<p>No, but I do judge people who think that only HYP are great schools and lose all sense of proportion. I also judge people who look at schools with such low admission rates and feel “cheated” because it tells me that a) they underestimate the depth of the competition and b) they’re arrogant and entitled and think that they “deserve” to be admitted because they have a 2390 or some such. </p>
<p>I also certainly judge people who react to disappointment by being bitter about other people’s good fortune and assessing whether or not that other person “deserved” it. The ability to be genuinely happy for others is a good ability to have, but I guess it’s not Intel so who cares. It’s quite clear to me that some people care about academics but not character.</p>
<p>It’s not good to resent individuals, since they did not make the rules and are playing the game as best they can. But if you think the system is unfair, you may try to convince others of this, discuss alternatives, and work to change the system.</p>
<p>It seems to me that this Outer and Inner Ring proposal is a radical change to address what is, really, a minor problem–hurt feelings of a pretty small group of people. Maybe a nicer rejection letter could help.</p>
<p>I still don’t see how his Outer-ring concept would solve a darn thing. One group would be outranged and frustrated on why they didn’t make the Inner Ring because boy they were really really competitive there – why instead be subjected to the lottery where the odds are now against you? Another group will be outranged and frustrated on why they didn’t make the Outer Ring lottery because gosh-darnit they were just as qualified as the lottery group candidates!</p>
<p>Lorem Ipsum – Your proposal would radically reduce the number of acceptances each college gave out. Their yield would approach 100% if students could transfer their unused acceptances to others, so they couldn’t accept more students than they were prepared to house. Even Harvard accepts about 20% more students than it plans to enroll, and the extra admits grow from there.</p>
<p>Several things make me uncomfortable about the Unz lottery idea. First, if it were known that it was REALLY a lottery, I think applications to Harvard etc. would increase exponentially, further diluting the quality of the pool. It would also force super-strong students to apply to as many colleges as weaker classmates. (That happens some already, but less than many believe.) Second, what’s really at stake here is the exceptional financial aid that a handful of top colleges offer. For middle-class and lower-income students, getting accepted at one of these colleges is a huge financial windfall (notwithstanding that some of them could go to the University of Alabama for free, too). I don’t get how you tell the institution it has to award that prize at random rather than based on its judgment. Finally, I think if you expand the concept of the “inner circle” beyond pure academics, the inner circle is going to represent a lot more than 1/3 of the class. There may be an academic inner circle, and an athletic one, and an arts one, and an international one, and a leadership one, and a life-experiences one, and a legacy/development one, with some but limited overlap among them. My guess is that at Harvard those “circles” represent 60%+ of the class, and at a smaller college – Williams, Swarthmore, even Dartmouth – it’s a significantly higher percentage.</p>
<p>Why would the point be to know for sure that it’s “random” and save applicants worrying “why not me?” Don’t we already tell our kids, in essence, “you are qualified to apply, but there are no givens. The final decisions are not in our hands.”</p>
<p>Why assume what made a kid superlative in his own individual high school context, good or bad, easy or hard, is necessarily what it takes to be a successful member of an that college community- and that we know better than the college? Would you add points for kids in competitive hs and subtract for kids who ignore rigor but still get the scores? </p>
<p>Bogi, you allow there would need to be some additional requirements- and, from my perspective, there are. The simple fact of stats achievement is only one aspect of how a kid challenges himself, integrates, produces and has some impact. If all it is about is sheer quantitative, why not send these kids off to black box universities? Where they can simply study?</p>
<p>I had forgotten that Barry Schwartz has been arguing for a lottery for years. What an interesting convergence of left and right! I suspect if you put Schwartz and Unz in a room together and locked the door, it would be lucky if either survived. But they both like the lottery idea, Schwartz because he’s fundamentally a collectivist and Unz because it disempowers a liberal faction among the elite.</p>
<p>I’ve always thought if the system were to be radically changed, it would be more likely to be something like a match system among, say, the top 50 colleges.</p>
<p>Do people want to eliminate the CA? Eliminate anything but transcript and score reports? Then, arrange apps in statistical schevement order, toss out those below some bar and bring on the lottery? </p>
<p>Even Schwartz allows that colleges could first determine who’s “good enough.”</p>
<p>I’m intrigued by the system in Germany (not sure if this is still it) - apply in general and the decision makers tell you which college it will be.</p>
<p>So long as private colleges are not unlawfully discriminating, it should be up to them to determine whose money they want and what type of campus environment they want to create.</p>
<p>These colleges only have as much power as people are willing to give them. If it bothers you that HYP provide the only way into say, Lehman or Skadden or the Presidency, then don’t put your money with Lehman, don’t hire Skadden to do your legal work and don’t vote for the candidate who went to HYP. The most immediate impact one can have on these colleges to express one’s displeasure is to simply not apply there.</p>
<p>On one hand, it is likely true that if a lottery of “good enough” students were held, the classes would likely be in the same realm of talent, etc as they are now. </p>
<p>On the other hand, doesn’t that serve - or shouldn’t that serve - as comfort to rejected students? If you knew you were good enough to get in but there simply aren’t enough slots - doesn’t that lessen the sting of a rejection anyway? Regardless of whether those slots were allocated holistically or via lottery</p>
<p>I’m in favor of soothing words for kids who think a rejection means they’re not good enough. But I’m in favor of sterner instruction for those who think a rejection means that somebody else stole their spot.</p>
<p>And don’t tell me that these schools can’t smell fear and desperation in candidates, and find it very unappealing. They want a class full of resilient people who take whatever ball they’re handed and run with it, not crybabies whose feelings will be “hurt” if they have to confront the reality of someone with 200 fewer SAT points being viewed as more valuable overall.</p>
<p>I am interested in Schwartz’s take on the issue, because he teaches the kids who’ve “won” in the admissions competition. If he states the college admissions rat race is burning kids out to no good purpose, I give him credit for seeing the academic work produced by the “winners.” He’s in a much better position to judge the outcome than a parent. I take him seriously when he points out how the competition distorts education in high school. Aiming to win this or that competition, or selecting courses with overall GPA in mind, does not leave enough space for a student to satiate curiosity.</p>
<p>Don’t a lot of state flagships already have something a lot like the inner and outer ring? The inner ring is the honors program, and the outer ring is the general student population who mainly get in by having stats above a certain level.</p>
I’ll give you one: there exists clear evidence that the quota on Jewish students was based on anti-Jewish animus. I’m not aware of a shred of evidence of any such anti-Asian animus on behalf of selective schools. It’s not surprising that there’s suspicion, of course, because the impact does appear similar–holistic and demographic effects are reducing the numbers of some groups. But there is not, and has never been, a “smoking gun” showing a motivation on the part of Ivies to reduce the number of Asians.</p>