Colleges Unranked

<p>This week's Chronicle of Higher Education (November 19) had a front page article about a former high school guidance counselor who has formed a nonprofit organization to try to reform college admissions. He has also written and self-published a book that I have ordered (available at <a href="http://www.educationconservancy.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.educationconservancy.org&lt;/a&gt;). The story is too long to copy in its entirety and you need a subscription to link to it but I thought it is somewhat appropriate to this board and the ongoing discussion on the Peter Sacks thread so I will highlight a few excerpts for those interested.</p>

<p>"The Education of Lloyd Thacker"</p>

<p>They have come to hear Lloyud Thacker, the prophet in the tweed jacket. The room bulges with college admissions deans and high-school guidance cousnelors, who sit int he aisles and squeeze against the walls. Today's talk is called "College Unranked - as if Education Matters" Rigth now, nothing else does.</p>

<p>Mr. Thacker begins: "May I quickly see the hands of those people who had enjoyable and rewarding college experiences?" It's unanimous. "Now, may I see the hands of those who realize they could have had similarly rewarding experiences attending a different college?" When the arms go up again, he asks, "What does that say?"</p>

<p>He could end the lesson there, letting the question hover like a blimp, and make his point: there is no such thing as the one perfect college. But he is just warming up, and for that his audience here at the annual conference of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (Nacac) is grateful. After all, they believe that Lloyd Thacker is the man who can save their world.</p>

<p>Mr.Thacker, who had been a high school guidance cousnelor since 1987, quit his job in February to found the Education Conservancy, an onprofit group based in Portland, Oregon. Its mission:to help students, colleges, and high schools overcome "commercial interference" in higher education and to promote ethical admissions practices.</p>

<p>He argues that colleges have perpetuated the myth of the perfect-fit campus through self-serving marketing strategies, including early decision, that compel high-school students to search for a glass slipper instead of thinking about what they want from a college. He believes that the popular US News & World Report college rankings have warped academe's mission. He is not the first to make such arguments, but he is the first to start an organization designed to "give conscience to a market dominated by fear and hype."</p>

<p>His first project was to commission, edit and publish College Unranked: Affirming Educational Values in College Admissions, a collection of essays by counselors, deans, and college presidents about what ails the admissions system. The book assails the status quo, combining critiques of the College Board, a vivid portrait of nausea-inducing hysteria among students at a college recruitment session, and recommendations for easing pressures on applicants. </p>

<p>...[After working in college admissions at the University of Southern California and Pacific University in Oregon] Thacker took a job in 1987 as college-counseling coordinator at Jesuit High School in Portland. He sat side by side with the students he counseled. Nearly all of them were motivated, talented.Each year a vast majority reported acceptances at their first-choice colleges.</p>

<p>But there were things that worried Mr. Thacker. As colleges came to resemble businesses, more students and parents were treating admissions as if it were a contest. He saw party invitations that listed the colleges to which a student had been accepted. He listened to a worried junior who said she would end up "stupid" if she had to attend a public university. He stammered when two parents asked him what sport their 9-year-old daughter should play to improve her chances at getting into an Ivy League college.</p>

<p>He recalls trying to "calm the frenzy" among students and their parents who fretted about their first-choice colleges. He wrote students many glowing letters of recommendations, but generally declined to lobby admissions officers on their behalf. He believed that his job was to prepare kids for college - not to sell them. Some parents did not like that, and their expectations weighed like lead on his shoulders. </p>

<p>Mr. Thackers crusade began with an email message. In the fall of 2002, he asked 12 xollege officials to write essays for a book on how colleges could change their admissions practices to better serve students. Within three days he had received a yes from ten of the officials. In the fall of 2002, he told the New York Times about his plan for the book. Literary agents started calling. He told them he did not want to creat a how to guide on getting into college but rather a "how not to book" a straight talk antidote to number-heavy college guides. Thacker spent months drafting a proposal. At first, there were no takers. Then last fall, he and his literary agent met with Harper =Collins in New york. Editors raved about the idea but the marketing staff concluded that the book would not sell. Mr. Thacker and his agent tried to sell the book elsewhere, to no avail. "It's a complete uphill battle because the books that sell are the ones that promise to get you into the best colleges," says his agent. She told him that to get a contract, he would have to write a book on how to beat the admissions system, trimming the essays down to bullet-point bits of advice. He considered a compromise. But as he tinkered with his proposal, his message lost its purity. He decided he would have to publish the book himself. After delays, the first 4000 copies of College Unfanked arrived just in time for Nacac's annual conference.</p>

<p>Like any guru, Mr. Thacker has developed his own catch words. He rails against "ranksters" and preaches the importance of "studenthood" which he defines as immeasurable qualities, like curiousity and imagination, that allow young people to learn...He's passionate that students do not have a voice in the admissions process...</p>

<p>Mr. Thacker wins praise even from the man behind his favorite target, the US News rankings, Robert Morse, director of data research for the magazine. Morse calls Thackers message "inspiring" and he too ordered a copy of the book. Mr. Morse doubts, though whether one man, or one book can sway college administrators to drop early decision policies or stop requiring the SAT. And naturally Mr.Morse denies that college rankings are the root of all competition among colleges and that rankings themselves harm students. "People want this kind of information to help them make a choice," hesays, "because everyone can't have a Lloyd Thacker helping them."</p>

<p>Thanks for posting this, Carolyn.</p>

<p>There is a bright side to the insanity. I am glad to see all the type "A" students and their type "A" parents trying to get into the same top ranked schools. It makes it possible for other kids to get into some really great schools. </p>

<p>I have a dream. In my dream, kids refuse to take SAT tests and this huge industry disappears; Princetonreview, their own conflict of interest testprep side business, and all the nonaffiliated testprep folk. The kids fill out the applications, write the essays, describe their ECs, submit transcripts, grades, schedule interviews, but say "NO" to SATs!!</p>

<p>I know (and know of) kids who have done just that. One at Wesleyan. One at Brown. I have heard of one at Reed, and I think there is one at Earlham.</p>

<p>The kids fill out the applications, write the essays, describe their ECs, submit transcripts, grades, schedule interviews, but say "NO" to SATs!!</p>

<p>I don't like SATs, but why pick on SATs? How do adcoms know that the kids wrote the essays themselves and did not have expensive admission coaches or their moms and dads write most of them? why should interviews be considered a better gauge of a student's admission worthiness than SATs? Some colleges actually discourage interviews (I believe Amherst does). </p>

<p>I agree with Robyrm on another thread. SATs are not perfect, but they are another element in a constellation of factors to be used for evaluating a student. The fewer we have, the worse off the students will be. You have to have gone through a French baccalaureat exam or similar exam to know the incredible stress it puts on students to do well on the day. Typically, about a third of all students who take it fail and have to repeat the whole year. </p>

<p>Although I don't like SATs (nor do I like the format of AP exams very much either), they are the only standardized tests that allow adcoms to compare students from wildly different schools. They thus give a chance to students from obscure schools from all over the country to compete with students from schools that have traditionally been feeders to certain schools. SAT scores correlate highly with SES and parental levels of education. But that's not because all affluent and well-educated parents send their kids to SAT tutoring classes. It's because the educational level of children correlate highly with the socio-economic status and educational level of their parents. Discrepancies in SAT scores are only the outward symptom of this underlying situation; doing away with the SAT won't get rid of the underlying problem of socio-economic and educational inequalities.</p>

<p>"why should interviews be considered a better gauge of a student's admission worthiness than SATs?"</p>

<p>That's an easy one. SATs are an "objective measure". And we have scientific evidence regarding what it is they measure. If the colleges are looking for full-paying customers (or those who hang with them) and those with one parent having lots of education (and at least the private schools are entitled to if they wish), the SATs are really excellent tools.</p>

<p>Doing away with this "objective measure" will not do anything to solve underlying socio-economic difficulties, and I see no reason why private colleges should be required to do so anyway (public institutions are another story.) But there shouldn't be any hocus-pocus about using them as a measurement as to the quality of the student, because there they have proven ineffectiveness as an "objective measure".</p>

<p>Use them for they are proven to do well.</p>

<p>People misuse the term ""objective measure" when referring to SATs or grades. Of course they are not objective. What is useful about the SATs is that it is the same exam administered throughout the country and graded on the same scale. It's the applicability across a wide range of schools that makes the SAT useful. We could certainly ditch it, but soon. we'd want to replace it with something similar in applicability. SATs and APs make it possible for a student from Podunk High to compete with a student from Andover; conversely, they make it possible for students from Stuy who get Bs and B+s to compete with students from a high school that has massive grade inflation.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Self-serving marketing strategies really hit home with me. I don't see anything in the process that benefits the kids. As long as there are way more students than places at elite schools the frenzy will continue, but really and truly, except for certain careers, where you go to college is not as important as what you do and what sort of person you are.
My child was better off when she began concentrating on what type of school, size, location, etc she wanted. The problem with the self-serving marketing is when you get into the real "marketing tier", their efforts to sell the college makes the schools all sound the same and obscures differences that might make a real difference to you. It even makes it hard for a 16 year old to see positive attributes, because they can be very cynical about marketing (they cut their teeth on it), and just turn off.
I too feel strongly that the students lack a voice in this process, it is basically set up to benefit the colleges, and we parents, sadly, are taking over a lot of the remianing process.</p>