an illness, worse by financial factors, and even worse to solely participate in activities that hold no interest to one for the purpose of "a nice college resume." It is damaging to the soul to know that you are capable of great things, but know that no college (the true doorway to making a change in the world) will believe it from you as much as they would someone else simply because of SAT scores.
This article is the first ray of sunlight at dawn. Students deserve to know that their ambition is worth something. It is so painful to be inhibited by an illness, worse by financial factors, and even worse to solely participate in activities that hold no interest to one for the purpose of "a nice college resume." It is damaging to the soul to know that you are capable of great things, but know that no college (the true doorway to making a change in the world) will believe it from you as much as they would someone else simply because of SAT scores.
75
You sound like a young person that any college would be lucky to have. There are great professors and great opportunities at schools that aren't necessarily "elite," and you will do great!
We are brainwashed that we are all elite.
It's nice for those who have an Tier 1 elite college pedigree to have that on their resume. But it alone does not define your success. There are plenty of Tier-2 and lower educated millionaires, and tons of other $6 figure white collar types, who lead very happy lives. There's nothing wrong with excelling at a college that is academically challenging for your own academic level and little gained being thrown to the wolves admitted to a class mostly filled with students that are just like the top 3% of your HS class that you couldn't keep up. There's also little gained being thrown to wolves because you were in the top 3% of a HS that's poorly ranked academically compared to its HS peers, where you're real-world level would put you in the top 70% of a better HS.
It is no tragedy to be accepted by a college that meets your real Academic abilities. Instead, progressive political correctness pressing from outside and within the top-tier is forcing that the top-tier spend resources to create branches within their own schools that are really the equivalent of creating a tier-2 or tier-3 branch campus within the elite Tier-1 school just so they can accept less capable students and nurture them through to a degree, while perfectly capable students are relegated to lower tier schools that don't challenge as much. Rather, the tier-1 should be expanding their Tier-1 capabilities, and the same for Tier 2, 3, etc.
Lastly,
It's nice for those who have an Tier 1 elite college pedigree to have that on their resume. But it alone does not define your success. There are plenty of Tier-2 and lower educated millionaires, and tons of other $6 figure white collar types, who lead very happy lives. There's nothing wrong with excelling at a college that is academically challenging for your own academic level and little gained being thrown to the wolves admitted to a class mostly filled with students that are just like the top 3% of your HS class that you couldn't keep up. There's also little gained being thrown to wolves because you were in the top 3% of a HS that's poorly ranked academically compared to its HS peers, where you're real-world level would put you in the top 70% of a better HS.
It is no tragedy to be accepted by a college that meets your real Academic abilities. Instead, progressive political correctness pressing from outside and within the top-tier is forcing that the top-tier spend resources to create branches within their own schools that are really the equivalent of creating a tier-2 or tier-3 branch campus within the elite Tier-1 school just so they can accept less capable students and nurture them through to a degree, while perfectly capable students are relegated to lower tier schools that don't challenge as much. Rather, the tier-1 should be expanding their Tier-1 capabilities, and the same for Tier 2, 3, etc.
Lastly,
3
Here is the problem. Not everyone can perform at an elite college level. Lowering the standards or creating new and arbitrary holistic measures (code for "let us make the black box of admissions even more opaque) is not going to help. We, as a society, needs to accept that there are many paths to success. Going to an elite college is not the only one. Taking more APs than you are capable of and getting lower SAT scores than necessary should indicate something to you. This is not the unfairness of the system, it is just life. Does this sound mean? Perhaps, but it is better to understand that you don't always get what you want just because you want it really badly.
2
Some US public schools are already way ahead on this. Some, like the U of Washington in Seattle, are ranked in the top 25 internationally by the Times of London and Shanghai Jiao Tong University for their outstandstanding outcomes but don't break the top 200 in the Barron's ranking, which is based on incoming test scores.
The difference is that these public schools, like the University of Michigan, offer alternative admissions through two year community colleges. This provides an opportunity to remedy academic weaknesses from a poor past education, keeps costs manageable and increases the chances of graduation, which is 81% at UW.
But these schools, like the Ivies, also have top research programs and graduate schools, with intern opportunities. They also rank highly in their social service and education programs.
And for household incomes below $48,000, tuition is free. These schools have kept the "public" part of their mission firmly in sight.
The difference is that these public schools, like the University of Michigan, offer alternative admissions through two year community colleges. This provides an opportunity to remedy academic weaknesses from a poor past education, keeps costs manageable and increases the chances of graduation, which is 81% at UW.
But these schools, like the Ivies, also have top research programs and graduate schools, with intern opportunities. They also rank highly in their social service and education programs.
And for household incomes below $48,000, tuition is free. These schools have kept the "public" part of their mission firmly in sight.
9
The elite universities' admission counsleors knew what they were doing from the get go. The truth cannot be deceived. They will receive their rewards!
In the 40+ years since I applied to college, the system has gotten completely out of whack, in large part due to USN&WR rankings. Nearly all involved -- especially "elite" colleges -- have a vested interest in keeping the system as is. This report looks more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than a much-needed fundamental change.
Ever since the cheating incident years ago in a 200+ student undergraduate class at Harvard, discovered by a graduate teaching assistant, I've questioned just how great an undergraduate education at an "elite" school really is -- particularly when compared to what can be obtained at a small, liberal arts college where your whole class might not be much bigger than that one Harvard lecture class.
Are there studies that show the extra value of an "elite" education, once factors such as family wealth and connections, or the individual student's intelligence and drive, are controlled? Aside from those who go to Harvard to get a golden ticket punched for a Wall Street job, how much better off is the average Harvard graduate, compared to a graduate of, say, a flagship state university, once other factors are controlled?
Everybody seems to buy the idea that you must go to an "elite" undergraduate institution to succeed in life, but is that true?
We'd be better off to address the huge problems in pre-K through high school, so that all students would ready & able both to compete for admission to college and to succeed once they are admitted.
Ever since the cheating incident years ago in a 200+ student undergraduate class at Harvard, discovered by a graduate teaching assistant, I've questioned just how great an undergraduate education at an "elite" school really is -- particularly when compared to what can be obtained at a small, liberal arts college where your whole class might not be much bigger than that one Harvard lecture class.
Are there studies that show the extra value of an "elite" education, once factors such as family wealth and connections, or the individual student's intelligence and drive, are controlled? Aside from those who go to Harvard to get a golden ticket punched for a Wall Street job, how much better off is the average Harvard graduate, compared to a graduate of, say, a flagship state university, once other factors are controlled?
Everybody seems to buy the idea that you must go to an "elite" undergraduate institution to succeed in life, but is that true?
We'd be better off to address the huge problems in pre-K through high school, so that all students would ready & able both to compete for admission to college and to succeed once they are admitted.
46
All of these comments are much more appropriately on target than Mr. Bruni's op-ed piece. Excellent college and post-graduate education is affordably available throughout America as long as you don't allow parent ego to get in the way.
1
One can get a fine education at almost any college or university. Only a handful would not have more than most individual students could ever absorb.
Where the "elites" shine is in the mass of very bright young minds gathered in one place. Sure, the truly brilliant don't need the company of others such as they to excel, but the bright definitely shine brighter if this is the case. I have seen the in my only family with my children and now see it with my grandchildren. The bright may not have the internal drive to achieve excellence if surrounded by the mediocre or just ordinary. The critical mass of bright fellow students can bring out the best in an individual student.
There is no question that connections or the opportunity to meet people who might be of help, does play a part in success in life. But unless we all don robes and masks and go only by a number, I don't see how this can ever be changed. We forget that most presidents of Fortune 500 companies don't come out of the Ivies, but often the great state universities. Many come from very middle class families, as well. Those who are not from wealthy families often overrate the advantages they have!!!
If one is bright, hardworking and has a high Social IQ, success will happen. The cream still rises to the top.
Where the "elites" shine is in the mass of very bright young minds gathered in one place. Sure, the truly brilliant don't need the company of others such as they to excel, but the bright definitely shine brighter if this is the case. I have seen the in my only family with my children and now see it with my grandchildren. The bright may not have the internal drive to achieve excellence if surrounded by the mediocre or just ordinary. The critical mass of bright fellow students can bring out the best in an individual student.
There is no question that connections or the opportunity to meet people who might be of help, does play a part in success in life. But unless we all don robes and masks and go only by a number, I don't see how this can ever be changed. We forget that most presidents of Fortune 500 companies don't come out of the Ivies, but often the great state universities. Many come from very middle class families, as well. Those who are not from wealthy families often overrate the advantages they have!!!
If one is bright, hardworking and has a high Social IQ, success will happen. The cream still rises to the top.
1
It seems like there is a hunger for authenticity out there. No one is fooled. The rules seem silly.
This is a very tricky issue. Should Harvard, for example, admit the very smartest kids? Or should it admit the kids who are most likely to benefit from attending? The kids who are most likely to take maximal advantage of the educational opportunities? The kids that are most likely to make really unique and positive contributions to the world (say, by valuing future scientists over future bankers)? Those who are very hungry for knowledge over the highly accomplished? I certainly don't know!
5
One thing that some elite universities (including mine) do to try to increase the input beyond SAT/ACT sources, AP/IB courses, GPA and teacher recommendations, is have applicants interviewed by alumni who live in the area where the applicants attended high school. As I live in Brazil, one of the things my fellow alumni do is educate the admissions committees about what going to high school in Brazil means.
I would hope that alumni in, say, Northern Indiana (where I went to a dreadful high school) would do the same. Alumni interviews are not always determinative, but they're definitely of assistance.
I would hope that alumni in, say, Northern Indiana (where I went to a dreadful high school) would do the same. Alumni interviews are not always determinative, but they're definitely of assistance.
2
I interview for an Ivy league college as a volunteer. We see a lot of inner city kids apply with 4.5 out of 4.0 GPA grades- they are the top students in their school. They fall very short when they take the ACT or SAT. Even without any test preparation, I would expect a top student to still do well on these tests. These kids "fail" the test. One kid got a 17 on the ACT (perfect is 36). Another took the SAT 3 times and got 470 math out of 800. If these kids go to a highly competitive school, they will either flunk out or need a lot of remedial schooling. The only way you would ever know that is by keeping standardized tests in play like the ACT or SAT.
22
I am an independent college counselor, a career of passion for a former health care attorney following a several year long battle to obtain test accommodations for a student with a visual disability. I work in a community where the high school does not have a "college counselor" and my volunteer work significantly dwarfs the work I undertake for paying clients. My daughter is a volunteer interviewer for a USNews "top 10" university and I am a volunteer reader of applications for the alumni scholarship program at one of University of California schools.
I agree with you, CA, and I have seen it repeatedly. A student with an ACT score 15 points below most of his/her classmates will struggle, if not fail in a highly competitive program and I do not think we are doing them any favors with such placement. In fact, it drives me crazy when our state universities admit such students to the most competitive UC's --- then I watch them sink.
But, I think there is some "window" to review test scores in context, one which might take into consideration varying backgrounds. In counseling students, one of the things I look for in test scores is whether the student's score is high enough for the student to manage in any individual course with peers at the "25th -75th" percentile baseline for the school. If the baseline is an ACT of 32-34, for example, an inner city student, or one with English as a second language has a decent shot at success with scores of 29 or 30.
I agree with you, CA, and I have seen it repeatedly. A student with an ACT score 15 points below most of his/her classmates will struggle, if not fail in a highly competitive program and I do not think we are doing them any favors with such placement. In fact, it drives me crazy when our state universities admit such students to the most competitive UC's --- then I watch them sink.
But, I think there is some "window" to review test scores in context, one which might take into consideration varying backgrounds. In counseling students, one of the things I look for in test scores is whether the student's score is high enough for the student to manage in any individual course with peers at the "25th -75th" percentile baseline for the school. If the baseline is an ACT of 32-34, for example, an inner city student, or one with English as a second language has a decent shot at success with scores of 29 or 30.
1
A comprehensive database listing 850+ accredited, bachelor-degree granting institutions that do not require all or many applicants to submit ACT/SAT scores before admissions decisions are made is available free online at:http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional -- the list includes nearly 200 colleges and universities ranked in the top tier of their respective categories
I respect Prof. Weissbroud's work and look forward to reading the report tomorrow. The column mentions that 10K students were surveyed about what matters; I wonder if any social/emotional or college counselors in schools were surveyed. We could have told you plenty and in fact have been working for many years to get some of the reforms in place mentioned there. We probably could have saved the grad school some time and money.
Beyond that, it seems apparent that some of the schools featured in this report are also in the so-called "Coalition." This is ironic for us counselors, since we see the latter more as a cartel that is actively trying to make the college application more difficult and complex. I'll reserve judgment until I've read the report, but I'm smelling the hypocrisy of market dominance disguised as concern for the poor and underserved, which makes me ill.
Beyond that, it seems apparent that some of the schools featured in this report are also in the so-called "Coalition." This is ironic for us counselors, since we see the latter more as a cartel that is actively trying to make the college application more difficult and complex. I'll reserve judgment until I've read the report, but I'm smelling the hypocrisy of market dominance disguised as concern for the poor and underserved, which makes me ill.
2
This is a very good article on the subject, written 2+ years ago that really simplifies the issue:
“The work of a university is research and teaching,” says Dr. Lisa Bendall, a tutorial fellow at Oxford who selects undergraduate candidates for Archaeology and Anthropology. “We assess on the grounds of academic potential, because we are an academic institution.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/114848/college-admissions-criteria-ameri...
“The work of a university is research and teaching,” says Dr. Lisa Bendall, a tutorial fellow at Oxford who selects undergraduate candidates for Archaeology and Anthropology. “We assess on the grounds of academic potential, because we are an academic institution.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/114848/college-admissions-criteria-ameri...
5
Ironic, the comment about admitting people on the basis of their height or neck size. Hundreds of colleges already do; the former are called basketball players, and the latter are known as football players. So, who's kidding who?
9
Please don't substitute absurd volunteering expectations for absurd extracurricular expectations. The rich and connected just buy their kids volunteering hours, while everyone else needs to scramble to find ways to check that box on their own. Did anybody ever stop to ask whether the charities really want all of this forced volunteering?
6
Why not establish minimum criteria for being able to do college work, defined by each institution and after sorting who meets the threshold, have a lottery?
2
Having taught college for 3 decades, a few thoughts on this interesting idea of overhauling college admissions:
A. Understand how all this stress on youth and families happened:
The business model replaced the scholarly-academic model in higher ed: Somewhere in the 1980s, the admissions process became bureaucratized, based on qualities you could add up and give a "score" to, and slowly colleges lost their way and went off the rails.
Manager deans replaced scholar deans. The quest for finances and image drove decisions (more part-time faculty, fancy dorms & catered food services, a plethora of student services). Faculty became "employees" and valued for their ability to "bring in money" rather than their teaching and scholarship.
The job market tightened, job opportunities & mobility lessened, student debt soared, so getting into prestigious colleges that promoted networking and promised high salaries became "essential" for young people to get off to a good start in their careers. A degree suitable for framing and impressing trumped learning. Rising inequality increased the stress & problems.
B. How to get back on track:
After h.s. take a couple of years to work/do national service/travel before applying to college--so h.s. achievements become less important & young people have experiences and mature, and have a better idea what they are good at and what they want to learn.
Parents back off & show you love & enjoy your kids, value honesty & caring; no hovering
A. Understand how all this stress on youth and families happened:
The business model replaced the scholarly-academic model in higher ed: Somewhere in the 1980s, the admissions process became bureaucratized, based on qualities you could add up and give a "score" to, and slowly colleges lost their way and went off the rails.
Manager deans replaced scholar deans. The quest for finances and image drove decisions (more part-time faculty, fancy dorms & catered food services, a plethora of student services). Faculty became "employees" and valued for their ability to "bring in money" rather than their teaching and scholarship.
The job market tightened, job opportunities & mobility lessened, student debt soared, so getting into prestigious colleges that promoted networking and promised high salaries became "essential" for young people to get off to a good start in their careers. A degree suitable for framing and impressing trumped learning. Rising inequality increased the stress & problems.
B. How to get back on track:
After h.s. take a couple of years to work/do national service/travel before applying to college--so h.s. achievements become less important & young people have experiences and mature, and have a better idea what they are good at and what they want to learn.
Parents back off & show you love & enjoy your kids, value honesty & caring; no hovering
7
It would be nice. The trouble is that unless ALL students do that, the ones who take off for a year or two are at a distinct disadvantage. Right now, schools want you to apply, be accepted, and commit to attending while a senior in high school. Only then do students have the option of deferring college attendance to have a "gap" year.
I hope this works. I have my doubts. "New York values" billionaires didn't get where they are by playing by the rules, and they're certainly not interested in forfeiting their legacies by sending daddy's little angel to a less-than school. These people find ways of getting what they want. And when summer comes and they're catching up with friends in Southanpton, they want to say oh thank goodness we were able to make Penn happen.
3
Each college has developed its own methods and system for admission. In reality, each college has a number of programs that need to be filled. For each program (whether academic, music, arts, or sports) they seek to find the most highly qualified and well rounded candidate. Ultimately, however, admission may well come down to your ability to shoot baskets, score touchdowns, play the cello, be an accomplished male dancer or, simply a legacy. Each college and its programs must survive and it should be left to them to decide within the guidlines and legal parameters established by law and fairness how they accomplish that.
The real issue however, is the inequality in the opportunities for college preparation. Those whose high schools have no SAT prep classes or Advanced Placement offerings, those whose families cannot afford tutoring and enrichment, and those who (by no fault of their own) have to navigate past gang members and drug dealers on their walk to school need a way to demonstrate their potential when the SAT, alone, won't suffice
The real issue however, is the inequality in the opportunities for college preparation. Those whose high schools have no SAT prep classes or Advanced Placement offerings, those whose families cannot afford tutoring and enrichment, and those who (by no fault of their own) have to navigate past gang members and drug dealers on their walk to school need a way to demonstrate their potential when the SAT, alone, won't suffice
Isn't the real problem here how woefully unprepared for college most students are after their woeful high school educations? An equation: the number of students who fail out of American colleges is a function of how laughably academically unserious the average American high school is.
6
Students need to realize that which college you attend doesn't matter half as much as what you do while you're there. The crucial thing is to go to a relatively good school that you can AFFORD, and distinguish yourself while you're there. Avoiding debt is much more important to long-term success than going to an Ivy League school. This lack of debt will open more doors than an Ivy League school could. If you can get a Bachelor's degree without incurring significant debt, you can afford to go on to graduate school (which typically offers more financial aid). Choose wisely at the graduate level (where it really matters where you go) and your degree will be a ticket to a meaningful career.
4
According to this Harvard paper, "Obama's Ivy League Administration", of the 250 "decision makers" in the Obama administration, fully 40% has either an undergraduate or graduate degree from an Ivy League school, 25% are from Harvard alone. Only 25% of the 250 have either an undergrad or grad degree from a public university:
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/obama%E2%80%99s-ivy-league-administration
The hypocrisy of the left is again on full display. The same liberals who are constantly calling for equality and diversity are busy pulling up the ladders from all around them and making sure to only hire those who are just like them, who went to the same schools, and are indoctrinated in the same liberal left wing socialist school of thoughts.
This explains why this is the worst white house administration in history under the worst president in history, an administration that is idealistic to the core and completely out of touch with reality. Thanks to Harvard we ended up with 2 of the worst presidents in history in the last 16 years, enough is enough! The next president of the United States must not be a Harvard graduate. It's time to return the country to the common people with common sense. America will be better off without the likes of Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford. These schools produce nothing but arrogant well indoctrinated socialist snobs and greedy financiers who are running the country to the ground.
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/obama%E2%80%99s-ivy-league-administration
The hypocrisy of the left is again on full display. The same liberals who are constantly calling for equality and diversity are busy pulling up the ladders from all around them and making sure to only hire those who are just like them, who went to the same schools, and are indoctrinated in the same liberal left wing socialist school of thoughts.
This explains why this is the worst white house administration in history under the worst president in history, an administration that is idealistic to the core and completely out of touch with reality. Thanks to Harvard we ended up with 2 of the worst presidents in history in the last 16 years, enough is enough! The next president of the United States must not be a Harvard graduate. It's time to return the country to the common people with common sense. America will be better off without the likes of Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford. These schools produce nothing but arrogant well indoctrinated socialist snobs and greedy financiers who are running the country to the ground.
2
LOL - you expose you tired bias with "This explains why this is the worst white house administration in history under the worst president in history". Your comment no longer deserves any consideration.
However, as a right-wing nut case, you must surely agree that a private institution costing $60k+ per year to attend will have a better shot at providing the very best education than a publicly UNDER funded school?
So why would you want to fill the white house with anything but the best educated, already screened for intelligence and capability? And the answer, of course, is that you are a right-wing nut case who doesn't believe in intelligent discourse, or science or even critical thinking. Attributes displayed in spades by the current president, who also, BTW, has shown more maturity and self-control under fire than any other politician in all my years.
Regarding the worst presidents in recent history, you must be referring to Yale where your believed Bush and his Dad both attended.
Seriously, grow up!
However, as a right-wing nut case, you must surely agree that a private institution costing $60k+ per year to attend will have a better shot at providing the very best education than a publicly UNDER funded school?
So why would you want to fill the white house with anything but the best educated, already screened for intelligence and capability? And the answer, of course, is that you are a right-wing nut case who doesn't believe in intelligent discourse, or science or even critical thinking. Attributes displayed in spades by the current president, who also, BTW, has shown more maturity and self-control under fire than any other politician in all my years.
Regarding the worst presidents in recent history, you must be referring to Yale where your believed Bush and his Dad both attended.
Seriously, grow up!
2
Dear "Thinker": I suspect most of your readers will not agree with your characterization of Obama's presidency as "the worst white house administration in history under the worst president in history." Any valid points you are trying to make get lost in all your vitriol.
2
Character is hard to define, but not impossible. Look for students who love learning and care about others.
It is so hard, though, to make a fair evaluation. That is why we have our current point-like system involving high grades, scores, and extracurricular activities. We do need a measured course for students to follow to qualify. How to balance that with the social circumstances of each student is a very difficult challenge.
It is so hard, though, to make a fair evaluation. That is why we have our current point-like system involving high grades, scores, and extracurricular activities. We do need a measured course for students to follow to qualify. How to balance that with the social circumstances of each student is a very difficult challenge.
What a joke. Our college education system is merely a reflection of our larger society. We seem to be under the collective impression that colleges shape our leaders. The reality is that our leaders shape our colleges.
Everyone is looking for the 'in'. The boys club, the legacy admission, the mentor who can give them the right recommendation. Job or school, no difference.
Everyone loves the idea of a meritocracy-- until they lose their competitive advantage. And so they guard it viciously.
Elite college have more qualified applicants than they can manage. And there's more pressure at lower tiered schools as we insist as a society that everyone must go to college.
The real solution to this problem is not revising the college admission process. As a society we must insist that all our young people have options for their futures, whether they attend a so-called elite school or not.
This is a major failure of our capitalist society.
Everyone is looking for the 'in'. The boys club, the legacy admission, the mentor who can give them the right recommendation. Job or school, no difference.
Everyone loves the idea of a meritocracy-- until they lose their competitive advantage. And so they guard it viciously.
Elite college have more qualified applicants than they can manage. And there's more pressure at lower tiered schools as we insist as a society that everyone must go to college.
The real solution to this problem is not revising the college admission process. As a society we must insist that all our young people have options for their futures, whether they attend a so-called elite school or not.
This is a major failure of our capitalist society.
5
As long as there are 35,000 kids applying for 2500 spots at elite institutions, the admissions process is going to be stressful and maddeningly arbitrary. No amount of tweaking, and re-weighting of parameters, will change that. The "fixes" described here, to my mind, just open the door to new varieties of gaming: focus on making your community contributions look sincere, snare those positive recommendations - all easily achievable by the privileged private school crowd.
When it comes down to it, the standardized tests remain the fairest and most objective criteria - yet the call here is to downgrade those as factors. The association of SAT scores with higher income families merely reflects the higher education level of the parents, and access to better k-12 education (which shows that the tests are actually measuring something real - don't shoot the messenger). No one has shown that these "expensive tutors" really impact scores any more positively than simply retaking practice tests on one's own. And stories from NYC and Silicon Valley notwithstanding, I believe the prevalence of these tutors is highly exaggerated. Any kid with 20 bucks can buy a review book and get equally effective preparation.
What needs to change is not the admissions process, which is reasonably holistic as it stands. It's the culture wherein you are deemed a failure if you don't attend one of a tiny number of colleges. It's the parents and communities that are at fault, not the admissions offices.
When it comes down to it, the standardized tests remain the fairest and most objective criteria - yet the call here is to downgrade those as factors. The association of SAT scores with higher income families merely reflects the higher education level of the parents, and access to better k-12 education (which shows that the tests are actually measuring something real - don't shoot the messenger). No one has shown that these "expensive tutors" really impact scores any more positively than simply retaking practice tests on one's own. And stories from NYC and Silicon Valley notwithstanding, I believe the prevalence of these tutors is highly exaggerated. Any kid with 20 bucks can buy a review book and get equally effective preparation.
What needs to change is not the admissions process, which is reasonably holistic as it stands. It's the culture wherein you are deemed a failure if you don't attend one of a tiny number of colleges. It's the parents and communities that are at fault, not the admissions offices.
6
With all due respect to Mr. Bruni, his essay either is based on a false premise or applies only to a small number of "highly selective" colleges and universities in the United States. As I understand it, the premise of the piece is that students compete to get into college and that this competition has a deleterious effect both on the students themselves and on higher education which is in desperate need of diversifying its ranks of students.
From my vantage point as a tenured professor of over twenty years at a university that would not typically be characterized as "highly selective," it is not the students who compete to get into college. Rather, for schools such as mine it is colleges that compete with each other to attract students. The stress and pressure is not felt by students applying to these types of institutions but by admissions officers and professors who are under the gun to fill up the freshman class.
At the level of non-highly select colleges and universities the admissions season increasingly is a high stakes, high stress popularity contest with schools competing with each other as they fawn over high school seniors trying to get them to attend. Diversity is a highly prized goal, but just making the admissions quota can make the difference between a school being financially sound or facing the prospects of budgetary ruin.
From my vantage point as a tenured professor of over twenty years at a university that would not typically be characterized as "highly selective," it is not the students who compete to get into college. Rather, for schools such as mine it is colleges that compete with each other to attract students. The stress and pressure is not felt by students applying to these types of institutions but by admissions officers and professors who are under the gun to fill up the freshman class.
At the level of non-highly select colleges and universities the admissions season increasingly is a high stakes, high stress popularity contest with schools competing with each other as they fawn over high school seniors trying to get them to attend. Diversity is a highly prized goal, but just making the admissions quota can make the difference between a school being financially sound or facing the prospects of budgetary ruin.
1
As a father of three kids in college right now (W&M, UVA, and Duke), count me as a skeptic about this "rethinking" of college admissions. Until elite colleges stop boasting about admission rates less than 10% and yields above 50% and stop encouraging binding early admission decisions requiring applicants to decide on a school early in the process, changing the admissions formula will do nothing more than rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. So long as the supply of elite college admissions slots is low and students (especially the wealthy) can lob in 15-20 applications via the common app (yes, the students and their families are at fault here almost as much as the colleges), the competition will remain fierce.
But on the off chance that elite colleges are serious, here are some ideas: (1) increase enrollment by 15-20%; (2) limit each student to eight applications and require them to identify the other universities to which they have applied; (3) target and recruit at less advantaged schools, especially those close to your campus; (4) permit students to substitute the SAT/ACT with SAT II's/AP/IB test scores or an IQ Test; and (5) ask students to provide a reference for their two most significant EC's and call them.
But on the off chance that elite colleges are serious, here are some ideas: (1) increase enrollment by 15-20%; (2) limit each student to eight applications and require them to identify the other universities to which they have applied; (3) target and recruit at less advantaged schools, especially those close to your campus; (4) permit students to substitute the SAT/ACT with SAT II's/AP/IB test scores or an IQ Test; and (5) ask students to provide a reference for their two most significant EC's and call them.
10
I have taught in a number of institutions of higher learning, from globally recognized research oriented universities to elite private colleges and local institutions that train service professionals. The vast majority of students have good potential and some exhibit intellectual prowess, regardless of their background. The difference? Some students simply do not have the skills to college level work--- some sleep through high school, others come from families that don't or can't give the right support, some come schools that don't give the students the right training. For some, AP courses are routine, for others, life-changing. In any event, they are not always a predictor of college performance.
More important to me are students who are open and engaged and view education as transformative. My best students question everything--a reach for them since most are taught and learn to the test.
Even the most rigorous admissions process does not always detect the most promising students. I hope that we can find strategies to give more students more opportunities!
More important to me are students who are open and engaged and view education as transformative. My best students question everything--a reach for them since most are taught and learn to the test.
Even the most rigorous admissions process does not always detect the most promising students. I hope that we can find strategies to give more students more opportunities!
4
I didn't see anything about changes in financial counseling of future students. It should be required that schools present an estimated total debt upon graduation and perhaps an estimate of what graduates can expect to earn. It isn't too hard to do this. A number of web sites https://www.yourmoneypage.com/education/studentloan.php provide these tools -- and are easy to use.
2
Most disturbing here is the fact that top schools are taking on these issues as a group effort. When our son was applying to top colleges a few years ago, I was struck that at every school the admissions folks said virtually the same thing. They wanted achievement, passion, leadership. They were trying to build a diverse community. They liked applicants with a mission to help society. Blah, blah, blah. It seemed to me that in a healthy, competitive marketplace, standards would be more diverse. I'm worried that this new effort will issuer in a new approach that will be just another form of groupthink.
Had I won the billion-dollar Powerball, I was going to buy a small college and convert it to a barebones, education-oriented college modeled on the index mutual fund: no intercollegiate sports, a simple commons, no research, and admissions based on grades and test scores, with a scoring system so transparent all applicants would know where they fell relative to the admission cutoff. There would be no judging of students' passions, no concern about creating a specific kind of culture -- that would be left to nature. Costs would be the minimum necessary. There might even be no financial aid.
Now, I don't propose this as an approach for all colleges. My school would simply fill one niche. What bothers me about the current system is that no schools try anything like this -- or anything else that strays from the standard.
Had I won the billion-dollar Powerball, I was going to buy a small college and convert it to a barebones, education-oriented college modeled on the index mutual fund: no intercollegiate sports, a simple commons, no research, and admissions based on grades and test scores, with a scoring system so transparent all applicants would know where they fell relative to the admission cutoff. There would be no judging of students' passions, no concern about creating a specific kind of culture -- that would be left to nature. Costs would be the minimum necessary. There might even be no financial aid.
Now, I don't propose this as an approach for all colleges. My school would simply fill one niche. What bothers me about the current system is that no schools try anything like this -- or anything else that strays from the standard.
5
University Education in the US is a complex phenomena. With half of the resources you find in an american university, people in the third world acquire and develop deep intellects. You cant have a national/general quality student body at Universities if you don't have a solid elementary/middle/high school programs. After finishing High School in Cuba and taking University Entrance exams I migrated to US. I was shocked to see student quality of admitted students to community colleges in NYC. Those people in Cuba would have struggled to graduate from High School, and yet they were there. There had been a serious dumbing down of the curriculum in order to meet political/social agenda here. You are not doing any favors to the poor/minorities by doing that. What you gotta do is step up the elementary/middle/high school level; but don't dumb down College. My brother told me that at City College, cheating level was alarming. This is a Science/Tech/Engineering School. Used to be Public MIT in this country. A joke now.
1
This comes from a "College of Education?" Sorry. No credibility.
1
It seems to me that the shortcomings of the admissions process is actually just a symptom of a larger systemic problem that has developed in universities.
Universities have become more about vocational training and marketing to students that they can get ahead socially and economically by going to college. That is the dominant focus in education today.
Maybe if universities went back to embracing the virtues of a classical education and teaching students to love learning, we wouldn't be training kids to be professional resume builders, and this whole admissions challenge would take care of itself.
Universities have become more about vocational training and marketing to students that they can get ahead socially and economically by going to college. That is the dominant focus in education today.
Maybe if universities went back to embracing the virtues of a classical education and teaching students to love learning, we wouldn't be training kids to be professional resume builders, and this whole admissions challenge would take care of itself.
1
In other words, lower the standards so that everyone can compete and nobody's feelings are hurt
good job
good job
6
All I can say as a parent in a NYC Public high School, where the frenzy to apply to the "right" high school is a prelude to the massive frenzy about applying to college --- all I can say is about time. And why just readdress admission? Why not readdress the concept of why you teach, and who you teach?
During moments of cynicism about our educational dilemma, I first want to point out that the basic educational model has changed for at least 700 years, since the time that higher education was first formalized in Europe. Wise person shares his knowledge and insights. Fawning studies show they succeed by absorbing that knowledge and using it in their own way. And so it goes. It's a self-serving process. It promote the hunt for those that are "thirsty for knowledge." In other words, find those people who can feed into the concept that you must reinforce the value and knowledge of the professors.
But why does a potential student at a star school always need to be thirsty for knowledge? What about the student who hasn't been made aware that if she or he were aware of certain items, or encouraged to try new things, they could soar if made aware of certain things, or encouraged to try a new approach? Putting a star professor in front of students who normally would have no access, could launch a revolution with at least a few of those students?
Can you find those students? It may result in some failures, but Isn't it worth a try?
During moments of cynicism about our educational dilemma, I first want to point out that the basic educational model has changed for at least 700 years, since the time that higher education was first formalized in Europe. Wise person shares his knowledge and insights. Fawning studies show they succeed by absorbing that knowledge and using it in their own way. And so it goes. It's a self-serving process. It promote the hunt for those that are "thirsty for knowledge." In other words, find those people who can feed into the concept that you must reinforce the value and knowledge of the professors.
But why does a potential student at a star school always need to be thirsty for knowledge? What about the student who hasn't been made aware that if she or he were aware of certain items, or encouraged to try new things, they could soar if made aware of certain things, or encouraged to try a new approach? Putting a star professor in front of students who normally would have no access, could launch a revolution with at least a few of those students?
Can you find those students? It may result in some failures, but Isn't it worth a try?
Bureaucrats and Academicians having more discretion is exactly what we don't need. There should be a color blind criteria for admission that does not take race or social status into account. Asians have suffered most in the elite college push to increase underrepresented minorities because they are perceived to be overrepresented so all their achievements are tainted by the stigma of their effort. Why should the children of Asians suffer because we are responsible adults who fulfill our obligations to our children and society? I am tired of Blacks and Hispanics getting a free ride generation after generation without any effort to correct their personal and family dysfunction.
The message here is quite clear. Minorities (except Asians) do poorly on standardized tests. So let's eliminate those tests. Instead give preference to students from certain backgrounds that have nothing to do with the individual student's achievements, such as being first in the family to go to college. The result of course is to have a less qualified student body. So in an increasingly competitive world, we will be able to boast not of the best students but of the most social justice. Its disgusting.
2
Selective colleges always say, "we want to get to know YOU and who you are."
Yet possibly, how could they, if all their applicants are volunteers for Habitat, editors of the school newspaper, 5-scoring A.P. students, and science fair winners? Why not require interviews for qualified applicants (or at least those on the wait list) just like the real world?? It would help these students gain the experience and self confidence for what's to come, instead of having them obsess over generic extra-curricular lists that really NO ONE cares about after college anyway.
Yet possibly, how could they, if all their applicants are volunteers for Habitat, editors of the school newspaper, 5-scoring A.P. students, and science fair winners? Why not require interviews for qualified applicants (or at least those on the wait list) just like the real world?? It would help these students gain the experience and self confidence for what's to come, instead of having them obsess over generic extra-curricular lists that really NO ONE cares about after college anyway.
1
Many Ivy and private colleges have become a cushy boarding school for many, and the top administrators are cashing in. The basics are available at state schools and community colleges.
The fallacy is that going to college will get you a good job and life. That isn't happening as long as both Democratic and Republican politicians accept illegal immigration and increase and misuse H1B, H2A and H2B visas to fill jobs Americans can do.
All the hoopla about college admissions is a non-starter. It doesn't really help because going to college these days doesn't really help. Unless you're connected.
The fallacy is that going to college will get you a good job and life. That isn't happening as long as both Democratic and Republican politicians accept illegal immigration and increase and misuse H1B, H2A and H2B visas to fill jobs Americans can do.
All the hoopla about college admissions is a non-starter. It doesn't really help because going to college these days doesn't really help. Unless you're connected.
1
College admissions "gurus" are once again trying to fix an impossibly broken system (and I say that as the parent of a kid who jumped through all the hoops and got into Stanford -- without being a legacy, VIP, or an athlete).
Admissions officers at selective schools should be asking themselves one basic question: what do we want our incoming freshman class, as a class, to "be"?
The problem is that they have no idea how to answer that question. They know they don't want to just have the "smartest" class (based simply standardized testing), because such a class would be utterly boring and would torture secondary school students with test cramming (cf. Korea). They know they want a "diverse" class but they haven't figured out what "diverse" means (or should mean). They know they want top athletes, but that has translated to shifting huge sums away from core academics and into big salaries for coaches and gold-plated athletic facilities. They know they want legacies, who get admitted at vastly higher rates than their peers for no justifiable reason. And they rely on essays even though there's no way to ensure the applicant is the actual author.
Moving away from standardized testing makes no sense because grade inflation has made transcripts pretty meaningless. And frowning on APs is dumb because many students take multiple APs just to test out of intro courses in college.
Perhaps it's time to ask students what a good and fair admissions process should look like . . .
Admissions officers at selective schools should be asking themselves one basic question: what do we want our incoming freshman class, as a class, to "be"?
The problem is that they have no idea how to answer that question. They know they don't want to just have the "smartest" class (based simply standardized testing), because such a class would be utterly boring and would torture secondary school students with test cramming (cf. Korea). They know they want a "diverse" class but they haven't figured out what "diverse" means (or should mean). They know they want top athletes, but that has translated to shifting huge sums away from core academics and into big salaries for coaches and gold-plated athletic facilities. They know they want legacies, who get admitted at vastly higher rates than their peers for no justifiable reason. And they rely on essays even though there's no way to ensure the applicant is the actual author.
Moving away from standardized testing makes no sense because grade inflation has made transcripts pretty meaningless. And frowning on APs is dumb because many students take multiple APs just to test out of intro courses in college.
Perhaps it's time to ask students what a good and fair admissions process should look like . . .
1
North Carolina has some of the worst high schools in the country with the lowest paid teachers. Their college system is no longer able to enroll a full class if ACT and SAT scores used. It's not the students or the teachers faults: it's the no-tax, cut education governor. This is a problem in the entire country. All but the elite colleges now produce low quality grads. I have taught college and high school, so know how badly we are doing. We lie to them, saying, sure, you can be an OB-GYN with that 13 ACT score, let them get fleeced by the college for a year (if that long) and spend the rest of their lives struggling. Yet I heartily believe in the need for the college entrance exams (preferring the ACT). There is no other way to judge college-readiness. If a student is motivated, the need to do well on the entrance exams is a motivator, especially for kids from rough districts. I tutor these tests and can usually bring up a score of a kid from a low performing school, often by a lot. This is a lot harder to do with the students from well-off families, where student motivation is nowhere close. That standardized testing is not for you, the well off parent, but for those who lack motivators in their own lives, is so seldom understood. Standardized tests provide data showing how much worse underfunded, struggling students compare. Data that leads to finding out "why" is more valuable than changing the rules to pretend these differences don't exist.
1
I never met an admissions committee that turned down an applicant because the applicant's parents were too rich.
1
Limit the number of applications a prospective college student can make. That will force kids to narrow down their choices to schools they have a real chance of getting into. I graduated high school in'79 where each application was hand written and I don't remember anyone applying to more than 5 or 6 schools.
4
So will this "new" admission process still be called "holistic admissions"? Either way we all know it's just code for "too many Asians". Another such code is "diversity" which just means "fewer asians and more blacks please".
7
I can't wait for the whole university-industrial complex to be revealed for the giant scam and racket that it is. The schools are absolutely clogged with students who would be better served elsewhere. They would be better off in community colleges where they would graduate in half the time, at a fraction of the cost, with more practical skills.
3
The problem is that all Colleges and Universities, except Caltech, are just places to remediate the deficiencies that US high schools create. At the end of the day they take HS students who do not know what a log is and students who know what a comformal mapping is. These students sit in the same MATH 102 and guess who gets As. The goal of admission process is to close eyes on anything but the ability and fill classes with students of approximately equal ability to make sure that they are not taught to the the worst student or, at least, that the worst student is not that far behind the best student. I went to the university in the USSR. The admission exams were extremely hard. Here is an example of the problem from the oral math entrance exam from my days - without a calculator you need to figure out which is greater log base 2 of 3 or log base 3 of 5. Good luck.
2
Elite colleges and universities already discriminate heavily against Asians in the name of diversity, being well rounded, and several other unnamed and undisclosed criteria. The beneficiaries are white students, Black students, Latinos, basically anyone who is not Asian.
Whatever changes get done to the current system, and whatever arguments are used to support such changes - one thing you can be sure of is that it will further discriminate against Asians. They are the easy group to beat upon, not outspoken and not a large voting block, and politicians and bureaucrats and so called equal rights activists will continue to discriminate against Asians.
Whatever changes get done to the current system, and whatever arguments are used to support such changes - one thing you can be sure of is that it will further discriminate against Asians. They are the easy group to beat upon, not outspoken and not a large voting block, and politicians and bureaucrats and so called equal rights activists will continue to discriminate against Asians.
3
Oh boy! This is a very telling article. Just downplay the credentials of high achievement so that there can be more "diversity", today's "holy grail".
The Superintendent of Schools in my city, has built her entire career on "diversity". Who cares if we're actually EDUCATING our students so long as the student body meets "diversity".
If we forgot all the nonsense about "community service" and just looked for high grades, high test scores (SAT/ACT/AP's) and a sustained interest in ANYTHING - sports, chess, bridge, art - who cares - just a sustained interest, the colleges would end up with a group of students who are qualified to do the work without extra help, and who would most likely get along socially at the college. I would add that trying to access their mental health would be valuable as well, as most colleges today have mental health facilities that are larger than those public ones available for the entire city in which they are located. Ones brilliant bi-polar or clinically depressed child might be far better served by going to a college close to home and their support system.
I know a lot of high school student in highly competitive schools, both public and private, and the ones who are stressed to the breaking point are those whose parents are that way. Our children pick up on these things. Confident parents make for confident children.
I fear for high education if we continue down this road with "diversity" as the major goal.
The Superintendent of Schools in my city, has built her entire career on "diversity". Who cares if we're actually EDUCATING our students so long as the student body meets "diversity".
If we forgot all the nonsense about "community service" and just looked for high grades, high test scores (SAT/ACT/AP's) and a sustained interest in ANYTHING - sports, chess, bridge, art - who cares - just a sustained interest, the colleges would end up with a group of students who are qualified to do the work without extra help, and who would most likely get along socially at the college. I would add that trying to access their mental health would be valuable as well, as most colleges today have mental health facilities that are larger than those public ones available for the entire city in which they are located. Ones brilliant bi-polar or clinically depressed child might be far better served by going to a college close to home and their support system.
I know a lot of high school student in highly competitive schools, both public and private, and the ones who are stressed to the breaking point are those whose parents are that way. Our children pick up on these things. Confident parents make for confident children.
I fear for high education if we continue down this road with "diversity" as the major goal.
14
Legacy students getting rejection letters? I don't think the finance and endowment committees are going to stand for that.
1
The real injustice: early decision omits all students needing financial aid. (They can't commit to a school until they know its aid package, and that information isn't released until March.) It's well understood that students who apply ED have a far better chance of acceptance, and that's logical -- a school will be more willing to commit to a student who's signed a contract promising to attend if admitted. But it makes for a horribly exclusive club.
8
Gobbledygook. Short of personally interviewing every single applicant, how is a college admissions team supposed to measure "intellectual hunger"? When the word gets out that colleges are looking for evidence of this, more than the currently derided traditional metrics such as GPA, AP courses, SAT scores, club activities, and so forth, then students will adjust accordingly and pad their applications with extracurricular activities and verbiage that are every bit as phony. It will perhaps lead to a generation of better actors. Maybe Harvard can afford to interview every applicant (can they?), but that's certainly unrealistic for almost all other universities. This opinion piece was extremely lean on detail on mainly just dismissive of what exists. Again, what are the specific proposals to assess intellectual hunger and potential? If I told you that I was really super duper intellectually hungry and ambitious and have amazing potential if only someone would just give me a chance, would you believe me if you were unable to hear my passionate plea in person and see me justify it?
8
+1. Cannot agree more. If the assessments turns to be more subjective than objective, it is a disaster for the U. S. society, because you are rejecting the real smart and hard-working people, and accepting more of those who can play. I am sure US will fall behind other countries, like Russia, China, South Korea and Singarpore, etc. if this method is adopted, rather than encouraging hard work and higher performance at school.
Discontinue the legacy and the sports quotas.
3
Many of these colleges may well intend to admit underprivileged students using the new admissions criteria, but I suspect the new requirements will simultaneously be used as cover for admitting otherwise under-qualified legacies and athletes. What better way to ensure that legacies are at least partially competent and to ensure that athletic programs don't completely run amuck, than by using concrete, measurable stats like AP completion rates and SAT scores?
The quote from UNC's VP for Admission about "jumping through hoops" was especially ironic given that his university has already been jumping through hoops to get barely literate hoops players admitted for years now. Now, the athletic program won't even need to justify admitting its prospective athletes. They will automatically get in using this new "holistic" approach.
The quote from UNC's VP for Admission about "jumping through hoops" was especially ironic given that his university has already been jumping through hoops to get barely literate hoops players admitted for years now. Now, the athletic program won't even need to justify admitting its prospective athletes. They will automatically get in using this new "holistic" approach.
4
Finally, no more credit given to rich kids traveling to Costa Rica for two weeks to count the number of poor kids and then writing an essay on how they help feed the poor.
6
I'm not sure how dumbing things down and making higher learning more "accessible" for everyone makes the college experience better. College has always been meant for people who are qualified, motivated and need a degree to enter into their field of interest. I'm not saying In my case, I didn't have the best high school grades but I tested well and subsequently did well in college and graduate school. Entrance exams and other entry requirements are necessary to gauge aptitude and readiness for a college curriculum. Not everyone is cut out for college and not everyone needs college. I'm not sure why the U.S. refuses to look to Europe and the way education is structured there. The truth is that not every kid is a student and that's ok. Why not encourage vocational schools for those who need to learn a trade and don't care for academia? Also, the tuition costs and how much college administrators pay themselves is the real crux of the problem-- those who are qualified to go to college often cannot afford the school of their choice.
3
What all of this fails to countenance is the way in which we collectively have fetishized "going to college" as the sole means of establishing oneself as an intellectually and culturally worthy human being. The ridiculous focus on the means through which a small handful of students gain or fail to gain admission to an also small group of "elite" universities is a distraction from the larger truth that "getting a bachelor's degree" is, for a large portion of high school students, a very poor means to their ultimate personal goals.
1
The degree to which college athletics warps admissions is shocking. Not just for the sake of a national football team but to fill every field hockey, wrestling, soccer team etc with candidates that get preferential admission. Compare this to the European model where nothing matters but academics and there are no fencing or squash teams. This abnormal focus on athletics causes parents to push kids to be "national squash players" for example or to spend hours doing regional competition. Those hours could be spent doing something intellectually fulfilling.
5
College admissions is such a crap shoot that I'm wondering if bookies from Atlantic City should get involved. The slog of applications, the community service hours, the extracurriculars, clubs, church etc are all crazy. It's hard to be a kid with a few interests anymore, hard to be a kid who goes to school, hangs out with friends, plays a sport and volunteers from time to time. My children are good students, interested in stuff, have loads of friends yet they feel far behind the kid who went to Africa to dig a well. I mean, come one, dig a well in Africa? What does that show? It shows you have money and time but how does that demonstrate your potential? A kid who worked hard to get the As, played a sport or two, volunteered at a nursing home and had a rich and satisfying social life is someone with potential - they already know what it takes.
7
Many studies have demonstrated that the influence of test preparation courses is quite small on performance on standardized tests. The tests provide one of the only objective measures of student's ability which can allow comparison of kids from high schools which vary enormously in quality. Grades do not do this, essays are written and critiqued by high school counselors and not by the students themselves and the laughable suggestion that admissions officers could in some objective way judge degree of "caring for others" is obviously a non-starter. Changing the standards will just allow free play of admission officers biases - to counteract which, standardized tests were created in the first place.
3
Once an institution bows at the alter of diversity, all bets are off. They are then free to create any criteria for admission. Social and political pressure will surely influence those criteria.
I don't understand why, in the last paragraph, athletes were lumped in with legacies. Athletic ability is race and socioeconomically overall neutral. In my time at Princeton, the athletes were the best adjusted, motivated, and diverse group on campus.
I don't understand why, in the last paragraph, athletes were lumped in with legacies. Athletic ability is race and socioeconomically overall neutral. In my time at Princeton, the athletes were the best adjusted, motivated, and diverse group on campus.
1
The racism and classism of low expectations...preening in the mirror, on the verge of tears at the beauty of its intentions....
The real question is: why, in 2016, do we all still believe as a society that University is the ultimate achievement of a childhood? How is it that, as technology and information have evolved at blazing speeds, that we have not discovered a better way for educating our future worker bees and decision makers?
I will admit that the four years of (relatively) stress-free living "on one's own" is of tremendous benefit to a growing young adult, but there must be a better way to both fill one's head with the appropriate knowledge and prepare one emotionally for the "real world."
Mountains of unsustainable debt in exchange for years of irrelevant classes are nothing more than a hazing ritual that we all blindly accept because, for lack of a better word, it has become tradition.
I would rather hire a 24 year old with 3 years of entry level on-the-job experience and 3 years of failed first-hand business experience than hire an MBA, and that's the honest truth. College's current reward is grossly outweighed by its current risks.
I will admit that the four years of (relatively) stress-free living "on one's own" is of tremendous benefit to a growing young adult, but there must be a better way to both fill one's head with the appropriate knowledge and prepare one emotionally for the "real world."
Mountains of unsustainable debt in exchange for years of irrelevant classes are nothing more than a hazing ritual that we all blindly accept because, for lack of a better word, it has become tradition.
I would rather hire a 24 year old with 3 years of entry level on-the-job experience and 3 years of failed first-hand business experience than hire an MBA, and that's the honest truth. College's current reward is grossly outweighed by its current risks.
1
I've been reading the comments regarding President Obama's executive order protecting illegal immigrants, and sad to say, most commenters take an anti immigrant position, reinforcing their position with laws being broken. Now I understand how we fostered this lack of human feeling in these people who do not care about others.
It all sounds great, but given the fact that so many college graduates don't really know much, as we have found out in the last couple of years here in the NYT and other sources, won't looser entrance standards make the outcomes even worse? I am a high school teacher about to retire, and while it is true that in some secondary schools, students and parents push relentlessly for better grades, more AP courses, trips abroad, and much more, the majority of high school students in the U.S. are mediocre and just muddle through. I pity the college professors who have for years been decrying the poor quality of incoming students with their indolence and air of entitlement. They will soon be teaching at much lower levels and failing a lot more students ( or passing a lot more if they give in like many high school teachers must now do when principals exert their influence on them).
2
Oh yay! Yet ANOTHER story about higher education focusing on uber-competitive Ivies. Such imagination! Such insight!
3
Parents, kids...they think all of this is linear, and the progression goes like this. Take tons of AP classes, get into an Ivy, go to business school, excel and the world is your oyster. I know, that's what my kids were told in the pressure cooker of the school system we're in. There was little room for discovery or for time off. There was virtually no bandwidth to deal with life's unexpected bumps in the road.
I have four children. They all went to top colleges. One is now in law school (Yale), one is interviewing at medical schools, one is a writer living in a garret, and one is a hematology researcher. In the interim, the law schooler farmed for four years, living in his car for part of the time. The writer walked dogs. The would-be doc got paid minimum wage to do cancer research, and the last one almost flamed out of school several times.
Sure, it all looks good now, but the pressures on them was tremendous. Most of them had to find a way out of system before continuing to pursue their life's ambition. They called it "getting out of the bubble." The system as it exists is no way to treat young people, and I'm glad to see it creaking and groaning to change. We tried as parents to keep things balanced, but I feel their dad and I could have done a much better job now that I look back.
I have four children. They all went to top colleges. One is now in law school (Yale), one is interviewing at medical schools, one is a writer living in a garret, and one is a hematology researcher. In the interim, the law schooler farmed for four years, living in his car for part of the time. The writer walked dogs. The would-be doc got paid minimum wage to do cancer research, and the last one almost flamed out of school several times.
Sure, it all looks good now, but the pressures on them was tremendous. Most of them had to find a way out of system before continuing to pursue their life's ambition. They called it "getting out of the bubble." The system as it exists is no way to treat young people, and I'm glad to see it creaking and groaning to change. We tried as parents to keep things balanced, but I feel their dad and I could have done a much better job now that I look back.
6
If you truly aim to change behaviors, force the change.
For example, limit the number of applications. If the Ivy League schools limited the number of applications to 2 (or 3, or even 4), students wouldn't throw in the "Harvard, Princeton, Yale" prayers just in case.
Break the application process into phases, and provide limits per phase. 1 Early Application (with the same rules for all...ED / EA...pick the appropriate process). Next, a round with 3 (or more..5?) applications as the limit. With fewer apps per round, reviews an offers (and acceptances) can be done more quickly. Maybe after round 2 closes, then it's open season. If folks had limited applications to use, they might be more reasonable in the process.
If you want to de-emphasize sports, make the signing periods after the early rounds. If a student is accepted to a good school before athletes can sign...do they pass on being accepted someplace else and hope for a scholarship?
Having children today is a scary proposition, because being an adult right now is not for the weak. Wagers are stagnant, good jobs are evaporating to automation and offshoring, all the while college costs grow by 2%-4%+ per year. We need to return the focus of parenting back to raising good people, not riding their athletic or academic potential into the ground all in the hopes of a scholarship.
For example, limit the number of applications. If the Ivy League schools limited the number of applications to 2 (or 3, or even 4), students wouldn't throw in the "Harvard, Princeton, Yale" prayers just in case.
Break the application process into phases, and provide limits per phase. 1 Early Application (with the same rules for all...ED / EA...pick the appropriate process). Next, a round with 3 (or more..5?) applications as the limit. With fewer apps per round, reviews an offers (and acceptances) can be done more quickly. Maybe after round 2 closes, then it's open season. If folks had limited applications to use, they might be more reasonable in the process.
If you want to de-emphasize sports, make the signing periods after the early rounds. If a student is accepted to a good school before athletes can sign...do they pass on being accepted someplace else and hope for a scholarship?
Having children today is a scary proposition, because being an adult right now is not for the weak. Wagers are stagnant, good jobs are evaporating to automation and offshoring, all the while college costs grow by 2%-4%+ per year. We need to return the focus of parenting back to raising good people, not riding their athletic or academic potential into the ground all in the hopes of a scholarship.
Every year, schools like Harvard announce the number of kids with perfect SAT scores that didn't get it, and make a generic statement like "there were so many applicants who would have succeeded here but unfortunately we were unable to admit them all."
So easy solution: Decide what the cutoff is for students who are good enough/would succeed/would bring something to your school, put all the applicants that meet such threshold in a pot, and then do a lottery. Of course you'd have to come up with a mechanism to maintain diversity, but that wouldn't be too hard (maybe set asides, or lower thresholds, or some of the things like this article mentions - focusing less on data that correlate with family income).
So easy solution: Decide what the cutoff is for students who are good enough/would succeed/would bring something to your school, put all the applicants that meet such threshold in a pot, and then do a lottery. Of course you'd have to come up with a mechanism to maintain diversity, but that wouldn't be too hard (maybe set asides, or lower thresholds, or some of the things like this article mentions - focusing less on data that correlate with family income).
1
As well as making premier college admissions more rational and fair, we need to acknowledge and nurture training that leads to serious, important jobs that can be taught at technical, community and state colleges. We need good plumbers, machinists, computer hardware repair professionals, child care workers, builders, and housepainters. We also need middle managers, supervisors, X-ray technicians, nurses, social workers, substance abuse counselors, secretaries, EMTs and police officers. These kinds of jobs require both basic and advanced academic background encompassing ethics and people skills. As long as Ivy League college is seen as the only "true" pathway to success in life, the inability to get into a top tier school will continue to be overly valued. Not everyone can be or wants to be a doctor, politician, architect or lawyer. The definition of a productive, good life needs to be expanded.
3
Rethinking higher education is not an one-sided story.
While there shouldn't any qualms of fighting the self-fulfilling prophecy of admission testing like AP, which is not dissimilar the the IQ testing in the latter's inception, AP is just one of the exercise perceived by the increasingly cut throat entries. All those extracurricular activities and "mandatory volunteerism" are other requirements!
How about peer pressure? And the cost? If a student's genuine passion is grade school education, does it matter if the degree is from Harvard or Bunker Hill State? Yet, a lot of starry eyed students succumb to the namesake.
Then, there are the business of endowments and the school's placements.
Education is like the tale of Goldilocks. Too hard could lead to all sort of psychological problems. Haven't we heard of kids killing themselves because they couldn't handle the demand of a MIT? Too lax and everyone is taking it for granted. Then, there is the fairness issue. While affirmative action is a great tool to right the social wrong, it becomes another person's grievance if it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So it may be easy to blame one thing like AP testing, but it is a complex situation that must be addressed cooperatively
While there shouldn't any qualms of fighting the self-fulfilling prophecy of admission testing like AP, which is not dissimilar the the IQ testing in the latter's inception, AP is just one of the exercise perceived by the increasingly cut throat entries. All those extracurricular activities and "mandatory volunteerism" are other requirements!
How about peer pressure? And the cost? If a student's genuine passion is grade school education, does it matter if the degree is from Harvard or Bunker Hill State? Yet, a lot of starry eyed students succumb to the namesake.
Then, there are the business of endowments and the school's placements.
Education is like the tale of Goldilocks. Too hard could lead to all sort of psychological problems. Haven't we heard of kids killing themselves because they couldn't handle the demand of a MIT? Too lax and everyone is taking it for granted. Then, there is the fairness issue. While affirmative action is a great tool to right the social wrong, it becomes another person's grievance if it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So it may be easy to blame one thing like AP testing, but it is a complex situation that must be addressed cooperatively
While there is some merit in these proposals, I don't get it: why is it that "the most revered, selective American colleges" should be....less selective and less elite? Seems like an oxymoron: "less elite" elite colleges. They represent a very small percentage of American colleges and universities, and (I would gather) already have existing criteria to recruit from among the "disadvantaged" and "underprivileged." With the expense of such an education, and future impact on graduates, we should be discouraging students from applying.
Such a report would be much more valuable to our society if it emphasized the fact that an "elite" education, for the vast majority of students, has zero correlation to getting a job and future success, and offered concrete proposals for promoting that fact widely: "educational" activities in every high school, advocating more money for 2-year community colleges, more money for state schools offering in-state tuition, etc. The penchant of American politicians to cut educational funding is beyond disgraceful.
Some of the references in this article are just mind-boggling: why would middle-school and high-school students be expected to say "caring for others" as what mattered most to them at that young age, over happiness or individual achievement - an incredibly inexplicable choice? I would suspect the 22% were just smart enough to "game the system," guessing what was expected. So, the "only" attached to that by the author is absurd.
Such a report would be much more valuable to our society if it emphasized the fact that an "elite" education, for the vast majority of students, has zero correlation to getting a job and future success, and offered concrete proposals for promoting that fact widely: "educational" activities in every high school, advocating more money for 2-year community colleges, more money for state schools offering in-state tuition, etc. The penchant of American politicians to cut educational funding is beyond disgraceful.
Some of the references in this article are just mind-boggling: why would middle-school and high-school students be expected to say "caring for others" as what mattered most to them at that young age, over happiness or individual achievement - an incredibly inexplicable choice? I would suspect the 22% were just smart enough to "game the system," guessing what was expected. So, the "only" attached to that by the author is absurd.
3
It would be good to make the changes mentioned. The goal of the elite institutions is to find the best and the brightest and that must include all those students whose schools cannot offer the opportunities afforded the most affluent but who are equally endowed with the talents needed to excel. But where our society is failing with respect to college has not a thing to do with the famous and well regarded top schools, schools which cannot under the best of circumstances educate all the people our country needs be educated in colleges. The old taxpayer supported land grant college model was the key to educating the leaders, engineers, scientists and professionals needed which the elite institutions could not educate. These schools have been defunded with a vengeance against government run institutions to an extent that they no longer can serve the purpose that they once served. The students graduate in such heavy debt that the odds are great that they may never prosper anywhere near as well as they used to because the time required to pay it off will permanently affect their ability to acquire wealth and to do things with it. The effort needs to be to increase taxpayer funding to the public institutions, to lower the costs of attending and to keep them available to the millions who can benefit from college.
My son, who goes to a prep school which is ranked as one of the best in the country, has just finished applying to 18 colleges. His school regularly sends 30% of its students to the Ivy league, Stanford or MIT. Impressive, but drill down and you see that a large percentage of these kids are athletes or under represented minorities. Excel at Lacrosse, volley ball, golf, field hockey, fencing, the long jump, or a number of other sports that will never fill a stadium at homecoming, and it's likely you will be recruited with only a minimal GPA requirement. The GPA and SAT bar is also considerably lower if you are a minority, even if your mother is a doctor, or your father a Grammy winner. Routinely, the top academic students are told they should not reach as high as their athlete or minority peers.
8
At its best, passing the college admission bar drives students to work hard and learn, but it has devolved into an arms race where students scramble to find something--any parlour trick, however irrelevant--at which to shine. Students are compelled to rack up credentials in areas like public service or sports that should be their own rewards, rather than another dimension over which to burnish images. How much talent and time are wasted in this futile exercise?
I suggest the following:
1. Each college should make an accept/deny decision for each candidate, irrespective of capacity, based on their own standards. Those who are accepted, by this measure, should be so informed; they may be proud of the accomplishment, and may cite it on resumes. Acceptance will confer admission, but only subject to capacity.
2. A universal lottery should then follow, whereby every accepted student has a fair and equal chance of being admitted.
3. The colleges should work together, through a trusted third party, to ensure every student's preferences are taken into account and so that every qualified student is admitted to at least one of his or her preferred schools.
I suggest the following:
1. Each college should make an accept/deny decision for each candidate, irrespective of capacity, based on their own standards. Those who are accepted, by this measure, should be so informed; they may be proud of the accomplishment, and may cite it on resumes. Acceptance will confer admission, but only subject to capacity.
2. A universal lottery should then follow, whereby every accepted student has a fair and equal chance of being admitted.
3. The colleges should work together, through a trusted third party, to ensure every student's preferences are taken into account and so that every qualified student is admitted to at least one of his or her preferred schools.
"that they give full due to the family obligations and part-time work that some underprivileged kids take on."
My ex-wife was told by one school that because she was taking secretarial courses in high school along with college prep ones and working 4 hours every afternoon as a secretary to earn money for college she wasn't college material. It would certainly be nice to see a change in that attitude.
My ex-wife was told by one school that because she was taking secretarial courses in high school along with college prep ones and working 4 hours every afternoon as a secretary to earn money for college she wasn't college material. It would certainly be nice to see a change in that attitude.
1
A student's ambition to acquire acceptance to a "name brand school" does not always equal the student's ability to graduate from that school. All the tutoring for the SAT's and ACT's with the aim of just gaining acceptance to a particular university or college can prove devastating for a student if he or she, once accepted, cannot withstand the academic rigor.
More needs to be done in counseling students and directing them toward schools in line with the ability of that student to achieve whatever his or her individual goal might be in terms of a career choice.
In the end, while a "name brand school" diploma might open a few doors, it does not assure career success, nor job security.
More needs to be done in counseling students and directing them toward schools in line with the ability of that student to achieve whatever his or her individual goal might be in terms of a career choice.
In the end, while a "name brand school" diploma might open a few doors, it does not assure career success, nor job security.
1
There's limited evidence that the teaching itself is notably better at a Tier 1, 2 or 3 university (more to less competitive in admissions standards). There is overwhelming evidence that having an elite University stamped on a person's resume, irregardless even of major, sets one up for far more social and career opportunities for the rest of life. Getting into Harvard is still getting into Harvard. However well-intentioned, change the admissions standards and kids & parents will still be equally motivated to gain entrance. They'll do whatever is needed to get past the gate.
2
This is encouraging news, but only scratches the surface of the problem. Valuing standardized tests and AP courses isn't just a problem of equity, though that problem is enormous. It also a reflection of a system that values memorization of content over the mastery of critical skills.
The outputs from our current educational system fail to prepare our kids for the world and workplaces they will enter. We need K-12 and Higher-Ed systems that will truly help our children acquire the skills, mindsets and dispositions that will help them survive and thrive in the 21st Century.
But parents won't jump on board until colleges value the whole child, not just their test scores. This is a beginning, but we have so far to go!
The outputs from our current educational system fail to prepare our kids for the world and workplaces they will enter. We need K-12 and Higher-Ed systems that will truly help our children acquire the skills, mindsets and dispositions that will help them survive and thrive in the 21st Century.
But parents won't jump on board until colleges value the whole child, not just their test scores. This is a beginning, but we have so far to go!
From you pages to G-ds ears! Will there be real changes? I doubt it.. Why change? Why spend the endowment on kids? Why end semi-pro sports for a system that offers all the chance for intercollegiate sports?
The current system is to ingrained, self-serving and easy.
The current system is to ingrained, self-serving and easy.
1
Hard to understand what is being proposed in this article. Sounds like throwing out the SAT and going on some kind of subjective valuation of who should attend various colleges. I guess that would also include the most elite institutions ? When you consider that really only 10 - 15 % of the population is really up for the challenge and rigor of a real college education - this surely sounds like a receipt for disaster. But maybe that is the point – a progressive / communist daydream - let’s dumb everything down to the point that we have a classless society. This was tried before – when the Bolsheviks took over the levers of power in Russia in the 1920’s maybe Frank Bruni can crack a book and get back to us on what happen then.
4
My son will get his final letters - from the schools which don't have early actions - this spring, and we will tot up the cost of all his options and he will choose. He will be done, praise all that can be praised. Good bye and good riddance to the college admissions arms race.
Frank Bruni has a lovely naiveté if he believes that changes in the process will result in a big difference in who gets into elite schools. Kids will still take all APs if class rank is a consideration, because without the uptick, there is no way for top students to distinguish themselves. Students will game the essay - hire tutors- if the essay becomes more important. Students will write essays to make their resume seem more "heartfelt" and will learn to discuss their experience int the way recruiters want to hear. Student's families will hire help to get the best spin possible. Just like they do today.
The biggest thing to remember is that what the schools are looking for is some definition of "outstanding" and once that definition is out there, a new arms race will start to meet it.
Our problem here in the good ole' USA is that no matter what, we remain brand conscious and believe that the bottom student from an elite college must be better than the top student at a state school or other highly accredited school. The fault, dear Brutus, ain't in the stars.
Frank Bruni has a lovely naiveté if he believes that changes in the process will result in a big difference in who gets into elite schools. Kids will still take all APs if class rank is a consideration, because without the uptick, there is no way for top students to distinguish themselves. Students will game the essay - hire tutors- if the essay becomes more important. Students will write essays to make their resume seem more "heartfelt" and will learn to discuss their experience int the way recruiters want to hear. Student's families will hire help to get the best spin possible. Just like they do today.
The biggest thing to remember is that what the schools are looking for is some definition of "outstanding" and once that definition is out there, a new arms race will start to meet it.
Our problem here in the good ole' USA is that no matter what, we remain brand conscious and believe that the bottom student from an elite college must be better than the top student at a state school or other highly accredited school. The fault, dear Brutus, ain't in the stars.
11
Every application should have a box to check: "did you employ a professional college counseling service in completing this application?" Then say that a dishonest answer to this question will be grounds for admission being rescinded if it is offered. An honor system that depends on fear: the counseling services (which charge five-figure fees) would have to advise clients to answer correctly (fear of lawsuits). The parents/child probably wouldn't dare to lie, in the (admittedly low-probability) case that the lie would be caught out.
This would allow essays to be more honest mirrors of the child's passions and writing abilities. It won't eliminate all inequities, or the many advantages of having wealthy parents, but it is a start.
Search for these "Ivy Coaches" on line. Most boast that they can - by having counselors contribute their ideas to the application process, and sculpt the child's writing - get your child into the Ivy school of your choice.
This would allow essays to be more honest mirrors of the child's passions and writing abilities. It won't eliminate all inequities, or the many advantages of having wealthy parents, but it is a start.
Search for these "Ivy Coaches" on line. Most boast that they can - by having counselors contribute their ideas to the application process, and sculpt the child's writing - get your child into the Ivy school of your choice.
1
I would like to see the colleges and universities place greater emphasis on curiosity. I have served as an alumni interviewer for an Ivy League university over the past 30 years. The vast majority of the applicants were very bright and hardworking. A few were astonishingly unprepared. Even fewer showed a spark of curiosity or creativity that said to me this is a person who might do something extraordinary. By and large they were overwhelmed by the college admissions industrial complex that implies your future is made if you get into Harvard-Yale-Princeton etc. and suggests all is lost if you don't get into a US News top twenty school. As valuable as an elite education may be on many fronts we all know that it is what you do with your life that counts rather than the name of the school you went to.
2
So the magical thinking that pervades across all of America un-thinking is starting its inexorable creep into post-secondary admissions.
Who needs standardized tests - who needs AP courses that have standard baselines of teaching and assessment - who needs time spent doing extracurriculars - in sum - who need rigorous assessments to distribute a valuable good.
All we need is to look into the student's heart....
Oh yeah - we might need to ensure he is an URM as well.... but only of a particular hue - if he is Asian then I am sorry - he must be made to compete with one arm tied behind his back - after all - fair is fair.
Who needs standardized tests - who needs AP courses that have standard baselines of teaching and assessment - who needs time spent doing extracurriculars - in sum - who need rigorous assessments to distribute a valuable good.
All we need is to look into the student's heart....
Oh yeah - we might need to ensure he is an URM as well.... but only of a particular hue - if he is Asian then I am sorry - he must be made to compete with one arm tied behind his back - after all - fair is fair.
2
Frank's last paragraph, and many of your comments are concerned with legacy admissions. (Athletes are a completely different case in my mind.) I'm curious if there is any data about the prevalence of legacy admissions at universities. If a legacy is qualified and equal to other candidates, I personally don't find it offensive that the legacy kid is admitted. I find it hard to believe that a significant portion of available freshman spaces are given to legacy kids who are not qualified. Thoughts? Links? I'm genuinely curious (and possibly delusional).
2
The recommendations and intent of this effort are admirable, but they dont sound very practical. Colleges are going to encourage students not to take challenging classes? Colleges are going to get rid of the simplest marker that parents and students can look at to determine college readiness? Colleges are going to parse the letters of recommendations to determine which kids acts of community service are "heartfelt"? Colleges are going to put more emphasis on essays that students write at home, without anyone there to make sure that they actually write them?
I can't imagine a system more open to corruption and accusations of bias than one based on the proposals you mention in your column. Is a college really going to defend its admissions decision in a civil court in a case accusing it of bias based on the admissions counselors belief that one students community service was more sincere than that of another?
The solutions to the problems of college admissions will not be solved by elite college changing their approach. It will be solved by increased funding for state colleges that improve their faculties, facilities, reputations, and lower their cost. The issue isnt why don't more minorities go to Harvard, etc. The issue is why dont more minorities attend and graduate from state run, taxpayer funded universities. And, the issue will be solved when we stop pretending that a degree from an elite university is the only way to be truly successful.
I can't imagine a system more open to corruption and accusations of bias than one based on the proposals you mention in your column. Is a college really going to defend its admissions decision in a civil court in a case accusing it of bias based on the admissions counselors belief that one students community service was more sincere than that of another?
The solutions to the problems of college admissions will not be solved by elite college changing their approach. It will be solved by increased funding for state colleges that improve their faculties, facilities, reputations, and lower their cost. The issue isnt why don't more minorities go to Harvard, etc. The issue is why dont more minorities attend and graduate from state run, taxpayer funded universities. And, the issue will be solved when we stop pretending that a degree from an elite university is the only way to be truly successful.
6
This is just another example of the "every kid gets a trophy" mentality that is rampant in our country. If the colleges don't use test scores and academic achievement as criteria for admission, what will they use? Maybe we should just let anyone who would like to attend Harvard give it a shot. And why not outlaw all testing and grades while we are at it. It seems cruel to cause more undue stress for this young generation that already faces a torrent of microaggressions at seemingly every turn..
3
There is an old joke about Bell Labs (I think) job interview. When the interviewee said that he can walk on water, the interviewer asked, "Really? What else can you do?"
The admissions to elite schools is something like that. I am not sure the changes being discussed will change the admission process all that much.
One of my two kids went to an Ivy League school and the other one didn't. The older one was wait listed by Harvard and Dartmouth and wound up going to another Ivy.
The Harvard alumni (a Times reporter, incidentally!) who interviewed her remarked that when he was admitted to Harvard he didn't do nearly as much as the kids that he was interviewing have done, in terms of advanced courses taken, extracurricular activities and so on.
Six years later when her brother applied, it was even more tough to get into Ivies and other good schools as the competition had become tougher. He didn't get into an Ivy but went to an engineering school and did well. One of his friends who had a near 100 average, almost a perfect SAT score, had the highest scores in all his many APs, was an Eagle Scout and had other extra curricular activities, did not get into a single Ivy. No need to cry for him, as he decided not to waste money on the other elite schools that accepted him, went to a state school instead on a full scholarship (saved a ton of money), was admitted to medical school when he finished, and will be a doctor soon.
The admissions to elite schools is something like that. I am not sure the changes being discussed will change the admission process all that much.
One of my two kids went to an Ivy League school and the other one didn't. The older one was wait listed by Harvard and Dartmouth and wound up going to another Ivy.
The Harvard alumni (a Times reporter, incidentally!) who interviewed her remarked that when he was admitted to Harvard he didn't do nearly as much as the kids that he was interviewing have done, in terms of advanced courses taken, extracurricular activities and so on.
Six years later when her brother applied, it was even more tough to get into Ivies and other good schools as the competition had become tougher. He didn't get into an Ivy but went to an engineering school and did well. One of his friends who had a near 100 average, almost a perfect SAT score, had the highest scores in all his many APs, was an Eagle Scout and had other extra curricular activities, did not get into a single Ivy. No need to cry for him, as he decided not to waste money on the other elite schools that accepted him, went to a state school instead on a full scholarship (saved a ton of money), was admitted to medical school when he finished, and will be a doctor soon.
1
Mr. Bruni, you are exactly right that the system drives some students and parents into a competitive frenzy, and discourages and excludes others. As an entrepreneur in the Silicon Valley who watched my daughter go through the process at a public high school, I decided to help be part of the solution by creating a startup called LifeLaunchr. We help parents and students find the school that is the best-fit for them, not just the highest-ranked or most prestigious school.
I agree completely that our system is driving people to absurd levels of stress, and more importantly, is taking away from kids all the joy of learning. High school has been turned into a system which encourages students to take courses they don't love, and prepare endlessly for tests, just to impress admissions officials.
College admissions should be much more about fit: about finding a program, a community, an approach to learning that excites the student, and where they will make the step from child to adult. It shouldn't be about parents' obsession with status, or about children driving themselves so hard they suffer from depression, anxiety, and unhealthy levels of stress.
I agree completely that our system is driving people to absurd levels of stress, and more importantly, is taking away from kids all the joy of learning. High school has been turned into a system which encourages students to take courses they don't love, and prepare endlessly for tests, just to impress admissions officials.
College admissions should be much more about fit: about finding a program, a community, an approach to learning that excites the student, and where they will make the step from child to adult. It shouldn't be about parents' obsession with status, or about children driving themselves so hard they suffer from depression, anxiety, and unhealthy levels of stress.
2
I went though this process a year ago, and I'm glad that it is over for me. My high school was incredibly competitive and measured an individual's worth based their college admissions results. As a result, it took me a long time to learn and accept that my sense of self worth and future prospects weren't bound to whether or not I attended an Ivy League school. This recent trend of recognition of the issues of the admissions process is something that I heartily welcome, as I and most of the people in my graduating class have paid the price in sleepless nights and mental health issues. However, I worry about how this will help those who are unable to pursue a education due to their financial status. I am fortunate enough to have parents supportive of my educational pursuits and paid for my AP tests and SAT classes. My fellow students at my current school has shown me that for most that is not the case, and I count my blessings every day because of it. The SAT was intended to level the playing field for different schools throughout the country to give a standard for measuring educational merit that didn't rely on GPA which carries a different meaning at every school. Those who have the money pay thousands for access to past tests as well as tutors who specialize in showing the most effective test taking strategies. A proposal like this will similarly be gamed much like the SAT as tutoring and guidance for the college admissions process is a very lucrative business.
1
The problem with "downgrading AP everything" is that at some public high schools, the AP courses are the only advanced courses offered, period. The only calculus is AP, the only science beyond Biology/Chemistry/Physics is AP. Students aren't loading up in order to look good -- they are loading up in order to take the courses they want to take.
In fact, at expensive private schools, there are non-AP courses that are appealing to students who have already completed the basic courses. Public school students often don't have that option.
In fact, at expensive private schools, there are non-AP courses that are appealing to students who have already completed the basic courses. Public school students often don't have that option.
6
Having attended an elite college (Yale) and also having recently sent several of my own kids through the gauntlet, this is much welcome news! My own daughter chose to do her capstone project on income inequality in college admissions and what she found horrified her. The amount of money that upper-income parents invest in tutoring, study abroad programs, subsidizing unpaid internships, and SAT prep makes the playing field completely unlevel not just for low-income but also middle-income kids. It dismays me to no end what a poor job Yale has done of recruiting across the socio-economic spectrum, but it does not surprise me-- if you continue to give extra weight in admissions to factors that are bought and paid for by wealthy parents--you will end up with a class that heavily skews toward upper-income students who have had their lives over-directed by meddling parents. In my view, these are often not our best and brightest in the long run. Full-disclosure, none of my kids even applied to Yale, so no sour grapes here, just my own assessment. I'd like to see my alma mater's admissions committees give more credit for unglamorous things like after school and summer jobs and less weight to cushy internships and poverty tourism service trips.
7
Students, prepare yourself for a world based on competition and challenge, it is the way of the world and why we have enjoyed our leadership in the world for over a century. Ignore this reality at your peril.
Set minimum academic standards and conduct an admissions lottery. This ensures that all students meet the same qualifications and ensures campus racial and ethnic diversity matches that of the qualified application pool without resorting to racial or ethic preferences.
Breakup the elite "flagship" universities and replace them with smaller regional campuses. Every student should be able to attend a high-quality, four-year college without leaving home.
Breakup the elite "flagship" universities and replace them with smaller regional campuses. Every student should be able to attend a high-quality, four-year college without leaving home.
C'mon Bruni, snap out of it. What's the point of beating our prestigious Gucci loafer private colleges into Walmart sneakers for the masses? There aren't enough Gucci loafers to shod every foot anyway. What's so wrong with private universities, luxury hotels and 3-star Michelin restaurants catering a bit to those who support them (and have been doing so for generations); not everybody has to eat at Le Bernardin to obtain sufficient nutrition. Instead of trying to make a silk purse into a sow's foot, why not instead double (triple?) support of public schools and universities - and make them affordable to ANY who actually qualify for admittance. And let's not water down the admissions requirements at our best public institutions -- there could be plenty of other less demanding public colleges, universities, trade schools, et. al. available for those who may not qualify in the top 5% (or 8%) academic bracket. Why cut the 'tall poppies' down to make them 'even' with all the other flowers -- which may, each in their own way, also smell sweet? This may be just envy and/or vanity -- 'The Revenge of the Mutt People'? -- and as practical matter couldn't really pull up that many American kids anyway. Let's go for more volume AND quality instead of just watering down the quality we already have.
1
Again, what about the middle class?? I wish the NYT would get on the bandwagon for middle and working class white kids who continually get shorted in this process.
6
It still appalls me that so many students who WANT to continue learning, cannot because of something as stupid, silly, and irrelevant as money.
Aren't we cutting off our nose to spite our face when we turn these potential entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, artists, teachers, etc, away from a future?
Aren't we cutting off our nose to spite our face when we turn these potential entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, artists, teachers, etc, away from a future?
You can go to Harvard, and a lot of other top notch schools, for free. if you can get in.
Some sort of competition will determine which children have an advantage as they start their adult lives. Parents will figure out how to do better at this competition and, if they have the means, will help or push their children to do this. Whatever the children have to do, the pressure of the competition will distort their striving so that they will lose track of whether they are striving to help or learn on the one hand, and striving to do better on the competition on the other. This will be true whether the students are striving to learn ancient Greek and Latin, be environmental activists, spend a semester abroad, or volunteer in a local poverty program. Whatever it is, brutal and no-holds-barred competition will pervert it.
The competition will only be less extreme if there are a greater number of winners or ways to win, and students can strive enough to avoid being near the bottom of a gentle slope rather than fighting to be near the top of a steep pinnacle. But our present winner-take-all values reward the self-discipline and single-mindedness that it supposedly takes to get to the top, and regards those who want to do merely well and have a rich personal life as unmotivated slackers.
Similarly, students who love literature may wind up as adjunct faculty sharing the standard of living of their students. A secure if modest prosperity will be achieved only by those who also master the game of academic competition.
The competition will only be less extreme if there are a greater number of winners or ways to win, and students can strive enough to avoid being near the bottom of a gentle slope rather than fighting to be near the top of a steep pinnacle. But our present winner-take-all values reward the self-discipline and single-mindedness that it supposedly takes to get to the top, and regards those who want to do merely well and have a rich personal life as unmotivated slackers.
Similarly, students who love literature may wind up as adjunct faculty sharing the standard of living of their students. A secure if modest prosperity will be achieved only by those who also master the game of academic competition.
15
“It asks colleges to send a clear message that admissions officers won’t be impressed by more than a few Advanced Placement courses.” What?
If the kid takes many AP classes and does well on some and less well on others, clearly not much is proven merely by having taken so many classes. But, do we limit the number of kids admitted to premier universities who demonstrate exceptional preparation to do well at them? When they do very well on many AP courses? Merely because some high schools don’t offer as many AP courses as others?
The solution is that we find a way to fund a standard set of AP classes at ALL high schools, irrespective of family background and income of parents. Do we pretend that some kids aren’t better prepared than others, or haven’t made extraordinary efforts to BECOME better prepared? Isn’t it the role of premier institutions to seek out these exceptional kids?
Frank’s argument is the central issue of affirmative action cases plaguing the federal courts for years.
I step aside the issue and realize that with a pie of given size, it needs to be divided SOMEHOW in a way that gives ALL comers a shot at a slice; and that means that some will be deprived so that others may eat. But this is a very hard thing to say to that kid who busts her tail to do very well demonstrating remarkable preparation for a premier institution who is deprived of admission to give a slice to someone else less prepared. This is government making decisions about life outcomes.
If the kid takes many AP classes and does well on some and less well on others, clearly not much is proven merely by having taken so many classes. But, do we limit the number of kids admitted to premier universities who demonstrate exceptional preparation to do well at them? When they do very well on many AP courses? Merely because some high schools don’t offer as many AP courses as others?
The solution is that we find a way to fund a standard set of AP classes at ALL high schools, irrespective of family background and income of parents. Do we pretend that some kids aren’t better prepared than others, or haven’t made extraordinary efforts to BECOME better prepared? Isn’t it the role of premier institutions to seek out these exceptional kids?
Frank’s argument is the central issue of affirmative action cases plaguing the federal courts for years.
I step aside the issue and realize that with a pie of given size, it needs to be divided SOMEHOW in a way that gives ALL comers a shot at a slice; and that means that some will be deprived so that others may eat. But this is a very hard thing to say to that kid who busts her tail to do very well demonstrating remarkable preparation for a premier institution who is deprived of admission to give a slice to someone else less prepared. This is government making decisions about life outcomes.
5
Most people don't realize a simple truth: most colleges admit nearly all applicants.
However, those are not the colleges the top students, and many other students, want to go to.
However, those are not the colleges the top students, and many other students, want to go to.
34
Right...ordinary people hate the so-called elite until/unless they can get into the club.
5
Not exactly accurate: Most colleges admit more than 50% of their applicants. Many of them are excellent and don't make the "Top 10" because they are in less-than-desirable locations or don't have enough money for big scholarships.
Bingo! One would be hard-pressed to find any high school senior in the United States who can't get into college unless he or she had failing grades. The picture of desperate high school seniors running to mailbox to see if they have been admitted to college is the stuff of Hollywood cinema. High-achieving students do not necessarily get into the college or university of their choice, but for the rest of the people applying it is colleges and universities who compete to fill up their freshman classes. Students are in the driver's seat, not the other way around.
This is just window dressing. As long as admission to an elite institution is seen as the ticket to an elite job and membership in America's elite classes, parents and students will game the system with the help of tutors, and nothing will have changed. Instead of trying to win over admission committees by joining two dozen extracurricular organizations, they will express their "passion" for a couple of causes - but it will all be the same elaborate charade.
The only radical reform - along with Bernie Sanders' proposal to abolish tuition fees at public institutions - would be to assign college places at random for minimally qualified high school graduates.
The only radical reform - along with Bernie Sanders' proposal to abolish tuition fees at public institutions - would be to assign college places at random for minimally qualified high school graduates.
13
"assign college places at random for minimally qualified high school graduates"
Shouldn't the best students go to the best qualified colleges and the "minimally qualified " student to minimally qualified schools?
Shouldn't the best students go to the best qualified colleges and the "minimally qualified " student to minimally qualified schools?
1
At least the high school kids would feel less pressure by eliminating the need for joining two dozen extracurricular organizations. I have done applicant interviews for my alma mater - a top 10 ranked school - for a dozen years. Every interview, I always include the same question - "What do you like to do in your free time?" Sadly, a majority of the applicants reiterate their list of organizations - most admit to lacking time to spend with their family or friends, or even to get enough sleep, because of what they see as essential application-building activities. Most don't get accepted, due to the sheer number of applications - another fear-driven issue, since many kids are scared to apply to less than 10-12 schools to ensure acceptance. Further, many have no clue about which schools might truly be a good "fit" for their wants or needs - they only consider school rankings, rather than small/large school sizes, private/public schools, urban/rural settings, student loan debt, and so forth. At this point, we need to stop ruining the lives of our children before they even have a chance to decide how they want to live.
1
It's probably true that much of this is window-dressing. However, if high-school students feel confident that they can spend their free time pursuing a passion (however specious) for one or two activities rather than assemble a dreary list of two dozen, their quality of life will improve dramatically. Padding a resume with activities that don't interest you is a soul-sucking waste of time, and does not create a person with a healthy sense of purpose or self-knowledge. Ultimately it's pointless even from an admissions perspective; Oxford and Cambridge, for instance, require nothing of the kind, and their campuses do not lack for creativity or dynamism.
The admissions process should reflect a particular school's mission and therefore there can be no one size fits all admission process. If the mission of a school is not clear or not integrated in the community--local, national, or global as befits the school--then changing the admission process alone will accomplish nothing other than switch some of the students around. And just as different schools have different missions, different students will find better educations in different schools. Too many schools are sucked into the rating game and competition for elite students. And just as many students are looking beyond college to career opportunities, turning an education into vocational training or networking, many colleges are looking for opportunities to enhance their endowments. Change all the admissions processes but keep everything else about higher education the same and very shortly, the same students who are accepted now will figure out the new system and work it to their advantage.
5
Many colleges and universities are in direct violation of their charters and mission statements. It's all about the money, as transmuted through "world class research facilities" and athletic-program-motivated alumni networks. Who takes the time to challenge this in court? Most lawyers would tell you such a suit would be unwinnable.
1
College has merely become the starting point for the exaggerations we must do throughout our lives to have and keep jobs. It's sad because modesty used to be considered a good thing. With the competition for college and everything that comes after being so fierce, young people are almost forced to cheat and lie to get what they want. Adults provide the examples in how they compete for scarce jobs, how ads for jobs are written, how they portray a college, etc. Failure is never allowed as an option. Nor, unfortunately for most of us, is being average allowed.
35
So long as there are fewer seats in the freshman class than there are applicants, there will be intense competition to get into the "best" colleges and universities. However the competition's rules are arranged is how students will compete. The best and brightest students who are the best competitors will arrive at the "best and brightest" universities, regardless of the rules applied. And anyone who thinks that legacy admits are unfair hasn't seen the stark math of the fundraising that results.
31
"The best and brightest students who are the best competitors will arrive at the "best and brightest" universities, regardless of the rules applied."
That is a myth. Our elite universities do not take in the "best and brightest", only giving the appearance of doing so. Roughly 80%-90% of each incoming freshmen class is reserved for those with the right parentage including skin color. By their own admission, no more than 5% Harvard's admits are solely on academic merits. The rest are legacies, URMs, developments and athletes. The "elite" in our elite universities stand for society's elites, not intellectual elites.
That is a myth. Our elite universities do not take in the "best and brightest", only giving the appearance of doing so. Roughly 80%-90% of each incoming freshmen class is reserved for those with the right parentage including skin color. By their own admission, no more than 5% Harvard's admits are solely on academic merits. The rest are legacies, URMs, developments and athletes. The "elite" in our elite universities stand for society's elites, not intellectual elites.
1
Why don't we stop focusing exclusively on college? The only reason a great many jobs require a degree is because employers are using it as yet another way to whittle down huge piles of applications ... for jobs requiring no more than clerking and/or customer service skills. Allowing a bachelor of science to be the new "high school diploma" in the job market helps only the for-profit college network. We should learn from countries like Germany and offer more apprenticeships and (paid) internships. We need to respect that mechanics and many repair people can earn a decent living wage.
Too often kids interviewed on news shows reply, "I want to go to college" when asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" That's a major problem. This obsession with cramming more and more ill-suited people into "college" for its own sake is ridiculous. We end up with a plethora of useless business majors who know next to nothing useful because they were never given direction in life (rich, middle class and poor alike).
I get that they want to go to college because global corporations have shipped away any manufacturing jobs or even technical support or customer service jobs to take advantageous of near-slave wages elsewhere. But we need to do something radical with our economy. And we need to do it soon.
Too often kids interviewed on news shows reply, "I want to go to college" when asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" That's a major problem. This obsession with cramming more and more ill-suited people into "college" for its own sake is ridiculous. We end up with a plethora of useless business majors who know next to nothing useful because they were never given direction in life (rich, middle class and poor alike).
I get that they want to go to college because global corporations have shipped away any manufacturing jobs or even technical support or customer service jobs to take advantageous of near-slave wages elsewhere. But we need to do something radical with our economy. And we need to do it soon.
69
Amen!!!
Frank Bruni,
what you are recommending is basically a "dumbing down" of admission standards (as if they are not low enough already) and admission based on race and social class (to many who would, because of lack of preparation, be crushed). DOes this make sense? Is this the role universities should have in societies? The answer to these questions, in regard to Bruni's suggestions, would prove a disaster.
what you are recommending is basically a "dumbing down" of admission standards (as if they are not low enough already) and admission based on race and social class (to many who would, because of lack of preparation, be crushed). DOes this make sense? Is this the role universities should have in societies? The answer to these questions, in regard to Bruni's suggestions, would prove a disaster.
113
Oh please. SAT & ACT scores not correlated with income levels? Essays as a stand alone indicator of intelligence and aptitude? In our school district, families spend $3,000 - 5,000 on test prep alone, alongside thousands more in essay preparation (done well, helps the student, done to meet the parent's hope and expectation quite often means written for the student) and application 'development', which can also run a family $7,000 plus for coaching packages that begin during the summer of the student's 8th grade year. Of course, not all of us can do this, so perversely, my daughter's strong score is rated down because of the expectation for the district. The whole process serves no one well, but continues on. This new program will survive until faculty begin to complain about the lowered expectations they have for their coursework.
17
We live in such a district. We don't buy into the idea that Ivy League is the only way to get ahead. But the competition such as it is, to be in the top 10% of the graduating class, a kid has to have near perfect scores in a courseload of AP/ IB classes. I would rather educate my child with travel and life experience and she would rather focus on her athletics than investing in classes on how to game the SAT. But we have to find the time and money to send her to SAT class and tutor her on weak areas anyway. Because that's the stupid game.
Part of the problem is that the worth of a college degree has been devalued. As we have admitted more students to college, those average ability of graduates has declined. Just ask any business recruiter who will tell you stories of college graduates who can't write a coherent sentence or handle basic algebra.
Thus the emphasis on elite colleges. If a degree from Generic U. has little value, students or their parents will see even more reason to strive for admission to an elite school.
Thus the emphasis on elite colleges. If a degree from Generic U. has little value, students or their parents will see even more reason to strive for admission to an elite school.
49
Sounds like the grades of Asian kids are a bit too good and it's getting difficult to channel the WASP offspring into the well-deserved Top 3? "So, you have established a clean drinking water charity in North-Eastern Oagadugu? - OK, come and study Art History with us..." Meritocracy is rewards for what granddad did, right?
45
This is not intended to benefit WASP kids but to increase diversity
1
IQ diversity isn't what they should look for in Top Universities. (Example: Bush II.)
1
I truly believe that all of this is rooted in (white) people feeling threatened by Asian academic success. See the several articles that have come out recently about (white) parents who favor "dumbing down" certain high schools because Asians have made them too competitive.
That said, I agree with the changes. I've seen students nearly kill themselves with stress. It's really not healthy, nor is all that stress necessary for success. I think the hypocrisy is laughable though. If people thought these changes were only benefiting blacks and Latinos, there would be so much more outrage in these comments.
That said, I agree with the changes. I've seen students nearly kill themselves with stress. It's really not healthy, nor is all that stress necessary for success. I think the hypocrisy is laughable though. If people thought these changes were only benefiting blacks and Latinos, there would be so much more outrage in these comments.
Einstein never read flash cards.
In fact, if the brightest minds of the past century were put through the college admissions process, there is high probability that
a) they would be rejected
b) the world would be deprived of their profound thoughts because they were busy cramming for APs and SATs
Aren't we poisoning the well by making our future thinkers and innovators go through the "one metric fits all" college selection process?
In fact, if the brightest minds of the past century were put through the college admissions process, there is high probability that
a) they would be rejected
b) the world would be deprived of their profound thoughts because they were busy cramming for APs and SATs
Aren't we poisoning the well by making our future thinkers and innovators go through the "one metric fits all" college selection process?
33
I had math flash cards more than fifty years ago. Later, when I hit a Jesuit HS I had two languages, in addition to history, math, science, English (yes English), and a religion class, and two to three hours of homework a night plus term papers and reading, and extracurricular activities and intramural sports, and rec ball.
What did you people do with your time?
What did you people do with your time?
1
Ironically, you make the wrong point - ironic in so many ways.
Einstein was genius - Einstein never went to Harvard - Einstein changed the world.... ergo...
The point you should have made is that true pre-college Geniuses emerge from college as Geniuses - and that is totally independent of SAT and APT's.. indeed of the college process itself.
Our trouble - in this day and age - is that every mom whose kid can color within the lines thinks she has reared a genius.
Einstein was genius - Einstein never went to Harvard - Einstein changed the world.... ergo...
The point you should have made is that true pre-college Geniuses emerge from college as Geniuses - and that is totally independent of SAT and APT's.. indeed of the college process itself.
Our trouble - in this day and age - is that every mom whose kid can color within the lines thinks she has reared a genius.
Let's not forget why Harvard came up with the SAT to begin with. It's because there is too much variance in grades, especially these days with grade inflation. Bottom line is we need some form of standardized tests as a basis to compare all students on equal footing. The SAT and ACT remain good tests that can be supplemented with SAT II subject tests or AP tests. The GPA is simply not a reliable source to compare students in different schools. Heck it's not even a fair way to compare students in the *same* schools since different teachers can be vastly different in their grading practices.
186
Test scores are as overrated as grades. My son is at a top tier school studying engineerng with a lot of kids with higher SAT scores. That he was an athlete gave him a boost with admissions I imagine. But he is the program standout with a 3.9.
At my child's college, Wesleyan, the president said that they were looking for better predictors or success than SAT's and ACT's. One they found was military service.
And, Thinker, what about grade inflation? Two-thirds of high school students graduate with honors. The average high school grade is a B.
From what I see as a university mathematics professor for over 30 years, AP courses are not very impressive at least as far as calculus goes. Students I see who have AP scores of 3 and 4 wind up repeating Calculus I or II, and are no better prepared than my students who have never seen calculus in their lives.
What is more, I repeatedly see AP courses as a means of sheltering non-disruptive students from their more boisterous peers, as evidenced by the mismatch between numbers of students in AP courses vs number of exams successfully taken, or even taken at all. The AP classes I have sat in on, whether in high performing suburban districts or struggling inner city schools look more like test prep courses than in-depth investigations of a deep and interesting subject. I would really hesitate to put much weight on such courses for admission decisions, particularly since the scores themselves are not available until mid-summer, long after decisions have been made to admit seniors based on their senior year AP courses.
What is more, I repeatedly see AP courses as a means of sheltering non-disruptive students from their more boisterous peers, as evidenced by the mismatch between numbers of students in AP courses vs number of exams successfully taken, or even taken at all. The AP classes I have sat in on, whether in high performing suburban districts or struggling inner city schools look more like test prep courses than in-depth investigations of a deep and interesting subject. I would really hesitate to put much weight on such courses for admission decisions, particularly since the scores themselves are not available until mid-summer, long after decisions have been made to admit seniors based on their senior year AP courses.
46
Perhaps that is your experience with Maths AP's (which I agree with). Both my daughter and son had horrific experiences with their AP calc experiences, and my daughter did retake beginning calculus at college. However in their AP US History course(s) my kids were thoroughly saturated in the subject matter, so I think it depends on which AP your talking about.
1
Agreed, from a similar perspective. AP courses are an outrageous scam that have degraded both college and high school education. In many (most) non-science subjects, they drill formulaic "problem solving" (i.e. not what's worthy of the term) or factoid acquisition, related mainly to memorization. Real college courses in these areas (such as still exist) develop critical reading, thinking, and appraising skills applied to the subject; "factoids" are secondary. This is not something 16-17 year olds can do in a high school. It is more telling in science courses. It is well known that even AP 5 scorers generally perform more poorly, sometimes even much more poorly, compared to the mean performance of students in the real course at a rigorous college: Memorization and formulaic answering don't equal fundamental understanding. Meanwhile, high schools feel the need to burnish their reputations by implementing ever more of these courses (number of AP test takers is taken as a metric of "good" high schools; push from misguided parents taken in by the scam). The AP students are poorly served compared to solid high school courses that do not pretend to be "college" courses, that do not foster stress, falsely based elitism, and placing students in tracks.
Fot a student wanting not to be disruptive but to learn and explore a subject, an AP class is like Heaven.
Let me put in a plug for legacy admissions. I have known a number of these, some clever and some not-so-much. In our high-inequality society, legacy-kids will go on to exercise great power over the rest of us as long as their fortunes last. Isn't it a good idea to use college to mold them a bit, and socialize them a bit before turning them loose on everyone else?
I understand that I won't get many "likes" for this idea but, we have seen so many of the powerful and would-be powerful who appear to have been poorly socialized. Do we really want to exclude incumbent tyrants from a chance to experience the humanities?
I understand that I won't get many "likes" for this idea but, we have seen so many of the powerful and would-be powerful who appear to have been poorly socialized. Do we really want to exclude incumbent tyrants from a chance to experience the humanities?
29
What kind of socialization do you think these rich kids get when they only socialize with other rich kids? Indeed this is the model we currently have and we end up with a Washington elite that is completely out of touch with mainstream America. Fully 40% of decision makers in the Obama administration are Ivy League grads, 25% are from Harvard alone. The elites in this country are increasingly graduates of elite schools who have been indoctrinated by the same group of arrogant insular liberal academics with zero common sense and who are completely out of touch with the real world.
If we were really are an egalitarian society we would have completely meritocratic admission processes where the cream is allowed to rise to the top, i.e. the smartest kids (kids with highest combined GPA, SAT scores, SAT II scores, AP/IB scores) are admitted to the best schools, while the average sons and daughters of society's elite are relegated to where they truly belong academically -- 2nd tier public colleges or even community colleges so they can socialize with hoi polloi, and see how the 99% really live.
The fact that we are now stuck with the worst white house administration in history led by the worst president in history is a testament to the current failed model of selecting society's elite. Holistic admission is a failed concept cooked up by the liberal social engineers to prop up the undeserved by virtue of parentage or skin color at the expense of the truly smart and hard working.
If we were really are an egalitarian society we would have completely meritocratic admission processes where the cream is allowed to rise to the top, i.e. the smartest kids (kids with highest combined GPA, SAT scores, SAT II scores, AP/IB scores) are admitted to the best schools, while the average sons and daughters of society's elite are relegated to where they truly belong academically -- 2nd tier public colleges or even community colleges so they can socialize with hoi polloi, and see how the 99% really live.
The fact that we are now stuck with the worst white house administration in history led by the worst president in history is a testament to the current failed model of selecting society's elite. Holistic admission is a failed concept cooked up by the liberal social engineers to prop up the undeserved by virtue of parentage or skin color at the expense of the truly smart and hard working.
This is disgusting. Accept the fact of a ruling class and pretend to "mold" them while they take the place of others who don't need molding? Why, exactly? The uproar about affirmative action and the shameful comments from people like Justice Scalia about who belongs at the "best schools" ignores this dirty not-so-secret fact that athletes and legacies are the real problem in admissions.
By that logic, which is the better life lesson: having the desirable goodies handed to them because of who they are, or holding them to the same standard as everyone else and denying them the goodies if they haven't really earned them, regardless of their wealth and connections?
Which scenario is more likely to create humility and understanding, and which creates entitled little Trumps?
Which scenario is more likely to create humility and understanding, and which creates entitled little Trumps?
1
I think this is a step in the right direction, but really, the main drivers for change must come from the parents.
Our kids, both now in college, grew up in the hyper-competitive educational environment of the San Francisco Bay Area. From day one our message to them was simple: Try new things, find those subjects and activities that you really love and do your best in them. The rest? Good to mediocre is just fine. Eventually you will be rewarded by doing one thing spectacularly well, not for doing a hundred things adequately.
So many of their classmates spent their entire childhoods being groomed for college. Every activity, every course and spare minute of time was filled with something intended to go on the college application. There was no time for unstructured play or lingering over an interest that would never find a place on the college CV. Perhaps the saddest comment I heard was from my son's high school girlfriend, who responded to my question about her passions by saying, 'I have no passions. I'm just doing this to get into the best college I can.'
Such a tragedy! So long as a family's focus in on the competition for college, not a lot will change. I'm pleased that both my kids got into 'elite' colleges, but I'm more pleased they chose their colleges based on personal fit and that they both are making the most of their four years there.
Our kids, both now in college, grew up in the hyper-competitive educational environment of the San Francisco Bay Area. From day one our message to them was simple: Try new things, find those subjects and activities that you really love and do your best in them. The rest? Good to mediocre is just fine. Eventually you will be rewarded by doing one thing spectacularly well, not for doing a hundred things adequately.
So many of their classmates spent their entire childhoods being groomed for college. Every activity, every course and spare minute of time was filled with something intended to go on the college application. There was no time for unstructured play or lingering over an interest that would never find a place on the college CV. Perhaps the saddest comment I heard was from my son's high school girlfriend, who responded to my question about her passions by saying, 'I have no passions. I'm just doing this to get into the best college I can.'
Such a tragedy! So long as a family's focus in on the competition for college, not a lot will change. I'm pleased that both my kids got into 'elite' colleges, but I'm more pleased they chose their colleges based on personal fit and that they both are making the most of their four years there.
234
Not really such a sound advice. What if nobody else in the world cares about that "one thing" that they really love? Some skills are absolutely necessary to have to remain competitive in the modern workforce, regardless of whether one "loves" learning them or not. Anyone can get into college. See how your kids fare in real life after they graduate.
1
@hammond
Hilarious that you use the word *passion* here in all seriousness, without any irony.
Passion - the pseudo-sincere holy grail of all $100 per hour hopefully Ivy League educated themselves college prep tutors across the nation! Hip hopping from Scarsdale, to Winnetka, Grosse Point, Coral Gables - you get the drift/tax bracket.
You raised your two kids in the "hyper-competitive educational environment of the San Francisco Bay Area".
You told them (with a straight face) that "eventually you will be rewarded by doing one thing spectacularly well".
Both kids got into "elite colleges...and are making the most of their time there".
Earth to @hammond - you hit the jackpot and live in an insulated, isolated, privileged bubble, and you congratulate yourself by believing that you're SO DIFFERENT than your equally well situated & achievement oriented neighbors.
You're in the club and surprise, surprise - looks like your kids, who were born in the club, are staying in the club, too!
That's how it works.
ps I can think of many, many scenarios more deserving of the description *tragedy* than your son's girlfriend's little whine about shoring up her high school CV.
Hilarious that you use the word *passion* here in all seriousness, without any irony.
Passion - the pseudo-sincere holy grail of all $100 per hour hopefully Ivy League educated themselves college prep tutors across the nation! Hip hopping from Scarsdale, to Winnetka, Grosse Point, Coral Gables - you get the drift/tax bracket.
You raised your two kids in the "hyper-competitive educational environment of the San Francisco Bay Area".
You told them (with a straight face) that "eventually you will be rewarded by doing one thing spectacularly well".
Both kids got into "elite colleges...and are making the most of their time there".
Earth to @hammond - you hit the jackpot and live in an insulated, isolated, privileged bubble, and you congratulate yourself by believing that you're SO DIFFERENT than your equally well situated & achievement oriented neighbors.
You're in the club and surprise, surprise - looks like your kids, who were born in the club, are staying in the club, too!
That's how it works.
ps I can think of many, many scenarios more deserving of the description *tragedy* than your son's girlfriend's little whine about shoring up her high school CV.
1
You are great parents!
1
The premises upon which the author's argument is based are complete nonsense.
1. First of all, there are only about 25-30 schools which have the "name" factor to potentially affect the prospects of its graduates solely by virtue of its "name". For the other schools, the issue is moot: no matter what college one attends, there are many graduates who succeed beyond their wildest dreams due to their hard work and talent.
2. I am very much in favor of affirmative action, but let's be clear here: the very top schools have huge piles of financial aid to offer less privileged students and make huge accommodations (i.e., they lower standards, and by a lot) to admit less privileged students. And there isn't a single admissions officer that will "ding" an underprivileged kid because his/her high school offered few or no AP classes.
3. Again, I am in favor of affirmative action, but it is BECAUSE of affirmative action that competition for admission to a very top college had become so competitive for privileged students.
4. However, emphasis on going through hoops is misplaced. It IS true that admissions officers want to admit applicants who challenge themselves in high school and meet those challenges with EASE and with serious commitments to extracurricular activities...that only makes sense, the purpose of which is to deny admission to "emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions"
1. First of all, there are only about 25-30 schools which have the "name" factor to potentially affect the prospects of its graduates solely by virtue of its "name". For the other schools, the issue is moot: no matter what college one attends, there are many graduates who succeed beyond their wildest dreams due to their hard work and talent.
2. I am very much in favor of affirmative action, but let's be clear here: the very top schools have huge piles of financial aid to offer less privileged students and make huge accommodations (i.e., they lower standards, and by a lot) to admit less privileged students. And there isn't a single admissions officer that will "ding" an underprivileged kid because his/her high school offered few or no AP classes.
3. Again, I am in favor of affirmative action, but it is BECAUSE of affirmative action that competition for admission to a very top college had become so competitive for privileged students.
4. However, emphasis on going through hoops is misplaced. It IS true that admissions officers want to admit applicants who challenge themselves in high school and meet those challenges with EASE and with serious commitments to extracurricular activities...that only makes sense, the purpose of which is to deny admission to "emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions"
18
What happens when corporations continue to narrow their recruiting to "top tier" schools? The colleges are only satisfying demand. If their brand is diminished the endowment shrinks and the college presidents lose their overinflated salaries. So we'll see what really happens.
16
A lot of nonsense. In our metro Atlanta HS, there are two tracks. The AP track and the McDonalds track. Community service credit? More nonsense.
Trying to shoehorn a bunch of sub-100 IQ students into Harvard and UNC without selection criteria will surely lead to the decline and worth of college in this country. Try as you might, it is a very competitive world and college isn't for everyone.
Trying to shoehorn a bunch of sub-100 IQ students into Harvard and UNC without selection criteria will surely lead to the decline and worth of college in this country. Try as you might, it is a very competitive world and college isn't for everyone.
43
"Trying to shoehorn a bunch of sub-100 IQ students into Harvard and UNC without selection criteria will surely lead to the decline and worth of college in this country. "
I believe that an IQ of at least 110 is considered the minimum for college work.
I believe that an IQ of at least 110 is considered the minimum for college work.
1
Amen.
"But they still need to stop filling so much of each freshman class with specially tagged legacy cases and athletes and to quit worrying about rankings like those of U.S. News and World Report. Only then will the tide fully turn."
Exactly, but that's not going to happen, because legacies and sports heroes help keep their endowment up.
Change the way education is funded in the United States, starting in elementary school (and fund pre-school, too). The the exact same amount should be spent on every single child. AT the same time, make university free, and also support unions and the middle class, so parents and kids don't feel its a cut-throat race to the top, where there's space only for the best of the best or the extremely well connected. Then maybe we'll have healthier kids and parents, and ultimately a healthier society.
This initiative by elite universities is so the university administrators can sleep better at night.
Exactly, but that's not going to happen, because legacies and sports heroes help keep their endowment up.
Change the way education is funded in the United States, starting in elementary school (and fund pre-school, too). The the exact same amount should be spent on every single child. AT the same time, make university free, and also support unions and the middle class, so parents and kids don't feel its a cut-throat race to the top, where there's space only for the best of the best or the extremely well connected. Then maybe we'll have healthier kids and parents, and ultimately a healthier society.
This initiative by elite universities is so the university administrators can sleep better at night.
20
Agreed--the property tax method of funding local school is insanely inequitable and does NOT benefit the country as a whole. As a side note, my child--a very good student--is in third grade and is already so stressed out about school and state tests. I can't imagine what a wreck she'll be in eight years when she's applying to college.
2
This ise more or less the way it is in The Netherlands, and the public universities compete to be the best in the world.
1
Complete utter nonsense. We as a nation need to support and fast-track the truly academically gifted. All the hand-wringly about diversity is nothing more than a formula for the destruction of the USA. Balancing a chemical reaction or solving a differential equation has nothing to do with race, religion, or family income.
119
Except so many of the students good at dif eqs are incapable of walking from one class to another without texting mummy. Why do you play the violin? Because my parents told me to. These are not our future leaders.
Those who end up being identified as "truly academically gifted" are in so many cases also those who came from families with enough resources to fund the decade-long process of pre-application grooming and resume padding that is usually required for admission. So, those who end up being identified as the "best and the brightest" in our society generally are also usually part of an economic elite -- before having done anything to deserve it.
"Balancing a chemical reaction or solving a differential equation has nothing to do with race, religion, or family income."
I beg to differ. Clearly, higher level academics are overwhelmingly practiced at elite schools in elite (i.e. wealthy) neighborhoods.
The real challenge is to better identify --and support-- the truly academically gifted. Then there is a lot of work to do on their career goals. Unfortunately, most of them, i.e. yesterday's nuclear scientists, astronauts, researchers, inventors, etc., just want to go into Finance and make money.
I beg to differ. Clearly, higher level academics are overwhelmingly practiced at elite schools in elite (i.e. wealthy) neighborhoods.
The real challenge is to better identify --and support-- the truly academically gifted. Then there is a lot of work to do on their career goals. Unfortunately, most of them, i.e. yesterday's nuclear scientists, astronauts, researchers, inventors, etc., just want to go into Finance and make money.
The "value" of degrees from certain elite universities cannot be overestimated and will follow and help people throughout their career, particularly in politics and business, especially Wall Street. It doesn't MATTER if you did well then, or did well since, that "Old Boy Network" will protect you.
Yet consistently the best school for high-quality job placement is tiny Harvey Mudd College, part of the Claremont-McKenna 5-school consortium in California. Still the connections of the Big H, Big P, or Big Y blind people to who is TRULY valuable and who isn't.
Yet consistently the best school for high-quality job placement is tiny Harvey Mudd College, part of the Claremont-McKenna 5-school consortium in California. Still the connections of the Big H, Big P, or Big Y blind people to who is TRULY valuable and who isn't.
55
It may get one the interview, but not necessary the job and if the applicant can't perform, the job won't last very long, "Old Boy" or not.
2
Oh, I agree, 100%, but....here's what that really means:
In my career, I spent a great deal of time reviewing resumes and cover letters (no, I wasn't HR, but I found HR rarely does proper screening). When you have a stack of 50-75 resumes, you're always looking for something that catches your eye, just like an admissions officer is. When you do, you pull that resume and/or cover letter and give it a longer look, and that may WELL get the applicant an interview over another applicant. And NOTHING catches the eye more than the Big H, P, or Y!
And on the personal side, the networks of the elite schools' alumni opens doors as well, when other VERY well-qualified candidates may never even SEE the interviewer, because of nothing more than lack of connections.
You gotta get in the door, first, and that's sometimes the hardest step.
In my career, I spent a great deal of time reviewing resumes and cover letters (no, I wasn't HR, but I found HR rarely does proper screening). When you have a stack of 50-75 resumes, you're always looking for something that catches your eye, just like an admissions officer is. When you do, you pull that resume and/or cover letter and give it a longer look, and that may WELL get the applicant an interview over another applicant. And NOTHING catches the eye more than the Big H, P, or Y!
And on the personal side, the networks of the elite schools' alumni opens doors as well, when other VERY well-qualified candidates may never even SEE the interviewer, because of nothing more than lack of connections.
You gotta get in the door, first, and that's sometimes the hardest step.
2
A clarification: Harvey Mudd and Claremont-McKenna are SEPARATE colleges within The Claremont Colleges consortium: http://www.claremont.edu/
1
In the UK, students are limited to only 5 schools to which they can apply. They can only apply to either Oxford or Cambridge, but not both. This lowers the number of students applying to each school and allows the colleges to focus more on who they accept than on how many they reject.
73
The colleges *want* enormous numbers of applicants, because it makes their numbers look better to US News & World Report rankings. And if that's not true, the colleges should return the $50 fee to students they plan to reject outright, taking those students out of the applicant pool.
At OxBridge, applicants who meet the standardized test criteria (GCSE's or IB) are interviewed by teaching fellows who evaluate the applicants' knowledge of the area they have declared they wish to study. Unlike US universities, UK follows the vast majority of the world and enrols candidates in specific disciplines (maths, PPE, medicine, law, greats, etc.)
1
The only viable alternative to competitive admission would be competitive schooling.
Take in all the applicant, who have met some minimal requirements, and after 2 semesters leave 20% of highest performers, dropping the rest out to less selective or trade schools.
Just let them sign 'no lawsuit, no grade contest' agreement at admission. Problem solved.
Take in all the applicant, who have met some minimal requirements, and after 2 semesters leave 20% of highest performers, dropping the rest out to less selective or trade schools.
Just let them sign 'no lawsuit, no grade contest' agreement at admission. Problem solved.
10
Remove extra-curricular activities as factors in the college admission process. Many of my own students (I teach high school) tell me that they are not able to even begin their homework until 11:00 at night; the time spent after school and before 11:00 is crammed with field hockey, trombone lessons, student government, and other such resume-padding activities. These children are exhausted. Every single second of their lives is scripted and scheduled. Spend an hour here and there just kicking a can down the road, or wandering in wonder and exploration in the woods? Not a chance. We are raising a generation of accomplished robots. Many of them will pay for it, in terms of mental health (or rather, ill-health), down the road. Another issue is that the students I teach (and their families) are well off; the poor cannot afford any of these "enrichment" activities for their children. How can we justify factoring into the college application talents and accomplishments that poor students cannot afford to acquire? If we want change, design college application forms that have no room for listing such extra curriculars. Just go by grades, letters of recommendation, and personal essay (written under proctored conditions so that parents or hired college admission counselors cannot write it for the applicants).
152
agreed. many of these activities are irrelevant to university accomplishment and do a great deal to keep those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, with the right academic qualifications, out. It needs to be stopped.
2
These overstressed kids are competing with kids so far above them, from all over the world. I have interviewed kids capable of handling multiple advanced classes without needing a lot of time to study because they are just that smart. That is what allows them to be inventors, science fair winners and world class runners, for example. Currently, if your very difficult high school classes in math and science aren't a cakewalk to 4.0 for you, you should not be going to MIT, which is like drinking from a fire hose. Very hard on just normal smart students.
2
This is how they manage the European college process.
3
Bravo!
The next essential step is to stop the "faculty evaluation" process. Students use this to force faculty into making coursework and exams easier. As (retired) faculty, I've seen this happen more and more.
God knows that only tough exams produce hardworking students, some of whom go on to master the material presented in class. It's the most important aspect of a college education, remember? Not macramé, or pottery class.
The next essential step is to stop the "faculty evaluation" process. Students use this to force faculty into making coursework and exams easier. As (retired) faculty, I've seen this happen more and more.
God knows that only tough exams produce hardworking students, some of whom go on to master the material presented in class. It's the most important aspect of a college education, remember? Not macramé, or pottery class.
21
if properly prepared students were only enrolled then this may not be a problem. It is the bottom that is using evaluations to drag down teaching standards. Eliminate this and the problem will be mitigated.
1
Thanks for writing about this possible new direction--it is long overdue. The key is now to make sure it actually translates into change at the admissions offices. One slight point of disagreement: legacy admissions do need to decline but I wonder why you say the same of athletes. Athletics provides a sound balance to the academic load for many students and may indeed prevent them from some engaging in some of the excesses you describe. Knowing that their athletic excellence counts can be helpful. So long as the athletes admitted to elite schools are also strong students--an important caveat--athletics may be more part of the solution than of the problem. Keep on writing about this--yours is a much needed voice of reason.
6
The athletes are admitted just to play sports, and are given fake classes that they need not actually attend so that they can devote themselves to making money for the school. Every once in a while this is revealed to be true at some particular school, and people act scandalized, but really this is the reality of college athletics.
1
We're not talking about just football or basketball here. Elite school athletic recruits include many who play sports such as lacrosse, hockey, polo, equestrian, fencing, crew and other rich kid sports, i.e. athletic recruiting is just a cover for these schools to admit rich white kids with average/below average grades.
Thank you, Mr. Bruni, for this eye-opening piece. I find it intriguing and did not know this was happening. In my view, it is yet another example of the ongoing shift from a more patriarchal way of thinking to a more feminine point of view. Carol Gilligan, in her classic, In A Different Voice, posited two moral perspectives: an ethics of care associated with girls and women and an ethics of justice associated with boys and men. From that understanding, she and others extrapolated two ways of experiencing the self: a separate self--again associated with boys and men, and a connected self or a self in relation associated with girls and women. Of course there are many women who appear separate and many men who appear more connected. Think of Bernie and Hillary for example. And although these categories have been challenged on numerous grounds and adjusted many times, I think the basic understanding provides a window on our values as manifested in college admissions policies. I am retired now and in looking back on my life, I wonder, Who am I? What do I really want? What SHOULD I really want? I can see how the feeling of being alone--that I attribute in part to living in an ethics of justice climate--made it hard to shape my life out of insight rather than fear. I also can see the alteration in college admissions policies as part of a general awakening to the needs of all instead of the needs of "great men". I just hope we wake up soon enough.
39
Interesting comment. I wonder then will a more "feminine point of view" equally benefit males and females? I suspect that de-emphasizing SAT/ACTs could bias admissions at elite liberal arts schools against young men. Is this really what we want to do when young women (especially women of color) already graduate college at high rates than men? On the other hand, if elite colleges likewise de-emphasized high school GPA, young men would likely benefit at the expense of young women.
You seem to take a very gender conscious perspective on college admissions arguing against too great a focus on "the needs of great men". You do realize that for some years, the majority of both applicants and accepted students have been women ?
About 75 percent of students in a large local middle school are in "honors English" or "honors honors honors English") Some of them can barely write a book report. We are truly living in Lake Wobegon, where all children must be above average. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Children seem to have become a status symbol for parents and are being destroyed in the process.
65
Thank you. That was my kids' class as well. When I asked why, I was told they could only move as fast as the slowest kids could go. Wonder why no one can get a job anymore?
2
Our honors students (high school) can rarely write a grammatical sentence, let alone a book report. And we just made it even easier for everyone to graduate. I think we have to follow the money and see who benefits here - the colleges and banks, one getting their Pell grants, the other making sure they are paying off student loans forever, even if they drop out, which most of them, tragically do. Who is making money of making it easier to get into college? Not the students.
1
A number of my friend's kids are in AP classes -- most are in ALL AP classes. It's not even special these days. When I was in school (70s), there were only two AP classes -- English & Math -- and they were really hard, and selective and only about 18 kids out of 700 were accepted each year.
Essentially today, the AP (or honors, or IB) are meaningless because they are overstuffed with anxious kids (or kids pushed by anxious parents) to get higher & higher padded grade point averages.
The kids I know TODAY are not doing what we considered AP work back in the 70s -- we had to write an entire PAPER every single week. We had to read dozens of college level books. Today, the AP students barely have to read anything. They can often elect to watch movie versions of famous novels instead (I am not kidding)! They don't have write hardly any papers. And they can use the internet for "research", which translates into "cutting and pasting" rather than reading.
You are correct that kids today are status symbols, at least in wealthy homes, and parents get their creds among the other parents, by bragging on things like grades, SAT scores, what Ivy League school Muffy or Biff gets into and so on.
Essentially today, the AP (or honors, or IB) are meaningless because they are overstuffed with anxious kids (or kids pushed by anxious parents) to get higher & higher padded grade point averages.
The kids I know TODAY are not doing what we considered AP work back in the 70s -- we had to write an entire PAPER every single week. We had to read dozens of college level books. Today, the AP students barely have to read anything. They can often elect to watch movie versions of famous novels instead (I am not kidding)! They don't have write hardly any papers. And they can use the internet for "research", which translates into "cutting and pasting" rather than reading.
You are correct that kids today are status symbols, at least in wealthy homes, and parents get their creds among the other parents, by bragging on things like grades, SAT scores, what Ivy League school Muffy or Biff gets into and so on.
1
US News & World Report has a lot to answer for, in the creation of "best colleges" lists over the past many years. A tool to increase their circulation has warped the entire college selection and admission process.
32
So Harvard and MIT are going to start admitting emotionally-healthy, well-rounded kids from average backgrounds who do well in school but are not "special snowflakes"? Please. Don't patronize us. The world is becoming more competitive, not less. Colleges will follow suit. Whatever measures are established will be exploited and co-opted by the privileged.
269
When you say "competitive" I think you mean "co-opted"
If it were truly meritocratic competition, we'd see a wider range of economic and class backgrounds at the most selective schools.
But no . . . in the Ivies, the biggest affirmative action program - by far - is legacies, the children of graduates.
If it were truly meritocratic competition, we'd see a wider range of economic and class backgrounds at the most selective schools.
But no . . . in the Ivies, the biggest affirmative action program - by far - is legacies, the children of graduates.
11
"Whatever measures are established will be exploited and co-opted by the privileged."
a merit based process can go far to mitigate this. Look at Asia. Students there make it to elite universities in far greater percentages than in the US. Academic standards at the K-12 level need to be improved enormously. No more coddling, better teachers, parents who actually care would help. No more letting any fool, no matter what their grad is, advance automatically.
a merit based process can go far to mitigate this. Look at Asia. Students there make it to elite universities in far greater percentages than in the US. Academic standards at the K-12 level need to be improved enormously. No more coddling, better teachers, parents who actually care would help. No more letting any fool, no matter what their grad is, advance automatically.
MIT interviewer here. I'd like to see each kid walk through one simple logic problem at the board. Something that shows how they think, can't be studied up in advance, shows how they estimate and what sort of common sense they have, and how they hold up under that brief bit of pressure, without parental advice. Sort of the way google interviews are conducted, I gather. Smart, cooperative and gets things done is what we should be looking for.
3
I am so glad that I am done with the college admissions game. Frankly, none of these changes will make a huge difference. The well off will hire counselors to make sure that they game the new system and the poor will continue to fend for themselves. You are just changing the playing field, the game remains the same.
85
Why don't influential people like yourself tell the general public that just about every college and university in the USA is fully capable of offering a respectable undergraduate degree to all its enrolled students. Moreover, many schools without graduate programs have professors who are more likely to focus their attention on their promising undergraduate students. In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of faculty at the most "elite" universities did not receive their undergraduate degrees from a similarly elite institution. The public does not know these facts. You should tell them. The best plan is to attend an institution with reasonable tuition and other fees given a family's resources. In my neck of the woods -- Orange County CA -- there should be no hesitation about attending California State-Fullerton -- or even Saddleback Community College for two years and then transferring to CA-Fulleration.
12
"my guess is that the vast majority of faculty at the most "elite" universities did not receive their undergraduate degrees from a similarly elite institution."
This is likely true for now. However, I invite you to correlate this with age. You will notice an astonishing trend: younger faculty at Ivy League schools and their peers seem to have an enormous rate of attendance at...Ivy League Schools and peer institutions. It's a cultural thing: those people just know the ropes, are properly socialized to interact with the people who already teach at these places, and so they advance in a social climate that, I assure you, is befuddling for those who haven't had such advantages.
This is likely true for now. However, I invite you to correlate this with age. You will notice an astonishing trend: younger faculty at Ivy League schools and their peers seem to have an enormous rate of attendance at...Ivy League Schools and peer institutions. It's a cultural thing: those people just know the ropes, are properly socialized to interact with the people who already teach at these places, and so they advance in a social climate that, I assure you, is befuddling for those who haven't had such advantages.
9
To be fair, Frank Bruni has written several such articles and has even written a book about it.
They may offer respectable ones, but take it from me, they are willing to award degrees for some pretty marginal educations as well. As states decrease funding for their systems, the pressure rises to keep enrollments high by retaining weak students.
2
Highly selective colleges themselves are not the only source of pressure on students. The greater society must also bear some of the blame. How otherwise do we explain converting valedictorian into “number one?” Valedictorian comes from the Latin verb valedico, which translates as “to say farewell.” Historically, the person chosen for that honor was the one most appropriate to bid farewell to school and classmates. Given the pressures heaped upon today’s students, the one who attains that rank is often the LEAST appropriate to bid farewell.
10
Well I disagree. The valedictorians that I have seen personally were extremely impressive kids.
7
I find this reflecting the broader concern that the modern world has increasingly squeezed humanity from humans. Where we define corporations as humans and people as a collection of statistics, we have left less and less room for spirituality and creative expression. Finding a way to introduce that back into the admissions process is a noble pursuit. Finding a way to maintain the spirit when many academic institutions are machines of learning, with tens of thousands of young minds processed through each year, is an even bigger challenge. I hope that revisiting - revitalizing in the purest sense of that word - the admissions process will be a good first step.
7
There are unfortunately no easy fixes for the admissions process as I suspect the new process will be just as easily gamed by resourceful students. These reccomendations seem like a band aid to a seemingly unsolvable riddle: having a diverse student body that rewards naturally gifted children who work hard and have the industriousness to succeed.
On one end of the spectrum you have the NY high school admissions test which are as color blind as can be but where the students are predominantly Asian, and on the other end you have the current college system whereby to have more underrepresented minorities you discriminate against those same Asians and make it harder for them to get in than an equlky qualified black or hispanic student.
Unfortunately I have no answer as to what middle ground would be fairer for all parties involved.
On one end of the spectrum you have the NY high school admissions test which are as color blind as can be but where the students are predominantly Asian, and on the other end you have the current college system whereby to have more underrepresented minorities you discriminate against those same Asians and make it harder for them to get in than an equlky qualified black or hispanic student.
Unfortunately I have no answer as to what middle ground would be fairer for all parties involved.
17
Would it be too much to hope (not to mention naive) to hope that maybe the nice folks at U.S. World & World Report would just stop the ratings altogether in the interest of a more sane system of higher education?
Probably.
Probably.
10
Better enjoy the thrill now, Mr. Bruni, because nothing meaningful will change. As long as there is a perceived benefit of attending certain colleges, there is going to be intense competition to get into those colleges. And the kids from underprivileged backgrounds are always going to be at a disadvantage in that competition. And income/wealth inequality both increases the perceived need to get into the elite schools and the advantages that the wealthy have.
8
Frank: Thank you for this. (Your book has helped me be a little less crazy about the college process).
I have a junior in high school. She is a great kid -- warm, caring and empathic. An excellent student as well. But she is anxious about getting into a good school and it affects all of us. I want her to be able to chill a little bit and just enjoy learning and being a teenager.
I was a smart, but disadvantaged kid (with really mediocre SATs) who was able to succeed (I am now a physician) because I was able to transfer as a junior to UC Berkeley. I started at a fair State school and then proved my mettle -- I could then get into Cal. This changed my life. I am not sure that is even possible anymore. If I was a high school student today I am quite sure it would be a challenge. Sigh.
I have a junior in high school. She is a great kid -- warm, caring and empathic. An excellent student as well. But she is anxious about getting into a good school and it affects all of us. I want her to be able to chill a little bit and just enjoy learning and being a teenager.
I was a smart, but disadvantaged kid (with really mediocre SATs) who was able to succeed (I am now a physician) because I was able to transfer as a junior to UC Berkeley. I started at a fair State school and then proved my mettle -- I could then get into Cal. This changed my life. I am not sure that is even possible anymore. If I was a high school student today I am quite sure it would be a challenge. Sigh.
11
If colleges are looking for ways to make the admissions process more humane and less stressful, I think that's fantastic.
However, if the real goal is to increase enrollment from less affluent communities I wish they'd just own up to it. When something's a "floor wax and a dessert topping" I get skeptical.
However, if the real goal is to increase enrollment from less affluent communities I wish they'd just own up to it. When something's a "floor wax and a dessert topping" I get skeptical.
12
Anything that will reduce the hideous hyper resume building prevalent in too many suburbs would be a step towards sanity. Let's see:
1. "enough" AP courses - CHECK
2. at least four varsity letters - CHECK
3. editor of the school newspaper - CHECK
4. play in the orchestra or band - CHECK
5. volunteer at a soup kitchen - CHECK
6. photo op in third world country - CHECK
OK, ready to apply to elite college USA!
1. "enough" AP courses - CHECK
2. at least four varsity letters - CHECK
3. editor of the school newspaper - CHECK
4. play in the orchestra or band - CHECK
5. volunteer at a soup kitchen - CHECK
6. photo op in third world country - CHECK
OK, ready to apply to elite college USA!
17
"He did everything he was supposed to" complained an acquaintance whose kid didn't get into his Ivy of choice. The poor kid played a sport, and checked off all the boxes but didn't seem to be doing anything he enjoyed or was passionate about.
get rid of 2-6 and these schools can actually recruit those with ability from the lower socio-economic ranks (as opposed to tokens).
Finally, a waterdshed moment!
If adults have such a hard time evaluating students, why not let students do it?
There is a mile-wide gap between having "skills for success" and "what it takes to succeed." The former is a pressure-cooker regimen of intense study and precision-balanced extracurriculars, while the latter understands that nobody is perfect and it is more important to be able to analyze your failures and prevent them from happening again.
I was a good student in college even though I occasionally skipped some classes or showed up drunk to others (I was a senior and I had an evening class on Thursdays, give me a break). But I always had plenty of productive side projects, which opened more doors post graduation than anything I learned in class. Often times, however, I would have difficulty showing folks older than my cohort that such projects were a better use of my time than studying.
Bringing current students into the admissions system and communicating with prospective students would not only provide a perspective that no essay or standardized test could ever accomplish, but it would also give prospective students the chance to understand the culture of colleges they're interested in, the difference between looking good on paper and feeling good inside.
There is a mile-wide gap between having "skills for success" and "what it takes to succeed." The former is a pressure-cooker regimen of intense study and precision-balanced extracurriculars, while the latter understands that nobody is perfect and it is more important to be able to analyze your failures and prevent them from happening again.
I was a good student in college even though I occasionally skipped some classes or showed up drunk to others (I was a senior and I had an evening class on Thursdays, give me a break). But I always had plenty of productive side projects, which opened more doors post graduation than anything I learned in class. Often times, however, I would have difficulty showing folks older than my cohort that such projects were a better use of my time than studying.
Bringing current students into the admissions system and communicating with prospective students would not only provide a perspective that no essay or standardized test could ever accomplish, but it would also give prospective students the chance to understand the culture of colleges they're interested in, the difference between looking good on paper and feeling good inside.
College admissions will never be fair until legacy admissions are eliminated. It is absurd that in 2016 universities still give an advantage to applicants simply for being children of alumni, a nepotistic and unfair system that inhibits social mobility that reduces racial and economic diversity that colleges claim to love.
61
Unfortunately, alumni kids are often more successful at graduating than those with no connection. Still, better to keep legacy admits low.
THey are private universities. They can do what they want and it is completely fair. What would be unfair would be to force them to admit students based on what the government thinks is the right mix.
Would you eliminate athletes and the very wealthy as well? They often receive more of a boost, comparable to hundreds of points on the SAT, in the admissions calculations at elite schools.
Some would argue, although I wouldn't, that all three categories bring real benefits to the institutions where they are admitted. In short, what is the balance of the University's responsibilities between its own well-being and the common good. That is a fuller discussion worth having.
Some would argue, although I wouldn't, that all three categories bring real benefits to the institutions where they are admitted. In short, what is the balance of the University's responsibilities between its own well-being and the common good. That is a fuller discussion worth having.
As I have a child in 9th grade, this is great news. Our children are going to benefit greatly from this new report. Thank God colleges are coming to their senses.
Though paid SAT and ACT tutors account for some of affluent students' higher standardized test scores, my hunch is that larger contributors are "assortative mating" and Western defined measures of intelligence. The rest of the column seems sane but in an insane world and thus difficult to imagine coming to fruition.
8
"They’re realizing that many kids admitted into top schools are emotional wrecks or slavish adherents to soulless scripts that forbid the exploration of genuine passions."
This column is a mess. A big mess as evidenced by the above quote. What does it even mean? And if you believe you can decipher its meaning; what is the evidence supporting the conclusions?
This column is a mess. A big mess as evidenced by the above quote. What does it even mean? And if you believe you can decipher its meaning; what is the evidence supporting the conclusions?
27
what is the evidence supporting the conclusions?
none. It makes you wonder what school Bruni graduated from.
none. It makes you wonder what school Bruni graduated from.
I've met those kids. Those are the ones with tiger parents who run their lives. Most kids don't experience that in the US - easy going families, slacker kids, focus on social and sports. But the ones applying to MIT, Hvd and Stanford have higher percentages of tiger parent control.
Have you read about Palo Alto high schoolers suicides? This is an example of neurotic over-parenting pressure. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-silicon-valley-s...
1
"Colleges are becoming more conscious of their roles — too frequently neglected — in social mobility. They’re recognizing how many admissions measures favor students from affluent families."
No kidding. My understanding was that this was the point of the whole exercise. Not to put too fine a point on it, much of what passes as education from well manicured, picture-perfect liberal arts colleges to world-renowned universities is really finishing school for the social and cultural elite, much the way law schools and business schools do in post-graduate professional education. Let's face it, beginning on the date of their graduation, and maybe even before then, students and their parents are inundated with pleas for donations. They come in many forms and levels of sophistication – high-minded; flattering; conveying an attitude of urgency and concern; whatever but needs to be pushed to get them to contribute, including the ever-popular promise of testamentary gifts and bequests.
And who might you think would be expected to have the money to do that extended giving? Not the kid whose parents work three jobs to put food on the table. Not the kid whose parents are living paycheck to paycheck.
It's a known fact that on average, recent college graduates are making less money today than had been the case to three decades ago, and they are saddled with educational loans that may not be paid down for decades.
At the same time public colleges and universities are starved for funds.
No kidding. My understanding was that this was the point of the whole exercise. Not to put too fine a point on it, much of what passes as education from well manicured, picture-perfect liberal arts colleges to world-renowned universities is really finishing school for the social and cultural elite, much the way law schools and business schools do in post-graduate professional education. Let's face it, beginning on the date of their graduation, and maybe even before then, students and their parents are inundated with pleas for donations. They come in many forms and levels of sophistication – high-minded; flattering; conveying an attitude of urgency and concern; whatever but needs to be pushed to get them to contribute, including the ever-popular promise of testamentary gifts and bequests.
And who might you think would be expected to have the money to do that extended giving? Not the kid whose parents work three jobs to put food on the table. Not the kid whose parents are living paycheck to paycheck.
It's a known fact that on average, recent college graduates are making less money today than had been the case to three decades ago, and they are saddled with educational loans that may not be paid down for decades.
At the same time public colleges and universities are starved for funds.
18
What if the elite schools all said you must have at least a 3.6 GPA and 600 or better on each SAT test to get into the Lottery. Then pick em out of a barrel. They are all good kids at that level anyway and they could certainly do the work. HS could become a wonderful time in a successful child's life once again.
31
tom, no it would not. getting that 3.6 and 600 sat still require great effort (at least for most students).
There's a big difference between the potential of a student with a 2400 SAT score and one with an 1800.
In other words, tell all the kids with a 3.5 GPA from an elite high school that they're not in the running for an elite college, while those with a (wildly inflated) 3.6 from a lousy high school are eligible, as long as they get 600's?
Grade inflation and SAT tutoring will increase not diminish.
Grade inflation and SAT tutoring will increase not diminish.
Institutional laziness plays a large role in perpetuating the perception that an education from an elite school is a prerequisite career success. Eight Supreme Court justices have degrees from either Harvard or Yale, and Justice Ginsburg finished at Columbia after beginning her studies at Harvard. Do we really think that no other law schools in our country produce the caliber of legal scholarship and practice to warrant a Supreme Court appointment? Perhaps our Presidents past, present and future have gone with the "safe" choice represented by the elite schools. Such bias towards elite schools plays out when populating leadership positions in both public and private sectors.
We might diversify our leadership by broadening the range of students attending elite schools. However, these students will also be homogenized by their elite educational experience. Rather, to enable true diversification we need make the effort to look well beyond elite schools for our leaders in business and government.
We might diversify our leadership by broadening the range of students attending elite schools. However, these students will also be homogenized by their elite educational experience. Rather, to enable true diversification we need make the effort to look well beyond elite schools for our leaders in business and government.
11
Absolutely agree. How is it that the powers that be are doing everything they can to force "diversity" on all aspects of our lives from college admissions to government hiring to now even all midsize and large corporation hirings, yet the supreme court itself is anything but diverse? Where is the geographical diversity when all 9 judges came from only 2 law schools located in a single small region in the country namely the Northeast? All 9 SCOTUS judges should come from 9 different law schools from 9 different parts of the country.
The last 2 presidents who went to Harvard and Yale collectively ran the country to the ground. The next president of the US must *NOT* be someone who went to Harvard or Yale!
The last 2 presidents who went to Harvard and Yale collectively ran the country to the ground. The next president of the US must *NOT* be someone who went to Harvard or Yale!
2
All presidents since Ronald Reagan went to Harvard or Yale. So will the next one (I think.)
Unfortunately, SAT/ACT scores are the only fair and unbiased measure that exists. Everything else is subjective and influenced by the prejudices of the person making the assessment. Grades are inflated, and differ (for the same achievement) from school to school, even from teacher to teacher. Letters of recommendation are uniformly dishonest, inflating ordinary accomplishment into genius. "Service" and "giving back" extracurricular activities only exist to pad resumes, doing almost nothing for those supposedly helped (high school students have nothing, other than their parents' money and their unskilled labor, to give).
This is a call to give even more arbitrary power and discretion to admissions offices (often staffed by alumni incapable of making it in the real world).
This is a call to give even more arbitrary power and discretion to admissions offices (often staffed by alumni incapable of making it in the real world).
160
Bingo! Hit the nail on the head. This is nothing but a call to add more fuzzy logic to the already fuzzy and opaque admissions criteria to these schools.
9
As long as high-quality EFFECTIVE SAT/ACT coaching is available to people with higher incomes and not to working class people, the SAT/ACT will overstate the potential of the children from those higher income families.
14
Test scores are neither fair or unbiased. They are simply numbers that appear to be. Expensive tests preparation course and private educations consistently yield higher scores for the higher income students.
5
"SAT scores are highly correlated with income" -- classic "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. The reason higher income kids tend to do better is because they tend to be smarter and harder working. People who excel on tests are smart, period. Even Kindergarten kids know who the smart kids are in each class, why do adult liberals keep trying to tell us we are all born with equal IQ, therefore the only people who do well are those whose parents have money to buy them test prep? Are they that brain dead?
What does the "elite" stand for in our elite colleges anyway? With at least 40% of seats reserved for legacy applicants, 10% for athletes, 10% for blacks, 10% for hispanics, 5% for the obscure oboist or bassoonist, 5% for "development" cases, 10% for international applicants incl. sons and daughters of the world's richest or political elites, each incoming freshman class in our elite colleges has no more than 10% of seats available for the unhooked middle class white or asian kids. It's amazing there remain so many suckers who think they actually have a shot just by killing themselves with AP classes and ECs.
It's time for high school kids and their parents to wise up. A degree from your local state U is every bit as good and cost 1/3 as much. Instead of killing yourselves for a lottery ticket, use the time freed up by fewer AP classes and ECs to find and explore your passion and spend more time together as a family instead.
What does the "elite" stand for in our elite colleges anyway? With at least 40% of seats reserved for legacy applicants, 10% for athletes, 10% for blacks, 10% for hispanics, 5% for the obscure oboist or bassoonist, 5% for "development" cases, 10% for international applicants incl. sons and daughters of the world's richest or political elites, each incoming freshman class in our elite colleges has no more than 10% of seats available for the unhooked middle class white or asian kids. It's amazing there remain so many suckers who think they actually have a shot just by killing themselves with AP classes and ECs.
It's time for high school kids and their parents to wise up. A degree from your local state U is every bit as good and cost 1/3 as much. Instead of killing yourselves for a lottery ticket, use the time freed up by fewer AP classes and ECs to find and explore your passion and spend more time together as a family instead.
98
You forget: Parents with higher incomes and better educations themselves (and I'm lucky to be one) quickly learn the value of PSAT/SAT/ACT coaching. The best coaches don't come cheap, but they get results, results that can add 50 to 100 points or more. And it shows. "Back in my day" (I hate that expression) anyone getting an 800 on ANY SAT test could just about pick the Ivy or Ivy-equivalent school they wanted! Now? The numbers of kids with 800s in middle-class and upper-middle-class schools is surprisingly common. (36 on the ACT is the same). Why? It's not that the kids are any smarter, although their study habits may be more rigorous (my kids certainly have far better study habits than I did, but so did my wife).
No, it's that expensive coaching, which, is yet another edge those with higher incomes can provide to their kids.
No, it's that expensive coaching, which, is yet another edge those with higher incomes can provide to their kids.
20
I've coached a lot of kids in baseball and I have no idea on what basis you believe that higher income kids tend to be smarter and harder working. I have seen many less privileged kids work circles around better off kids. Same with intellegence. Also, i have seen a number of kids do poorly on their first attempt at SAT/ACT exams. Then a couple of thousand dollars of intensive training courses, their scores improved considerably. Recourses (economic) have a lot to do with access to such prep courses as well as to better quality schools, etc.
18
"SAT scores are highly correlated with income"? Smart people have smart kids.
8
A place at an elite college needs to be earned, somehow. The colleges need to be transparent about what this criteria is to avoid being the defendants in some very nasty lawsuits. Elite schools need to be very careful to ensure that all students, however they are admitted, are actually able to do the work without further watering down the curriculum and that those who need it have proper support. My friends in academia tell me that already there have been significant reductions in written work and heavier reliance on short answer exams because even students at elite schools lack the analytical and writing skills to complete more complex assignments.
35
Sad. We need better critical thinkers coming out of leading institutions.
1
Thank you! This is welcome news. May I add that USN&WR needs to revise the rankings from using only stats of students going in and instead use measures of outcomes, and not just of pay. Who cares what goes in? All that's important is what comes out. USN&WR should also stop punishing colleges that stop using standardized test scores, like Hampshire or Sarah Lawrence--both stuck at or near the bottom of their list on occasion as what could only be perceived as punishment for bucking the USN&WR mighty dictum on standardized tests.
More colleges should look to Bennington, Bard, and Goucher in offering an alternative application. Similarly engineering and premed programs should stop the weeder classes that sap good talent. Look at Olin and Harvey Mudd for better approaches.
Colleges also need to 1) stop filling the classes with students from China and other countries that pay the inflated sticker price, under the guise of "diversity"; 2) show actual fees on websites and lowering fees by stop building such expensive buildings; 3) pay coaches reasonable salaries and stop the mushroom cloud of administrators; 4) students should scale back expectations about the speed with which administrators respond to their every whim; 5) state schools should bring their cost of housing/ fees in line. State schools seem to keep tuition relatively low but then chooch students in fees and room and board, such that an in-state college degree now can cost about $100K.
More colleges should look to Bennington, Bard, and Goucher in offering an alternative application. Similarly engineering and premed programs should stop the weeder classes that sap good talent. Look at Olin and Harvey Mudd for better approaches.
Colleges also need to 1) stop filling the classes with students from China and other countries that pay the inflated sticker price, under the guise of "diversity"; 2) show actual fees on websites and lowering fees by stop building such expensive buildings; 3) pay coaches reasonable salaries and stop the mushroom cloud of administrators; 4) students should scale back expectations about the speed with which administrators respond to their every whim; 5) state schools should bring their cost of housing/ fees in line. State schools seem to keep tuition relatively low but then chooch students in fees and room and board, such that an in-state college degree now can cost about $100K.
34
Frank Bruni has been a welcome and leading voice on this issue. I teach at a college that serves "the underserved" he references here. Mr. Bruni visited our campus and gave a stirring talk to our students and faculty last spring. His message (that excellence can be found at all types of colleges and that college is what you make of it) had a profound and positive impact on our students. I'm glad that elite colleges are responding to his message to end the college admissions arms race as well.
4
I wonder if the book squarely confronts the degree (pun intended) to which college has become a mere credentialing/gatekeeping institution in our economy (especially for the automated resume reviewing software for filtering job applicants).
I also wonder if the authors engage how much they changes they recommend might not only be seen in a positive light (to reduce the salience of affluence in admissions) but also in a negative light (as a way to finesse the admission of applicants from families of East and South Asian ancestry).
I also wonder if the authors engage how much they changes they recommend might not only be seen in a positive light (to reduce the salience of affluence in admissions) but also in a negative light (as a way to finesse the admission of applicants from families of East and South Asian ancestry).
2
I am certain in this new world, the quality of essay writing will be in no way correlated to a family's wealth the way SAT scores were. This should certainly solve the problem.
5
Every year, the same 35-40,000 high school seniors apply to the same group of Ivy League, Ivy League equivalent schools and near-Ivy League equivalent--the top 15-25 or so schools ranked by US News. The process is slip-shod, random, biased (legacy students getting priority), "diverse" (ethnic and geographic check boxes) and generally absurd. The Admissions Director at the U-Chicago flatly stated that if you bypassed everyone they admitted (was it 3,000?) and admitted the next group, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference! Now this calamity is for the theoretical "smartest" of that year's senior class. It just makes NO sense.
Some schools, if they sense they are not the applicant's first choice, or they think they are the "safety" school, may wait-list or even reject a student who appears to exceed their standards!
There needs to be a far better system of guiding students toward appropriate colleges and universities where their educational needs, and their ability to be accepted, so they can succeed.
Perhaps the number of administrators in school systems can be reduced so more and better qualified guidance counselors can be hired so EVERY senior gets the guidance he or she needs. They are better than they were when I was applying, in the early 70's but that's just one area of improvement.
Better guidance from the colleges and universities is needed but they guard that data like it is the nuclear launch codes!
Some schools, if they sense they are not the applicant's first choice, or they think they are the "safety" school, may wait-list or even reject a student who appears to exceed their standards!
There needs to be a far better system of guiding students toward appropriate colleges and universities where their educational needs, and their ability to be accepted, so they can succeed.
Perhaps the number of administrators in school systems can be reduced so more and better qualified guidance counselors can be hired so EVERY senior gets the guidance he or she needs. They are better than they were when I was applying, in the early 70's but that's just one area of improvement.
Better guidance from the colleges and universities is needed but they guard that data like it is the nuclear launch codes!
5
If the U of Chicago guy's statement were remotely true, how do you explain how hard schools compete for the very top students?
1
I cannot explain it and can only make a wild guess.
But we were visiting U-Chic on the annual "Junior Spring Break College Tour" every parent and HS junior goes through and we heard him make that very remark. I didn't get it 2nd or 3rd hand.
My best guess is that they want the biggest pot of soup to ladle from so that the 2nd ladle is as good as the first.
But we were visiting U-Chic on the annual "Junior Spring Break College Tour" every parent and HS junior goes through and we heard him make that very remark. I didn't get it 2nd or 3rd hand.
My best guess is that they want the biggest pot of soup to ladle from so that the 2nd ladle is as good as the first.
USN&WR ranking are based on such things as freshman students' grades, test scores, etc. PLUS the number of students who apply for admission. Thus even the "elite" schools keep trying to get more and more, and "better" and "better" students to apply, just to keep up their rankings.
I support the effort to enhance admission opportunities for disadvantaged students. However, I don't see how anything is going to change the competitive nature of admissions for the most selective schools. Change the criteria and you'll just change the way in which students compete. They can compete on grades, test scores, or extracurricular activities. Or they can compete in the quality of their essays, etc. I suppose you could make the admissions criteria opaque so that students don't know the basis on which they're competing, but somehow, I don't see this reducing the anxiety.
17
In the interest of full disclosure, I attended the 10th highest ranked national university. That and $2.50 gets you coffee at Dunkin' Doughnuts. The degree that pays the bills came from a university which once had the nickname Suntan U. I agree with the writer's premise that the admissions policies of most colleges and universities are flawed. If only parents, but more importantly students, were aware that much of the admissions decision has nothing to do with one's academic and/or testing performance, rather it has to do with that year's gimmick that the athletic/music/art/or some other department needs. Where did I learn about that? When working with a person who recruited students for the military academies. When it came time for my children to apply to schools, they were encouraged to find a place where they felt comfortable and not cow tow to the snobbism associated with the Ivy and Near Ivy league schools. Today they are doing just fine thank-you. If more parents had my experience, maybe they would allow their children to grow up, explore options on their own, and learn something rather than wasting money and going deep into debt.
9
Ivy League educations open the door to many occupations that are simply closed to the 99% peons. Hence the value.
I have seen the negative effects college admissions has had in my community. It's not about education, but hoop jumping, and the kids know it. Everyone can learn the subjects taught in high school given the right conditions, but the right conditions are afforded to only a select few. And the college admission process feeds this dysfunction by catering to those with the most access and support. Many smart and creative kids without access get eaten up by the hoop jump system. Take the meaningless hoops away and cater the system to diverse skill-sets not always acknowledged in the grade-book or the SAT or the"resume". Or better, change the grade-book, the SAT and the "resume". There are leaders and workers out there that are getting squashed by the nonsense, their offerings for our communities squandered by the process.
We can do better. Foster imagination, not multiple choice; feed creativity, not memorization; enable real reading, not textbook glazing for points. And if the College Admission people can influence that by changing the process, you can bet that the High Schools will follow their lead.
We can do better. Foster imagination, not multiple choice; feed creativity, not memorization; enable real reading, not textbook glazing for points. And if the College Admission people can influence that by changing the process, you can bet that the High Schools will follow their lead.
84
It's ridiculous. One of my kids was joking around with one of her friends. Friend and my kid had identical grades except friend was a little higher because she had study hall and my kid had an unweighted A for being on newspaper staff which pulled her grade DOWN. What makes a more capable and interesting kid, study hall or newspaper staff?
9
Maryw,
in the larger schema of things (and all other things being equal) probably neither.
in the larger schema of things (and all other things being equal) probably neither.
Yet our public schools start "teaching to the test" starting in Kindergarten. In the guise of accountability, we force schools to over-test, and the kids suffer. Fix teacher training. Pay teachers better. Offer early childhood ed to at-risk kids. Raise all the boats, and we can worry less about who gets into Harvard.
2
It is not enough to stop weighting admissions policies in favor of these criteria. Not pay enough attention is paid to the distortions that result from huge over-emphasis on spectator sports. Among those hurt the most are smart college athletes discouraged from signing up for courses that would open their minds to the world beyond games they play. I especially remember a star basketball player from an inner-city high school. He developed an interest in literature that the athletic department frowned upon. He was obliged to forego a much needed summer course to improve his writing skills in order to have his wisdom teeth taken out.