"Admissions Revolution"

Parent Cafe
121

<p>Anyone of us can spend 30 minutes and come up with a list of what is "wrong" about the admissions' process, without even discussing about the financial and racial issues that are so divisive. What is eminently harder is to formulate suggestions that are workable, as watchdog groups such as FairTest or the Princeton Review Foundation have discovered. </p>

<p>Obviously, before formulating suggestions, let alone solutions, one has to have a modicum of understanding of the concepts. Arrogance and venom set aside, while I still think that Thacker is nothing more than a mad dog barking at all passing cars and a clueless arriviste, I am prepared to find out if there is a message beyond all the noise. There is hope: I find myself agreeing with Thacker on the "laundry" issue-despite my strong suspicion he does not know where the manipulation takes place. Blind hogs and acorns come to mind. </p>

<p>So, after removing the overly hackneyed accusatory soundbites, is there a message worth listening to?</p>

122

<p>Well, Xiggi, from what I can tell at this point, even though there is no overarching game-plan for reform or "blueprint" yet, (and who knows if there is even going to be one) quite a number of people think that the following basic message from the Education Conservancy (hackneyed or not) should be listened to:</p>

<p>"We Admit ... Guidance From Those Who Do" </p>

<p><a href="http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gc6SWLjEN7MJ:rowland-hall.org/pdfs/college/summer06/education_conservancy.pdf+education+conservancy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=firefox-a%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gc6SWLjEN7MJ:rowland-hall.org/pdfs/college/summer06/education_conservancy.pdf+education+conservancy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=firefox-a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

123

<p>Asterisk, aren't solutions supposed to come from advocating colleges to make changes? Where are the lofty principles for the colleges to follow? Afraid to bite the hands that feed him, Mr. Thacker? Of course, it is easier to blame the commercialism of the process by focusing on the providers and users of service rather than analyzing WHY the services became needed in the first place. Of course, Kaplan and USNews are destroying the process, but the marketing firms and enrollment managers hired by the schools are there to help the students! Indeed, let's go back to a time where the good ol' boys network ruled the day, and the public remained uninformed! /sarcasm!</p>

<p>The value and depth of THAT trite message must be in the eye of the beholder. Is there anything we haven't read or heard ad nauseam? How is this different from reading the Nacac web site or ... College Confidential. Where is the vision? Where are the novel ideas? And more importantly, what are the changes that could support the wish list aka principles?</p>

<p>If the message "We Admit ... Guidance From Those Who Do" is the only thing Thacker has to offer, I guess I'll have to wait a few months or years.</p>

124

<p>Xiggi, of course the changes have to come from the advocating colleges (as I assume they will be given the long list of names found at the end of the Education Conservancy message) - that is the whole point and probably is also the main reason why we don't even have an overarching blueprint. As Thacker keeps on saying, he provides the stage and, hopefully that stage will provide the venue for such a blueprint. At this point, it is quite clear that each college will have to take a stand and then send clear and unequivocal signals both to the public and to the admissions world exactly what entails admission reform. You also have to admit that you are not at all average when it comes to college admissions - years on CC, if nothing else, has seen to that. The message sent out by the Education Conservancy is quite general (even trite or old hat to savvy CC veterans) and aimed, one would think, at the general, newbie public. The process is obviously not as transparent as we would like but that, too, takes time and a concerted effort on the part of "consumers" and "producers" to strike a balance that serves all of our best interests.</p>

<p>Btw, if you are interested in college rankings and manipulation, check out the CHERI Cornell site on the "Use and Abuse of College Rankings"</p>

125

<p>Asterisk, I guess that, at the end of the day, we are entitled to our opinions and call it as we see it. If there is a need for a platform, a stage, or a venue to foster discussions, I simply do not see Lloyd Thacker to be remotely qualified to lead such effort. I also have the strongest reservations about the integrity of his whole organization, starting with the source of his original funding. I also have the strongest reservations about the process he has followed. So far, he has indeed built a "stage" but mostly for the colleges to defend, explain, or defend their positions. That was what the book was all about: a mere compendium long on disparate opinions and positions, but short on ideas, especially Thackers'! </p>

<p>Again, if a stage is needed, we need more than a carpenter who merely nails one together; we need someone who has the ability to understand the available information sufficiently to address the issues as they should. We do not need another "reporter" or "preaching alarmist." Since the inception of the EC, it is utterly obvious that Thacker does not understand the issues very clearly, and that the route he has selected is simply one that can ensure the well-being of Thacker and ... Thacker only. </p>

<p>His message might appeal to a few, and it may very well be that his audience ought to be one that is poorly educated, easily misled, or happily unaware of the problems.</p>

126

<p>Not to comment on Thacker, but it strikes me that if the admissions process were to be transformed there would need to be a double revolution:</p>

<p>The colleges targeted by EC and Thacker would need to stop trying to build a community; this would allow them to stop weighing non-academic factors;
k-12 education would need to be revolutionized so that there was more of a level playing field and adcoms were more confident in GPAs and curricula from different schools. </p>

<p>I don't see it happening any time soon. This is why Thacker's message is not really new. It's been said many times in the past. i'm not even sure the tendency of college adcoms to bemoan the current situation is really new, either, so their willingness to get together to do so may be.</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
Lloyd Thacker, the executive director of the Education Conservancy, a nonprofit group created to lobby for an overhaul in admissions procedures, said his eyes had teared up when he heard the news. “I’m so glad,” Mr.Thacker said. “I can’t believe it.’’</p>

<p>“The most powerful institution in the country is saying, singularly, yes, something is wrong with this and we’re going to try to act in the public interest,’’ he added.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So the news today, that Harvard is ending Early Admissions, might suggest that we're beginning to see the reform we've been looking for.</p>

128

<p>You may remember that Yale’s president sent up a trial balloon on this a few years ago and the silence was deafening. It took someone with Derek Bok’s backbone to take the first step. I guess it’s called leadership. How many other colleges will follow is anyone’s guess, but historically Harvard has had major influence in the admissions world. President Conant made admissions more meritocratic and, in that connection, promoted standardized admissions tests. (Boy, it’s been a long trip on that issue!) Eventually, everyone else followed. I bet Bok, who has the historical view of higher education, is acting in that tradition, hoping to stimulate change.<br>
Thanks and credit also have to go to Lloyd Thacker of the Education Conservancy for starting the public discussion of these issues.</p>

129

<p>Xiggi does a good job all by himself bashing Thacker, but I will point out that The Early Admissions Game came out in 2003 while the Education Conservancy was launched in 2004. Prior to the publication of the book, there had been lots of discussions of the downsides of early admissions already. Richard Levin of Yale criticized the early admissions system in 2001.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nearly a year after he initiated a national debate over early admissions policies, Yale President Richard Levin announced Wednesday that the University will adopt a nonbinding early action policy beginning with the Class of 2008.</p>

<p>The decision, which Levin said was the first step toward encouraging the elimination of all early admissions programs, was made on the same day that Stanford University also announced a shift from early decision to early action. Under both Yale and Stanford's policies, students will only be able to apply early to one school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=20619%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=20619&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

130

<p>Thacker would never take credit for originating these issues. He has, however, connected all the dots and provided a comprehensive critique of admissions practices, given a voice to the critics and acted as a convenor for those who share these concerns. For this, he deserves thanks and credit.</p>

131

<p>"Thanks and credit also have to go to Lloyd Thacker of the Education Conservancy for starting the public discussion of these issues."</p>

<p>Nope! And not in the least to boot. </p>

<p>As I wrote many times, the changes in admissions HAVE to come from the colleges themselves. Thacker has been harping on the commercialization of admissions and preached for STUDENTS and FAMILIES to change. Don't take MY word for it ... go and look for HIS manifesto on his website. Where is it? All we have this BS proposal of being a builder of a stage. People THINK that Thackers says this or that, but does he? Like a mad dog, he barks at all the traffic, with the secret hope that one of his "positions" would hit. Utterly ridiculous! </p>

<p>The few reasonable elements of his positions are dwarfed by his blatant hypocrisy.</p>

<p>And lastly, about "Thacker would never take credit for originating these issues." Just wait a few hours for this arrivist and fraud to issue a press release!</p>

132

<p>Xiggi, your rants on Lloyd Thacker approach the irrational. </p>

<p>I cannot believe that if you had read his book carefully or heard him speak that you would conclude that his message is that students and families have to change. From the beginning, he has taken colleges and universities to task for commercializing the admissions process, violating the public trust, and not taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. He has provided a venue for those within the college admissions community who are concerned about the current state of affairs, including their own practices. And he has brought a group of college presidents and foundation representatives together to consider how college admissions can be conducted, as he puts it, "in the public interest."</p>

133

<p>From this morning's NY Times front page story:</p>

<p>Lloyd Thacker, the executive director of the Education Conservancy, a nonprofit group created to lobby for an overhaul in admissions procedures, said his eyes had teared up when he heard the news. “I’m so glad,” Mr.Thacker said. “I can’t believe it.’’</p>

134

<p>So, it sounds as if Harvard acted without reference to Mr. Thacker, no? But Thacker benefitted from being quoted in the article.</p>

135

<p>Marite, Harvard's Dean of Admissions is an Education Conservancy supporter, and he contributed a chapter to Thacker's "College Unranked." I'm not suggesting that Harvard asked Thacker's permission :) but certainly they've talked</p>

136

<p>Yes, of course. But it sounds to me that many of the adcoms had considered the issues Thacker has raised well before he appeared on the scene; and frankly, when Harvard talks, the media listens more readily than when Thacker does. As witness the spate of coverage. NPR, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, etc...</p>

<p>I see Thacker as more of an impresario than a real innovator. Impresarios have their uses.</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
Impresarios have their use

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Precisely.</p>

138

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, your rants on Lloyd Thacker approach the irrational. </p>

<p>I cannot believe that if you had read his book carefully or heard him speak that you would conclude that his message is that students and families have to change. From the beginning, he has taken colleges and universities to task for commercializing the admissions process, violating the public trust, and not taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. He has provided a venue for those within the college admissions community who are concerned about the current state of affairs, including their own practices. And he has brought a group of college presidents and foundation representatives together to consider how college admissions can be conducted, as he puts it, "in the public interest."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>RevoltedMom, have YOU read the book and hear him speak? Do YOU remotely understand what EC's message is, and has been since its inception. Please do not insult the intelligence and integrity of others for the sole purpose of trying to make a point you assume ought to be made. </p>

<p>Have you EVER wondered WHY I find someone such as Thacker to be so ... revolting? Have you ever wondered why someone who has written hundreds of posts on the process of admission NOT be squarely in the camp of someone who purporterly seeks positive changes? Do you really think I adorn Thacker's back with the label of frauds and arrivist without a modicum of research, and this since the days our old friend Carolyn introduced the EC to College Confidential? Do you think I have some kind of pixelized deathwish to ridicule myself with irrational positions? </p>

<p>FWIW, I do not jump into arguments with my ears closed and my eyes shut. I read about everything that has been written about this person ... as well as sought with GREAT interest to understand what he might be saying. In particular, I searched for what HE may have written. And what was the outcome of this "search"? A glaring sea of nothingness, retreaded arguments, and not much more. </p>

<p>Please DO tell me how much was written by Thacker in HIS opus? Did it amount to more than the output expected from of a high school senior? Where else should we turn our eyes and ears to? Listening to his interviews on the Lopate show ... and have to question the authenticity of his "discussions" or "meetings" with the Columbia professor. Heck, nobody told ol' Lloyd stories had to be true, as long as they make good press. </p>

<p>So, what do we have in the end: a carpenter of platforms where colleges can stand on? An impresario trying to locate a decent script? Well, that may work and even have some results--have to have hope since blind hogs do find acorns or pricey truffles. In the meantime, I see him more as a naive puppet of the actors he is pretending to ... defend us from. The feudal system hasn't died entirely! </p>

<p>But, please, do not pretend for a nanosecond that Harvard's decision has ANYTHING to do with this hypocritical snake oil peddler. Harvard does what is in the best interest of Harvard. Thacker does what is in his own best interest. Even if their paths might cross, it is a mere coincidence. At best!</p>

<p>PS What did I say about the press. The day is not over yet!</p>

139

<p>The rich will always find a way to beat the system. That's how most of them got that way. I am willing to bet that in 5 years there will be little change in the profile of students at elite schools.</p>

140

<p>interesting column on why Thacker is doomed to fail todays Higher Ed:</p>

<p><a href="http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/10/06/vanbuskirk%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/10/06/vanbuskirk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>