<p>If you believe in the sci-fi gimmick of branching alternate universes, you could go crazy wondering what all your alternate selves are doing. </p>
<p>That's the beauty of it! =) It's like art...there's no wrong way, provided common sense and basic morals are there..</p>
<p><a href="Hanna%20wrote:">quote</a>I wonder if the author would propose that Swarthmore should choose its faculty by drawing names from a hat, too. After all, there are hundreds of terrific new PhD's looking for jobs every year. There's so much emphasis on getting recommendations from the famous faculty and getting published in the right journals, when the PhD candidates should instead be motivated by a pure love of research! Random assignment of teaching jobs would get rid of all the cut-throat madness in the academic job market. This professor would be just as happy to be at Slippery Rock instead of Swarthmore...right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's more or less what happened in US science professorships in the late 80's and early 90's. Due to the market conditions it became quite a random process who stayed in the system and who got fed up and left. Positions were not necessarily allocated to the most qualified individuals, because many of them opted out of the race. Many people who would have previously ended up at a Swarthmore or a Dartmouth ended up at a Slippery Rock (or in Europe). The sky didn't fall as a result.</p>
<p>There is certainly a point of diminishing returns in many selection processes. Schwarz is saying we've long passed that with college admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Positions were not necessarily allocated to the most qualified individuals, because many of them opted out of the race. Many people who would have previously ended up at a Swarthmore or a Dartmouth ended up at a Slippery Rock (or in Europe). The sky didn't fall as a result.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the sky did not fall as a result. But Ph.Ds. have a choice of whether to stay in academia or go into industry. Where would students go? Rejected by Yale, go to Slippery Rock? The sky won't fall either. There's little that will make the sky fall short of nuclear warfare. That's not the standards by which decision-making processes should be judged. I vote we retire this image and ask more pertinent questions.</p>
<p>Besides, Schwarcz is not really taking up cudgels on behalf of students rejected by Swarthmore or HYPSM. He's claiming that Swarthmore et al could build as good a student body through randomness as it does now through careful scrutiny. He really does not concern himself with the fate of rejected students.</p>
<p>Which brings up another question. Why limit random selection to just a few. Suppose a student with a stellar high school record is interested--quite legitimately--in top schools, all of which practice random admission. What are the chances of that student being rejected by all?</p>
<p>Finally, If I know that my application is going to be put into a giant hat together with thousand others, will I work so hard on answering "Why Swarthmore?" Will I work so hard on writing a fabulous essay? should I even bother?</p>
<p>An addendum to the above post:</p>
<p>Given that the adcoms will already have selected for admissible applicants before tossing their names into a hat, they are assured of an acceptable student body. It may not be the optimal student body (with enough bassoonnists and French horn players, members of crew teams and dance groups), but it will be acceptable. For students whose names get thrown into a hat at all the colleges to which they apply, there is absolutely no certainty of a good outcome. Which reinforces the point made by another poster that students will seek to maximize their chances by applying to ever more colleges or opting out of applying to random admission colleges. </p>
<p>I don't see much benefit accruing to students from this strategy.</p>
<p>Ah, and here we really touch on a core issue at the heart of "more is less" -"less is more"- the price of holistic admission practices. I don't think that Schwartz's message is a call to abandon careful scrutiny at all. Colleges and universities must fulfill institutional needs and goals, eg. their educational mission, and admission committees, so we are told, spend a great deal of sweat and tears to decide which folders go into the admit pile(s). One college puts more the emphasis on the personal essay, another on the "why XYZ college", ECs, or other hook and tip factors. Holistic admissions seem from the point of view of the particular college, or should be, a process based on concerted and deliberate internal guidelines, which admittedly do vary greatly from institution to institution. Only in this sense is the choice to look at a student's folder in a particular way and to emphasize certain elements of it arbitrary- and if you ask me rightly so- these criteria help adcoms whittle down their choices, see the trees from the forest, to help them select those students they want to join their academic community. In this sense, a rejection from one college and acceptance by another is cannot, and should not be understood in terms of a loss or a win. After all, l imited space available, different program strengths and weaknesses, as well as diverse campus communities and ther notion of "fit" are all reasons why students apply to a number of different IHEs and rank them in terms of safety, match, and reach. </p>
<p>Why bother writing a fabulous essay? - since the elite institutions in question are not going to lower the bar then the answer is quite simple -to get into the admit pile. For the system to work, students (and parents) would have the responsibility to do their homework and only apply to those colleges they believe are best suited for them and produce the best application possible to prove it. A tall order for most high school juniors and seniors, many of whom are afraid that they will not get accepted "anywhere"- which is another point Prof. Schwartz does make - make sure that "not getting in anywhere" is not whining about not getting into an Ivy or other elite college - since best, if it is taken to signify"top" elite is not always best choice.</p>
<p>But asteriskea:</p>
<p>Isn't this what students already do? Write the best possible essay about why Swarthmore? Why should the implication of a randomized admission process be a more tailored essay, a more thoughful selection of colleges to which to apply? I don't get it. If after careful research into fit a student is concerned that s/he will or won/t be selected through a random process, I strongly suspect that s/he will write even more applications. And will worry even more. And will strive harder than ever to get into the admissible pile whose floor is unknown but suspected to rise all the time.</p>
<p>I really do not think this proposal is student-friendly.</p>
<p>Of course the proposal isn't student-friendly. Schwartz is an Old New Left kind of guy. He doesn't like the students he's getting -- too cautious, too careerist, too conservative -- and he's ambivalent about the institutional values that produce that kind of class -- he likes "intelligence" and "scholarship", but wishes there were more hellraising in the mix. So his proposal is to make the process less controllable, by students or by admissions personnel. That way, he hopes, students will stop devoting their energy to trying to control the admission process, and maybe have some latitude to do risky things (by which I think he means civil disobedience and the like, not drug use).</p>
<p>It's backhanded "tough love". He wants to take away their control so they can become better people by giving up on controlling things. Kind of, um, Zen socialism.</p>
<p>From JHS: "Schwartz is an Old New Left kind of guy. He doesn't like the students he's getting -- too cautious, too careerist, too conservative -- and he's ambivalent about the institutional values that produce that kind of class -- he likes "intelligence" and "scholarship", but wishes there were more hellraising in the mix."</p>
<p>A caveat: I know there are many students at elite schools whom we would never describe using Schwartz's adjectives. But, that's not the first time we've seen articles posted on CC in which faculty of top schools have made statements like this expressing dissastisfaction with the type of students they're getting. I would also agree from personal experience that there are Ivy-or-bust kids who are indeed like this.</p>
<p>I'm wondering how many of those cautious and careerist students continue to play it safe once they arrive on campus at elite schools. Do they feel as though they've won the prize and can relax, expand and explore, or does the same conservative, risk-management lifestyle continue for the four years and beyond?</p>
<p>I ask because I was rather stunned to hear from S yesterday that his high school friend and now college classmate (freshman) at a lesser Ivy decided to abandon his intention to major in engineering or some science field because he had only earned "B"'s in his science classes so far. I was shocked at the reasoning. It's not that he no longer likes science, or found something he liked better. The decision was purely a practical one based on what he perceived to be his chances of doing well in that major, defined as getting "A"'s. Is this the type of kid Schwartz might be talking about?</p>
<p>TheGFG- I don't know if these students are relaxing because they "won" - or because it is just that too many students think of grad school before they even begin the college experience.</p>
<p>Marite - absolutely not student-friendly and, as JHS posted, I don't even think being "student-friendly" is at issue here - quite the contrary since there are no magic bullets or to ease student stress when it comes to competition- in other words, no "warm fuzzies". The process is highly competitive and there are no guarantees given or promised. I suppose, deep down, what a metaphorical draw from the hat does is level the playing field in one swift blow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If talented and hardworking people are forced to confront the element of chance in life's outcomes when they (or their kids) fail to get into the "best" college, they may be more inclined to acknowledge the role of luck in shaping the lives of the people around them. And this may make them more empathic toward others ? and a good deal more committed to creating more room at the top.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"So [Schwartz's] proposal is to make the process less controllable, by students or by admissions personnel."</p>
<p>Schwartz's argument, in part, defeats itself. He points to the "flat maximum" that results in a pool of indistinguishable candidates significantly larger than the number of seats available. If so, then how will a random process change who he gets in his classes? The only way he can do that with a random process is to change the composition of those in the pool, either by enlarging it, through lower standards, or changing the educational system that supplies the pool. If the latter, then Schwartz is proposing some really radical change, since he cites parents perceived need to get their children into the right school as early as preschool. Either way, the pool changes such that it reduces the need for random selection, since the pool is no longer composed of indistinguishable candidates.</p>
<p>Rather than monkey with the pool, why not just change the admission policy to place greater value on risk takers and iconoclasts? Elaborate programs to alter behavior do not need to be undertaken for the sake of college admissions. Trying to influence parent/student behavior from very early on in the educational process would effect everyone and take years to accomplish even if it were possible, whereas changing admissions policy can be accomplished quickly.</p>
<p>"that's not the first time we've seen articles posted on CC in which faculty of top schools have made statements like this expressing dissastisfaction with the type of students they're getting."</p>
<p>If he's dissatisfied with the kids at Swat, I can't imagine where he WOULD think the kids passed muster. Pardon my bias, but those kids are awesome.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Schwartz is an Old New Left kind of guy. He doesn't like the students he's getting -- too cautious, too careerist, too conservative -- and he's ambivalent about the institutional values that produce that kind of class -- he likes "intelligence" and "scholarship", but wishes there were more hellraising in the mix.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know Schwartz, but that's probably a valid observation. When we went to the freshmen orientation session, a parent asked "what is the biggest change you've seen in college students over the years". Both the President and Dean of Swarthmore pointed to exactly this issue as the biggest change they had seen. That today's students are much more likely to have non-rebellious relationships with their parents and much more pragmatic in their desire to work within the system. I think that's probably more reflective of coming of age in the 1960s than of today's students. They weren't complaining about today's students, simply pointing out a noticeable change over the years.</p>
<p>I also disagree with the premise. While today's students may be less likely to burn flags, they are vastly more likely to pack up and spend a semester in China or India or Africa, which is much more adventuresome than the small numbers of study abroad students in the 1960s, concentrated almost exclusively in the relatively familiar confines of Western Europe.</p>
<p>In many ways, the 1960s were probably a rebellion against constraints and limited horizons. Today's students grow up in an environment of a world largely without limited horizons.</p>
<p>As you know there were many fine applicants this year. Too many in fact to admit, even though most would make great additions to our community. After an initial screening, applicants who we considered good candidates for admission are placed in a lottery. Selection, thereafter, is random. We are pleased... or, We regret...</p>
<p>How does the student feel who is either accepted or rejected under this system? A student need never know if they were actually in the lottery or not.</p>
<p>I doubt the rejection, although unpleasant, would not be so painful as a more personal rejection.</p>
<p>Have any of you read his book, "Paradox of Choice". I think he's putting forth the idea that for many, schools and applicants alike, the effort to select the perfect candidate, school or applicant, is not necessarily worth the inordinate effort spent in the selection process. </p>
<p>What else could a student be doing with the huge amount of time spent on the application process (times the number of applications)? Is the outcome certain to be better as a result of the time invested? </p>
<p>Just because the university admits the missing member of the orchestra - does that insure that this individual will choose to play in the orchestra once admitted - they might decide to play intra-mural flag football. Or a math major may decide to major in philosophy or...</p>
<p>I think his idea has merit - after all there are many degrees of random - it's not all or none. You can have randomness within categories.</p>
<p>"While today's students may be less likely to burn flags, they are vastly more likely to pack up and spend a semester in China or India or Africa, which is much more adventuresome than the small numbers of study abroad students in the 1960s, concentrated almost exclusively in the relatively familiar confines of Western Europe."</p>
<p>There may be another reason for that phenomenon, namely that kids are older when they study overseas and thus non-Western locations are more acceptable destinations. When I was a teenager in the 70's, kids routinely spent a year of high school abroad via homestay foreign exchange programs. I can't speak for other areas, but high school students around here only travel abroad for short, largely sight-seeing trips under the guise of languague enrichment, such as over spring break. Could it be that studying in another country for a whole year would wreak too much havoc with their GPA and class rank?</p>
<p>Imagine a school like Penn, that gets over 20,000 applications a year. Imagine that. I bet it's tempting to just shred 10,000 or so</p>
<p>
[quote]
As you know there were many fine applicants this year. Too many in fact to admit, even though most would make great additions to our community. After an initial screening, applicants who we considered good candidates for admission are placed in a lottery. Selection, thereafter, is random. We are pleased... or, We regret...</p>
<p>How does the student feel who is either accepted or rejected under this system? A student need never know if they were actually in the lottery or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A lottery system such as Prof. Schwartz proposes can't do all that much to take the sting out of rejection - frankly there is no panacea to erase the stress related to final decision time - that is the nature of elite admissions and competition for a select number of seats. An acceptance under a lottery system, however, might indeed act as a sharp psychological pin to deflate a few arrogant or narcissistic egos, which really may not even be that big of an issue. Many of the kids I have met in recent years, however, As Schwartz makes it clear, in this scheme, all elite and highly competitive IHEs that practice holistic admissions would have to participate - not collude - which automatically means that the lottery is sanitized and not all that random. Colleges and universities do have a mission to fulfill and to get into the admit pile in the first place adcoms do have to pay careful attention both to those who are qualified and then those whom they chose to admit. The criteria used to chose those students finally chosen vary from institution to institution. Colleges administrators also have to calculate how many students they want to enroll and have to decide whether to over or under admit and whether or not they will need to dip into a wait list. No easy task.</p>
<p>The question of the quest or desire to find and identify intellectually adventurous students seems to me to be of an entirely different order. In great part, elite colleges seek a high number of "superstars" or type 1 students who do want to excel and that usually means they want great grades. Quite often intellectually dynamic risk takers take risks and wind up with "C" - or even worse - now and then precisely because they are willing to take risks and even learn from them. I would think that more admission experiments along the lines of the Tufts Rainbow project or a recognition that grades, and the almighty GPA, don't always tell the whole story.</p>
<p>In todays college admissions environment isn't it refreshing to realize that an Einstein would fail to catch the eye of adcoms in highly selective universities and LAC's.</p>
<p>I say that because, as far as I know, he didnt distinguish himself before college, probably couldn't ace the SAT verbal/comp sections, and was socially challenged. I admit that I have never read one of Albert's biographies, so if any of the above is not accurate, well you get my point.</p>
<p>All the angst which highly selective adcoms wail about is a direct result of THEIR decision-making expectations. Don't have the across the board super SAT scores? Forget it. Don't have a transcript of strait A's chocked full of AP classes? Ummmm-nevermind. EC??? They had better have made the local headlines in your area newspaper if you expect to standout to us because after the ED/EA's athletes, developmental and urm admits, there just aren't that many regular admissions slots leftover for you.</p>
<p>And we all know that if your aren't admitted to one of the top 10 universities or LAC's your life is doomed, just like Albert's was. Because in the end, its not your talent which counts but the name on the diploma.</p>
<p>Thankfully, Albert Einstein did find a comfortable niche at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study. </p>
<p>Prof. Schwartz is quick to point out that "plenty of high school superstars turn out to be supernovas who burn out while at college." That universities want to find the not merely qualified but the best qualified is neither new nor even misdirected. Ditto for students who seek the "best" college. Obviously, colleges want to optimize their resources and students want to maximize their options. In other words, every one basically want the same thing: academic success. Both colleges and students have an incentive to play it safe because colleges want high graduation rates just as much as students want that coveted diploma.</p>
<p>I WAS the apocryphal all-state oboe player, and a state-level runner in high school. Went to one of HYPSM. I immediately quit both activities when I got to college. </p>
<p>However I didn't "burn out" - I became even better at another sport (one I had never heard of in high school), and eventually went to graduate school with a National Science Foundation Fellowship. My major was something I had never considered in high school.</p>
<p>I did exactly what you are supposed to do in college - grow and change.</p>
<p>It seems to me trying to target narrow niches in admissions is a fool's errand.</p>