Chronicle of Higher Ed's 2005 Admissions Edition - Lotsa good articles

Parents Forum
1

<p>The Chronicle of Higher Education just put out their annual admissions supplement - there are many interesting articles, all available online. You need a subscription, but you can apply online with a credit card with the ability to cancel after your first print issue if you don't want it. You get online access right away.</p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/indepth/admissions/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/indepth/admissions/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here are the contents:</p>

<p>A Special Supplement
ACCESS AND OBSTACLES
Controversy surrounds recruiting tactics, merit scholarships, standardized tests, rankings, "packaging" of applicants, and more.
James Montague, director of guidance at Boston Latin School, a public middle and high school: "Some of our kids don't have the transportation or means to get to the campus" for a college visit. "They may suffer from what's perceived to be a lack of interest, when in fact it's a lack of means." (Photograph by Richard Howard) </p>

<p>AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY
Can class-based or class-conscious admissions make first-tier colleges a more viable option for low-income students?</p>

<p>NO QUICK FIXES
Reformers are battling commercialization, conformity, and elitism in admissions. But those issues, nuanced and complex, don't lend themselves to sound bites.</p>

<p>ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
Critics of admissions practices regularly bash U.S. News rankings and SAT's. But are colleges and their constituents ready to embrace the alternatives?</p>

<p>CROWD CONTROL
Enrollment nationwide is expected to peak in 2009, but some states will see growth for a decade or longer and are scrambling to meet the demand.</p>

<p>CAPITOL CONCERNS
A summary of financial-aid and student-access bills before Congress.</p>

<p>Commentary
FORUM
Six experts discuss the strengths and weaknesses of America's admissions practices.</p>

<p>'A THUMB ON THE SCALE'
If top colleges want to be "engines of opportunity" rather than "bastions of privilege," they must reach out to disadvantaged students, write William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin.</p>

<p>RANDOM CHOICE
Barry Schwartz proposes a way to eliminate hypercompetitive admissions. Three admissions deans respond:</p>

<p>WILLIS J. STETSON JR.: Admissions offices already take risks.
ROBIN G. MAMLET: Selectivity is what produces the right fit.
PAUL THIBOUTOT: Students are individuals, so admit them that way.
THE FINAL WORD: Barry Schwartz responds.
CODE BREAKING
Rachel Toor defines admissions lingo in a devil's dictionary.</p>

<p>PROFIT'S PERILS
Lloyd Thacker decries the commercial intrusions eroding educational values.</p>

<p>REMEMBER YOUR ROOTS
Michael V. Martin fears that land-grant universities are drifting toward an elitism that undercuts their purpose and history.</p>

<p>DIVERSE LESSONS
Two years later, Jonathan Alger says, colleges are still sorting through the implications of the Supreme Court's Michigan rulings.</p>

<p>ASSESSING OUR MOTIVES
Standardized tests don't predict aptitude, success, or happiness. They only give us the illusion of precision, says Theodore A. O'Neill.</p>

<p>PHANTOM FRESHMEN
Single-choice early-action plans create "ghost" applicants that hurt other candidates, writes Bruce J. Poch.</p>

<p>APPLICANT SAVVY
Marty Nemko offers strategic admissions tips for students and parents.</p>

<p>FIGURE ENHANCING
James Sumner chides colleges for tailoring admissions data to suit various audiences.</p>

<p>LIFE CHOICES 101
Selecting a college, says Philip A. Ballinger, should be part of the educational experience.</p>

<p>SPEED READ
Quick summaries of recent reports on admissions</p>

2

<p>A sample quote from Rachel Toor's dictionary in the table of contents, above:</p>

<p>
[quote]
wait list n. 1. a list of extremely well-qualified applicants who, if they lived in a different part of the country, went to a less competitive high school, had been born to more-savvy parents, had their application read earlier than 3 a.m., or had a last name that started with a different letter of the alphabet, would have been admitted to a college 2. a list of fine but ordinary applicants whom an admissions committee does not want to turn down outright because such an action is likely to send a wrong message to the high school that prepared the applicant (the right message: We want more like this, but better) 3. a list of applicants who are substantially below the quality of those admitted, but who cannot for political reasons be denied

[/quote]
</p>

3

<p>And a great quote from Barry Schwartz:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe that intense competition creates a classroom where only results matter. It makes the stakes so high that students can't afford to take risks. Everything they do is calculated to produce better credentials -- high grades, great SAT scores, impressive extracurricular activities. They choose classes that play to their strengths, rather than those that might correct their weaknesses or nurture new interests. </p>

<p>As to their parents, they spend as much as it costs for a year at an elite college on test-prep courses, personal tutoring, and college counselors who help "psych out" the people in admissions. Parents write their children's college-application essays. Now on the scene: "getting into college" summer camps, costing as much as $3,000 for two weeks, to buttress the strategic work done during the academic year. Following the carefully crafted recipe begins so early that decisions about preschool are now made with an eye on the college-admission prize.</p>

<p>Such intense competition sacrifices risk taking, intellectual curiosity, and the desire for mastery on the altar of demonstrable success. As a result, even though applicants look better than ever, they may actually be entering college with less learning. Moreover, since they are doing the work they do in and out of school for the wrong reasons -- not because they are interested in learning, but because they are interested in succeeding -- the intense competition undermines their motivation to continue to learn for the sake of gaining understanding once they enter college. A great deal of laboratory research by psychologists like Teresa M. Amabile, Mark R. Lepper, Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, and myself has shown that when extrinsic rewards (money, prizes, awards) are provided to people for participating in activities that are interesting enough to sustain engagement for the intrinsic satisfaction they bring, intrinsic motivation is undermined; people no longer participate in the activities in the absence of the rewards,

[/quote]
</p>

4

<p>Thanks for the link. In one of the articles, Penn's dean says:</p>

<p>"All other things being equal (GPA's, SAT's, teacher recommendations), we're more apt to admit a student who plans to major in Japanese and wants to make chambara, or sword films, than we are to take one who plans to major in American history and wants to join an a cappella signing group."</p>

<p>Yikes! Wonder if he will get a bunch of applicants next year who want to make "sword films?" At any rate it supplies a little more evidence that the Ivies are not looking for BWRKs!</p>

5

<p>Nedad:</p>

<p>Barry Schwartz seems to write about a very specific subset of students and parents.<br>
It seems to me that he is dumping everything into the same basket labelled "</p>

6

<p>I would love to read these articles, but I do not want to subscribe to the journal? Do public libraries have this journal?</p>

7

<p>oops double post</p>

8

<p>Marite, I agree with you and only selected that as an interesting PART of the debate, since I am not allowed to post the whole article (I was trying to whet people's appetite). ((Reminds me that someone once wrote to me on a message board that I misspelled "wet"!!!)) </p>

<p>Four deans responded to his article. My kids weren't that way either. However, I have seen MANY (in my status as both an Ivy interviewer and a high school/college volunteer) who are just like that: "What do I have to do to complete the rubric for this project with the most number of points? What courses should I take/drop to get the highest GPA? I can't take Course X, even if I am interested, because it doesn't have an AP exam and I won't get the extra weight!" etc. ad infinitum.</p>

<p>I am afraid there are many, many people like this in this country, even if we exclude our own kids! :)</p>

9

<p>Well, nedad, my appetite has been duly whetted. I will take a look at the Chronicle. Thanks for posting the list of articles. :)</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
RANDOM CHOICE
Barry Schwartz proposes a way to eliminate hypercompetitive admissions. Three admissions deans respond:</p>

<p>WILLIS J. STETSON JR.: Admissions offices already take risks.
ROBIN G. MAMLET: Selectivity is what produces the right fit.
PAUL THIBOUTOT: Students are individuals, so admit them that way.
THE FINAL WORD: Barry Schwartz responds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Paul Thiboutot is the Dean of Admissions at Carleton. Carleton's student community distinctly reflects the title of his submission. Thanks, nedad for the advance info. I'll be grabbing our GC's supplement.</p>

11

<p>Thanks Nedad for the links. I wish that CHE might send you a free extension for all the subscription money you just raised for them. :)</p>

<p>I only read one article so far, and it is the one on the SAT and USNews. I do not particularly like to see both items mentioned in the same sentence, or dropped into the same bag. While the SAT is far from perfect, it has done what is expected from it with reasonable success. On the other hand, the only success of the USNews has been to identify and fuel the obsessive love of the American public for rankings. Readers cannot wait to read the various issues of People that carry the best dressed lists or ... most sexy star in the universe. Deep down readers know that those are absolute non-sense. However, when it comes to the USNews reports, the magazine is seemingly providing enough numbers to make it look like a scientific experiment. </p>

<p>I consider the USNews to provide an entertaining read, but I am constantly amazed by the reactions of their cult-like followers, a group of people that is intent to remain oblivious to the fact that the rankings are clearly doctored to produce the "expected" results. What are the expected results? Just a bit of upwards or downwards movement among the elite schools, but not enough to rock the apple cart. Does anyone have any doubt that whenever a perennial favorite shows dropping statistics, USNews simply changes the rules or gives additional weight to its subjective criteria? </p>

<p>My opinion is that USNews should present two distinct rankings. </p>

<p>The first one should contain all the elements that account for the fluff and glib factor, ranging from their obnoxiously fraudulent peer assessment to the asinine factor that rewards increased spending by schools. Ever wondered why tuition is going up every year? Spend a lot more and USNews will get you a few bonus points. In the same category, USNews could keep their wonderfully moronic category that only serves to compensate the valuable selectivity element. Again, does a school want to climb in the ranking? The simplest solution is to drop the SAT requirements by 100-200 points, sink by 20-30 ranks in admission numbers, and the school will GAIN by obtaining a massive plus in the graduation ranks. Not convinced? Just compare Wellesley and Harvey Mudd! To round up the fluff rankings, let's not forget the ubiquitous alumni giving rankings, reporting abuses included. </p>

<p>The second ranking could contain the elements that USNews whimsically deems less important: class size, faculty/student ratios, admission statistics, and profile of entering class. </p>

<p>That way, everyone should be happy. The readers who value the peer assessment, endowment size, and alumni giving could use the left side of the ledger. The remaining group, which may be more interested in the verifiable numbers, could focus on the elements they cherish and value. </p>

<p>Will it ever happen? Never! Too many schools count on the complicity and duplicity of USNews. Upsetting might cost USNews the participation of those "protected" schools. It is one thing to castigate a school such as Reed -and live without their input- but it is another to face the future without the active participation of the ancient blue-blooded bastions of archaic excellence.</p>

12

<p>Voronwe--I don't think the Penn guy picked Japanses/American history randomly. There is a definitely an overabundance of potential social science and history majors for them to choose among. And among would-be history majors, US history is far more popular than African or Asian or Latin American put together. All those prelaw types.</p>

<p>On the other hand, potential foreign language majors, especially non-European languages, are much less common. Stating that you intend to be a Japanese major--and have already studied the language in depth in HS--will make you stand out in most applicant pools.</p>

13

<p>Many thanks for bringing this site to our attention!</p>

14

<p>"That way, everyone should be happy. The readers who value the peer assessment, endowment size, and alumni giving could use the left side of the ledger. The remaining group, which may be more interested in the verifiable numbers, could focus on the elements they cherish and value."</p>

<p>So here's why the rankings don't make much sense. These are two schools, which Xiggi knows. Both LACs. Both highly ranked. Both terrific schools! The first, ranked slightly higher, has no music department whatsoever, no art department, no dance department, no theatre department. While students can take a limited number of such courses at surrounding colleges, it means that on their own campus, in their own dormitories, there will be no virtually no students really seriously interested in music, dance, art, or theatre. No double majors in mathematic and ballet. This same college, despite being known for international studies, has almost nothing in the way of language departments. Students can take languages at the other schools, but even there, relative to college number 2, the faculties are very small. The college sponsors none of its own junior year abroad programs, and has no language halls. Double majors in languages are highly unlikely. There are science students, through a collaboration with two other colleges. But virtually no undergraduate research in the first two years, and none of it paid. The college has made a name for itself, and an excellent one I might add (it is a very fine college!), by offering what are essentially low-cost majors, with fine faculty and fine students. It makes excellent use of a smallish endowment. Now, college #2, less selective than college #1, has all of the things college #1 has, plus those things it lacks, including 18 music faculty, a big theater and dance program, a well-known art music and art faculty and studio art facilities, well-known and heavily staffed language programs, an engineering school, and major science facilities. In other words, lots of high cost programs. I have visited both schools, and was impresssed. College #1 will be WONDERFUL for some students; College #2 for others. But where is the logic in "ranking" them against each other?</p>

15

<p>Mini, you know why... it's good business. It makes money for somebody.</p>

16

<p>Mini, what is college #2? It sounds like it would be perfect for my D :) Or are you referring to the ACTUAL current #1 and #2 on USNWR?</p>

17

<p>Mini, thank you for adding an extra dimension to my point of view. </p>

<p>I realize that my critical position on the USNews rankings seems to indicate an attempt to denigrate school A or school B. Nothing could be further from the truth. As you know, I have participated in discussion about other schools, including the college your daughter is attending. My conclusion was very simple: we have parents who have direct knowledge of a number of schools, have extensive understanding of the applications' process, spent the time, money, and efforts to visit numerous schools, analyzed the VARIOUS options their daughters had, and witnessed their daughters pick the school that resulted in a wonderful experience. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that any rankings could change this real-life conclusion. </p>

<p>However, there are many families who are not able to follow that approach. Accordingly, they have rely on the US News reports, and may fall in the trap of using the rankings as a de facto yardstick for excellence. I do believe that the information reported by USNEws IS valuable. My problem starts when the subjective interpretration of the data and the ultimate ranking become the guiding elements. I would have no problems with the USNews to offer a ranking, but they should make it abundantly clear that it is mostly subjective and that the definition of "best" is theirs, and only theirs.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, I think we all realize how flawed the rankings truly are, yet we cannot stop talking about them and... using it as comparisons.</p>

18

<p>Both of these colleges are excellent - I thought it was obvious which two colleges I was writing about - #1 was Claremont-McKenna, #2 was Smith. But it really doesn't matter. You could pick any two of the top 25 and come up with similar. (As you know, I happen to have an affinity, above either of these, for a school which I think is ranked #70. And I went to the one ranked #1, and on the whole, for many, many students, I think #70 would be a better choice. </p>

<p>I have no problem with comparisons - hey, that's how we make choices among competing alternatives. But, as in my example, the comparisons can be used to mislead radically. Not only can, but has. Ranking them against each other does no one a service.</p>

<p>And to go to "#1 (Williams) vs. #2 (Swarthmore)". I know less about #2 than #1. But I'd be willing to bet that 30% of the student body at #1 would be unhappy at #2 and vice versa. Each would be be bettter off at #25, or #31. But because of the rankings business, they might not actually look at #25 (or is it #29?)</p>

19

<p>Mini, it was indeed clear that the comparison involved CMC and Smith, especially since both schools are ranked equally by USNews. </p>

<p>I didn't address the comparisons because I made the point -a long time ago- to avoid discussing the school I attend and indulge in comparisons. I love my school but it serves little purpose to engage myself in generic "my school is better than xxx" discussions. Also, contrary to you who did visit the Claremont campus, I do not know enough about Smith and Noho to really appreciate the differences. I am afraid I had to scratch Smith from my candidates' list at a very early stage. </p>

<p>As you amply and eloquently described, one has to dig deeper in the curriculum and only make the comparisons as they relate to his or her personal situation. I have no doubt that, department by department, I could find better or even much better schools than CMC, but it matters little as I have sufficient choices to make me happy and keep my utterly challenged. </p>

<p>And none of this has anything to do with the USNews rankings. :)</p>

20

<p>I'm in agreement with much of what my virtual friends Xiggi and Mini have to say on this thread. However, I do think Xiggi goes a bit too far when labelling the USNEWS peer assessment ratings "obnoxiously fraudulent." </p>

<p>Granted, there is no way that the respondents solicited by USNEWS for this rating could have comprehensively reviewed and visited all their peer schools. However, there is a good amount of networking and moving around in higher ed, and academic deans in particular do track inputs, outputs and policy issues at peer schools. Deans and departmental chairs are often involved in peer audits of departments at similar schools. One should take this rating with a grain of salt, but I would much rather put my faith in a ranking based solely on the peer assessment than on one that follows the current USNEWS formula.</p>