“It’s about assembling an interesting class. It is not about the individual. A lottery would not achieve the goal of a class made up of individuals with varied interests and talents that can interact and contribute to the mix.”
While that’s one of the primary advantages in holistic admissions, I’m not sure I’d conclude a lottery wouldn’t result in a class with varied interests and talents. Heck, a lottery might result in a more varied and interesting class because human bias was removed. It would be interesting to run some experiments on this and see what a lottery system would result in.
Lottery would work, so long as minimum standards were employed to enter the lottery (scores, GPA). Schools could pick the “top” slice of the class, say 20%, on any criteria they want, with the remaining 80% lotteried.
Pareto (80/20 rule) suggests that only 20% of any group really matters, and there is no evidence that the adcoms can pick optimally anyway, while there is a lot of evidence that they use “holistic” practices to hide what they are in fact doing (e.g. Jared Kushner’s dad buying his and his brother’s admittances to Harvard).
Many people find Unz’s peeves with Jewish overrepresentation at the elites to be objectionable (note Unz is Jewish), but his “Myth of American Meritocracy” contains some interesting ideas about an “inner ring/outer ring” model of admissions that specifically discusses a lottery system. True “diversity” and “representation” are likely to be much stronger under a partial lottery system, and again there is no evidence to suggest that adcoms know how to pick optimally anyway. It’s worth googling the article and reading the section on inner-outer rings especially.
A lottery might miss an amazing photographer, composer or writer, or a kid whose recommendations constantly mention kindness and generosity, for instance.
A lottery assume that applicants resemble each other and that their contributions on campus would be equal. The idea seems based on the idea that objective stats like GPA and scores somehow established the field of admits, which just isn’t true.
I don’t see how adcoms can be biased when they admit an artist who has already had substantial, prestigious shows, for instance. With letters of recommendation from art teachers praising the kid’s love of learning, work ethic, and collaborative spirit. Just making this up, but that is the kind of thing that counts- “even” with scores in the low 700’s.
Admissions is a very thorough process. I do wonder what the motivation is for these ideas.
It won’t eliminate stress. There are many ways to eliminate stress with the current system. Education on that would help a lot.
Let’s not pretend holistic ignores academic credibility. But you don’t wat simple odds to govern the class. If more kids from MA and northern CA apply to, say, HYP, do you want them to dominate the class? If fewer kids apply for classics, do you want to risk no freshmen winning a coin toss? But all those BME and CS kids…
Bright, activated, critical thinking and able to convey thoughts, etc, are not just a matter of being tops in your one high school or mastering a standardized test. There are kids with the stats who miss the mark entirely. I want the holistic filter.
'A lottery assume that applicants resemble each other and that their contributions on campus would be equal. "
I don’t interpret it that way at all. To use your own example, a lottery might pick up an amazing photographer or composer or the really nice kid whose LoRs writers were inexperienced or too busy to write amazing, unique letters. A lottery explores the idea that admission staff are human and may have unintentional bias or simply be unable to pick the best class from the limited information given. Or it might pick up the kids who have the raw talent to succeed at a top school but don’t have the guidance or luck into the “tricks and tips” of writing an app that shines for AOs.
Without doing some test samples, there’s no way to know which system - human or lottery - would produce the most interesting class. It would be fascinating to find out. There appears to be some blind faith out there that the current, human driven system is operating optimally; if that’s the case, then testing would validate that.
With all we’ve learned about cognitive bias and human error, I’m surprised there isn’t more interest in exploring the idea that randomization might actually improve class composition.
The admission decision made for candidates:
without a hook (legacy, URM, First Gen, athlete, large donor),
with scores and grades above the 75th percentile,
ECs showing depth and leadership,
recommendation letters that make a parent reader teary and
essays displaying humor, personality and and a program/department match for the school and campus life
…are absolutely random.
They just happen to be made by an admissions officer instead of a program or machine.
An admissions committee generally consists of a group of educated people with an intimate knowledge of the institutions needs and goals who work hard and long hours with good intentions and thoughtful analysis to pick the cohort that will be the best, most successful and most deserving class possible.
How could any “lottery” or other process come up with a result that was better, more successful and more fair than that?
Why do you assume this? All students with who meet a minimum academic criteria have the same/similar interests and talents? That’s news to me.
The county I live in (suburban DC) has a education foundation which sponsors an academic banquet each fall for Seniors in the county’s public schools. The criteria for invitation is: top 5% of the class academically, or National Merit , National Achievement or National Hispanic semifinalist. I was able to attend twice as both of my children qualified.
Every attendee receives a nicely bound book in which every single student (with over 15 high schools at last count, hundreds of students are honored) has his/her name, photo and list of activities. Activities listed ar both inside and outside of school and include paying jobs and community activities.
What do you know? There are athletes from all sports, newspaper/yearbook staff editors. dancers, singers, artists, and actors! Kids active in extensive volunteering, student government, scouting, religious groups and almost any type of club/activity I can think of.
If this group of students was chosen as a class at an elite college there would be no shortage of of varied talents and interests!
If the pool were evenly distributed among majors, regions kids come from, EC strengths, interests, etc, then a lottery might function differently. But the deck is stacked, so to say. Lots of stem wannabes/fewer other majors, lots from certain regions/fewer from others. Involvement and titles don’t always reflect the same sorts of challenges taken on, or impact.
The DC area is particularly strong, you know the high schools and influences, the quality of the GCs and how many parents are involved. So yes, a lottery for kids from that metro area might create nice array. But it isn’t just about that area.
Plus, the holistic goals aren’t about how a school or district chooses its top kids. It isn’t just rank or testing success. Or a check list. Nor how the school admin reacts to certain kids they’ve known 3+ years. You apply to college, to strangers, you make a presentation that includes more than the stats, awards, and resume. You need to show your match, somehow show the Why Us, etc. The colleges aren’t looking for random. An admit is about your accomplishments, as well as match and potential at that college, not just your resume, to-date.
I sometimes liken this to debate championships. To get there, you need the prior experience and successes, a level of knowledge and awareness. But on stage, you’re making your presentation. It’s your limelight. No extra points for being best on your team in the past, no assumptions that that’s good enough.
Likening the admission process to a debate championship is a reasonable analogy. In debate, people with very specific skills will win. Holistic admissions is similar in that people with the skill of putting together (or paying someone to help them put together) an appealing application are likely to win. The kids with that app assembly skill aren’t necessarily the kids with the best educational, social or EC skill, though. That’s why a randomization process that selects students from a pool of applicants who have at least the basic skill set to succeed might actually result in a more interesting, better, more varied class - it won’t be biased against students who a interesting, sparkly additions to the school who stumble in the critical application writing process.
Or it might result in weird results. But so does the current human managed selection process. That’s why it would be so interesting to see some experiments on this - to have some data.
This topic comes up repeatedly. A lottery wouldn’t address FA. And assigning FA to the lottery winners would, as others said, potentially miss out on applicants the school wants. Schools drive this decision, whether we like it or not.
“it won’t be biased against students…who stumble in the critical application writing process.”
But the app writing process is central. This isn’t rack and stack. How one thinks matters, how that shows in the choices during the hs years and in the app itself. The app is the vehicle. It’s your “show,” in all respects. And that includes showing your thinking skills and understanding. You’re applying, it matters that you do your best. And that ability isn’t limited to higher SES.
Not an Everest, adcoms know these are kids. But kids need to not just want highly competitive College X, but also work it. It’s not just “here’s my transcript and EC list, let the lottery begin.” After all, we are talking about the most competitive colleges in the country.
No they were chosen strictly by class rank- or in the case of NMSF etc. by test scores. My point is that they were all chosen by a minimum academic qualification but they still represented all sorts of interests, talents etc. Likely the same would happen in a lottery situation.
FallGirl, not across the country. DC produces some pretty amazing kids. Not every top performer is savvy to needing the depth and the breadth. Or the significance/relevance in what they actually do in their ECs. Not all kids with top stats can write a good, relevant essay.
In other cities with similar recognition ceremonies, you may find kids ptting in the hours, with little impact or not the right sorts of focus.
If this were a hybrid, take the finalists and do a lottery…well, in the final rounds is where the institutional needs play the most. At that point, a kid has no control. Eg, geo diversity, gender balance, getting the right numbers of kids into the array of majors.
I used this example because i believe it shows that a random lottery would still result in a wide variety of students. Of course there would / should be adjustments for to make sure to include diversity.
Interestingly I grew up in a rural Midwest area which has been hard hit by the economy in the last few decades. I have a newspaper subscription there and always read the stories featuring the local high school top students. I see the same thing… a mix of interests, talents etc. Maybe not as many as in DC but it’s similar.
"But the app writing process is central. This isn’t rack and stack. How one thinks matters, how that shows in the choices during the hs years and in the app itself. The app is the vehicle. It’s your “show,” in all respects. And that includes showing your thinking skills and understanding. "
If all students had to complete their apps in a timed, proctored setting then maybe, just maybe the apps would truly represent how each of the applicants thinks, understands and shows their choices. But - and I’m phrasing this as politely as I possibly can - we all know that is not exactly how a large majority of the successful apps are produced.
Sure, some kids get zero guidance from their parents, their teachers, their GCs, programs to coach high achieving low income students or paid counselors and just happen to have the desired knowledge and skill to assemble the perfect app that demonstrates how they think, their advanced skills and understanding. At the top selectives I’m willing to bet that these self-made apps are few and far between. How many apps truly represent what the student thinks, feels, chooses versus how many received a little guidance or outright polishing by parents, teachers, GCs, programs or paid counselors?
Of course a polisher can only shine a raw gem so much. The underlying material (the student) has to be good. But assuming that each app is truly 100% a product of that applicant is pretty silly; most of the successful ones get some help. An app may represent the applicant’s choices, thinking, skills… or it may just represent an average excellent student who received help honing his/her application.
On the flip side, when we see how many genius level students with interesting and meaningful ECs are rejected every year, if those applicants had benefited from a little better outside assistance in their app packaging, they might have ended up one of the Chosen Few as well.
Again, “Not an Everest, adcoms know these are kids.” Wanting to see how a kid thinks is NOT asking for a PhD level philosophical treatise. None of us know how many kids get paid help. Or CC help, lol. Assuming “self apps are few and far between” is also unfounded. “Some help?” Sure. A good idea to have someone read it-- NOT polish it (as even some on CC do.)
And assuming some paid person or CC poster is authoritative is putting too much faith in them.
And that’s not the point. The kid submits what he submits. And most of it still needs to be filtered through holistic. Spend some time looking at chance threads and you see the rookie assumptions. Kids asking for info how to fill out a Why Us. (Don’t you know why?) It goes on.
I’m not dismissing them, I appreciate the group. But stats alone are not enough. Nor is having an array of ECs, unless it forms the right picture. You want a tippy top? Learn what they need, not just what you want. Or risk missing the mark.