<p>Wow. This hits new lows on terms of arbitrary admissions. Lets just throw out all grades and see how well kids can sing kumbaya.</p>
<p>ilove,</p>
<p>you mean to say the process is not arbitrary now? With elite colleges making SAT score distinctions that have no statistical meaning? That's not arbitrary? You mean comparing class ranks and GPAs from kids attending completely different schools is not arbitrary?</p>
<p>OH.</p>
<p>I believe Tufts plans to make the whacko (not sure what to call them) essay questions optional, so they should still get the same number of applications, although this could allow them to identify applicants who are more serious about attending Tufts. </p>
<p>Also, when they say "future leaders" they are not just talking about elected politicians, but school principals, company presidents or founders, senior partners at law firms, university department heads, nobel prize winners, those types of leaders. </p>
<p>I think it's a great idea, and I expect they will identify students that were given an admission edge due to their special essay questions, and then track their rate of enrollment and their success in school as a group.</p>
<p>tufts is sad now.. GO IVIES</p>
<p>OOOO.... I was one of the first few people to sample the Tufts creativity test. I applied to Tufts this past year and the applicants from my school had to take this optional test. Basically, it asked us to write a creative essay on one of the given topics and we also had to draw. A lot of applicants did not take the test because they said they couldn't write or/and draw. Personally, I really liked the test because I was able to express my thinking. Other parts of the application allow us to display our accomplishments, but this test allows us to show who we really are through our written expression.</p>
<p>How was the writing administered? It's probable that this program was an extension of the original idea.</p>
<p>The Tufts experiment does beg the question what is "thinking outside the box", what is creativity, and how can it be measured and just how can this information be used to make admissions decisions. </p>
<p>The following website is a fun resource on the subject of student creativity and caring for one's inner muse from convergent to divergent thinking to the synthetic melding of sythetic, analytical and practical thought a la Sternberg. The watch-word for Sternberg's research and approach to IQ is "successful intelligence" - this puts an emphasis on how different types of thinking are involved in creating the next generation of "successful people", eg. leaders, in whatever line of work or study they decide to pursue. In this context, nothing much is new in the admissions process - colleges still want to invest in students whom they perceive to have the greatest chance of "success". The twist is in the different ways of finding it. </p>
<p>Is it just me, or does all this stuff seem like a lot of horse manure?</p>
<p>I say the new approach is, despite all the mumbo-jumbo, a thinly-disguised rationalization for:</p>
<p>(1) a policy deemphasizing admissions factors which have made it more difficult to increase so-called "diversity", and </p>
<p>(2) an "enrollment management" technique designed to increase the yield rate by admitting those deemed more likely to matriculate, regardless of traditional measures of academic "merit".</p>
<p>Frankly, isn't that just another part of the twist?</p>
<p>I have to think Byerly is correct. Its the same old arbitrary, relatively random admission strategy dressed up in new clothes. If NJres is correct (do you know this for sure?) that the leaders in question are school principals, Nobel prize winners etc, then we will not have the results of this experiment for at least thirty years and I will be too old to care.</p>
<p>Branding strategy, image, enrollment management - remember, these folks are thinking outside of the box. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncmark.com/html/higher.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.ncmark.com/html/higher.htm</a></p>
<p>Before everynoe decides to stamp Tufts into the ground (as is apparently rather common on these boards) we seem to forget that Tufts really is a highly selective, very well-known and respected university that only takes the best students. Now, I'm not trying to be a poster-board for the school, but I believe that its geographic location has done more to hurt it than anything else. The idea of "Tufts Syndrome" and "Tufts as a safety" relaistically makes little or no sense, especially when the school has been employing the same stringent admissions criteria that can be found at other top universities and LAC's. Yes, yield needs to brought up, but the same applies for most "elite" colleges in the US, with the exception of some of the Ivies. It is a result of the best students getting into multiple schools w/ excellent reputations, thus choosing a school ultimately for other reasons. This is merely an experiment in selecting academically top students with an application that hopefully will allow for more of their talent(s) to show through, thus separating the truly exceptional student from the masses of other strong applicants.</p>
<p>DXer, couldn't agree with you more except to point out that for Sternberg and the rainbow experiment, the term "exceptional" also applies to students with less than stellar stats that might otherwise fall through the cracks. If the image fits, if the college delivers, if students and parents benefit from a conscientious effort to improve public and, yes, customer relations (and sorry to say but Tufts does need the revamp), and this all leads to a stronger applicant pool and higher yield - well then, that is not hype it's just a job well done.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is trying to dump on Tufts or suggest that it is not a fine university. IMO the tenor of the discussion on this thread has been a fair degree of skepticism regarding tuft's promotion of this new admission initiative. It seems both the motives behind and methods being used in this endeavor are open to a number of criticisms that Tufts should probably find a way to answer.</p>
<p>I don't think the criticism of Tufts is fair. Sternberg has been conducting research on how to identify intelligence well before Tufts hired him away from Yale. The issues he raises have been raised by other adcoms. What I am a bit skeptical about is whether the changes he proposes are as dramatic as is being claimed. Are essays the best way to evaluate outside the box creativity in a number of fields? Will the greater weight put on essays lead to more attempts to game them? Will they disadvantage some groups (internationals who are unfamiliar with American history or culture; applicants who may excel in one field but hate certain types of questions?) Are outside the box thinkers the kind who do well enough on standardized tests though do not score the highest or do their outside the box thinking lead them to bomb the tests? In that case, how much weight to accord standardized tests?</p>
<p>Issues like these have nothing to do with Tufts per se. I met Tufts new president a few years ago and came away extremely impressed by his dynamism and his plans for making Tufts an even better school than it already is.</p>
<p>According to Sternberg, his years of research at Yale on "The Rainbow Study showed that you can 'admit a more diverse group of students and simultaneously increase academic excellence.'" He has the highest hopes that Tufts can become the "national leader in enlightened admissions policies." That certainly is a dramatic claim! We can expect highly creative changes to any part of the Tufts application includiong essays, recommendations, as well as the interview. According to the Dean of Admissions, Lee Coffin, the analytical part will still be there - the new rainbow inspired additions will allow the Admissions Office to sort the applicant pool in different ways among those judged to be academically qualified. </p>
<p>The expected changes at Tufts most likely won't stop there either - Sternberg proposes to use his years of research at PACE on successful intelligence "to teach professors about the different styles of learning students have and how to best teach them." </p>
<p>So, it seems even "old" dogs can learn new tricks.</p>
<p>I do agree that Tufts needs a new PR campaign; It seems to me that they need to be better known by the general public as a top university -- the public outside professional and academic worlds. </p>
<p>"and this all leads to a stronger applicant pool and higher yield" </p>
<p>-- Of course, we'll have to see about yield. I would strongly disagree on the question of "stronger applicant pool" however, as Tufts is already a target school for the best students in the US, competing with other elite institutions. I think that the situation of Tufts is interesting, in that it embodies all of the characteristics and student stats of its principal competitors (Ivies, Duke/GU/JHU/Stanford, major LAC's etc.) but, as a result of its history and rather late birth onto the national scene, has had difficulty truly garnering national notoriety among the general populous. So, I definitely agree that Tufts needs a strong, vibrant PR campaign to boost its image. Of course, this does not mean that Tufts is "off the map" so to speak with the best students; 15,400 applications and a 26% admit rate highlights that; but it needs to probably go further, stressing its' pre-med and IR programmes (which give Tufts a notoriety seemeingly absent in the US), as well as the quality of the student body and faculty. In short, the school's late growth has resulted in its position as a severely underrated university. I have to agree with AriesAthena that the idea of "Tufts Syndrome" is still a myth that doesn't agree with Tufts' student applicant pool and their entering statistics. Relating to mol10e's point, I agree that it is somewhat controversial and that Tufts may better be served by adding to the CA supplement and rethinking their advertising processes.</p>
<p>I don't see any Tufts "bashing" on this thread, just a (healthy, IMO) dose of cynicism and skepticism, brought on by the commercialization of admissions (read Thacker's thread) and the historical Tuft's Syndrome (which probably should now be renamed the WashU WL). </p>
<p>But, searching the web for Sternberg's research, it is appears that his data are collected from a 'new' test, being co-developed with CB, designed to measure other intelligences and qualities that the SAT cannot. The public articles are unclear if the new styled test includes an essay.</p>
<p>But, gotta give credit to new ideas and testing strategies that could enable "poor test takers" to shine in other ways, even if Sternberg goes down the UofC essay path. Heck, if this works out, this could even be the Beginnning of the End for the Common App to highly selective schools.</p>
<p>At least the application experiment is getting the flow of discussion going :). It appears that this is truly experimental, in the sense that in the long term, it could go either way. I agree, one must be cautious. On a side note, I still have yet to see actual evidence of Tufts Syndrome; I have seen it at WashU however. I didn't want to inflame argument. Just mentioning from experience.</p>
<p>I applied to Tufts this past year. They had six or so optional "creative" questions, and we could choose one of them to answer. It took a lot of extra time and extra thinking, but the challenge was well worth it -- I felt like the Tufts admissions committee got a much better picture of who I am than the admissions committees at some of the other colleges I applied to. So I'm glad to read that Tufts is giving these "creative" essays a more prominent place in the admissiosn process. As for whether it's fair or not... I think that the admissions process (at any college) is inherently unfair. How can you accurately compare people who have such wildly different backgrounds and advantages and hardships? It can't be done. But by shifting SOME of the attention away from the SAT's, I think there can be a better balance in the admissions process. Besides, Tufts wouldn't just go wild with this idea had they not explored the effects of it in depth. I'm extemely glad to see that Tufts is rejecting the idea that SAT's aren't the only thing that demonstrate aptitude. I'll be attending Tufts in the fall, and this article has only made me more sure of my decision.</p>