<p>What some posters fail to recognize is that college admissions is not a reward for doing well in your high school years, but about the college (especially private colleges) assembling a class consistent with its own goals (increasing the endowment, winning the NCAA championship, improve its rankings in USNEWS, etc…).</p>
<p>anneroku…
You are making the argument for more US med school slots. Off topic.</p>
<p>“All this talk of tuba players, etc. is silly. At a large school there will be enough of everything and if not, who cares – there are plenty of lopsided orchestras at small schools.”</p>
<p>So, having “lopsided orchestras” is ok with you? Just because you don’t care about this, doesn’t mean the college doesn’t. And, “silly”? No, what is silly is that instead of making sure we don’t have lopsided orchestras, you want to make sure someone’s feelings don’t get hurt. This is like picking a basketball team out of a hat because someone may get cut. Forget tryouts, just throw names in a hat and there is the hoop team. Oops, you were the best player and didn’t get chosen, too bad. But it was “fair”.</p>
<p>LOL. This argument reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut story whose name I cannot recall at the moment…the one where all the talented achievers had to have handicaps so everyone would be “equal.” Ballet dancers carrying around weights. Who cares about lopsided orchestras so long as everyone gets to play? :D</p>
<p>I remember… it was Harrison Bergeron.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HEAR. HEAR. This is the number-one misconception about college admission. Lots of disappointed students think college admission is a reward for being a good high school student, and think a rejection by a college means that their work in high school was “wasted.” The more knowledgeable students know that colleges are admitting applicants for the COLLEGE’s purposes (something this Swarthmore psychology professor needs to learn) and thus a rejection letter is just a sign of not fitting that class at that college that year. The reward for being a good high school student is your high school transcript. The way to fit into a college entering class is to make the case you have something different, ideally unique, to bring to that class. If the college disagrees, just say, “Their loss,” and move on to enjoy the college that admits you.</p>
<p>Here’s a radical thought: Let the present system stand. Like democracy, its the worst possible system except for everything else. There is no system that will materially reduce the stress and anxiety. </p>
<p>These thoughts come to mind as here in NYC kids have just finished getting the results for their middle school and high school applications (thank god mine are not in it this year) and many of the dynamics are the same. </p>
<p>Charter schools, by law, admit only by lottery. The anxiety is terrible. Most charters are in poor neighborhoods with lousy schools, and parents whose kids dont get in feel that their kids are doomed to inferior education. No peace of mind in that process. </p>
<p>Most high schools use the med residency “match and scramble” process–list yr schools in order of preference and the highest one on the list that take you is where you go. And every year thousands of kids-- this year I think it was about 7.500, end up with no match and scramble to secure a spot, generally aslo at low-performing schools that still have spots left. At almost every middle school, loads of kids crying because they didnt get one of their preferred school or no school at all. Arguably older kids can handle this better, but getting one’s match – or not–can still be a major buzz kill, result in kids being improperly placed ( in terms of fit and ability), no choices at all, and total stressed out beserkness. </p>
<p>The specialized high schools like Suyvestant and Bronx Science admit only be exam ( no other consideration at all, no grades, no recs, nothing). That has the advantage of transparency but because the schools have no say in who they take, there are some awfully bad matches made of kids who can do the work but hate it there, the schools tend to be ethnically not diverse, and there are many incredibly capable and bright kids who miss out by one or two points on the exam, leaving them embittered and angry. This is good? </p>
<p>Colleges could do any of this and don’t, I think for good reason. They can at least attempt to get the students who best fit the school, who would flourish there and contribute to various campus activities, and build a class thats diverse in all areas. I don’t envy them thier job, but I think they way that they do it now is the best way to go.</p>
<p>I agree with Prof. Swartz’ analysis of the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with his proposed solution to just have a random lottery. It seems to me that a better improvement would be for colleges to actually market their distinctiveness and for all of us to encourage applicants to start paying attention to these issues of culture and distinctiveness rather than “whether the Econ department is any good…”</p>
<p>The irony is that an example is sitting right under Schwartz’ nose. For all intents and purposes, I consider Amherst, Carleton, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams to be “identical” products on an objective measure. They certainly qualify for Schwartz’s “flat maximum” concept where measurement noise is larger than any perceived objective difference. Yet, in a very real sense, these schools are as different as night and day. From co-ed to all female. From the boonies of the New England mountains to the flatlands of Southern California’s inland empire to the down-to-earth midwestern vibe. From school where half the students are on sports teams to schools where it’s only one in five. There are massive differences in diversity, in weather, in location, in access, in vibe, in personality. Yet, we collectively do a horrible job of getting students to think about those issues. For example, do we recommend that an Asian American student take a harder look at Asian American enrollment (why is it double at some schools?) than at miniscule differences in SATs?</p>
<p>What’s interesting is that Schwartz discounts his own admissions office. My experience, watching the results of Swarthmore admissions here for a number of years, is that the admissions office is focused like a laser on identifying “Swatties”. The “stats” kids post here serve only as a qualifying threshold in the way that Schwartz suggests. The real decisions, however, are based on well-researched and communicated interest – the student who can rattle off specific qualities about Swarthmore and why it’s a fit for his or her interests. Or the student whose EC’s and recommendations show a particuarly good fit - the kind of student who has stood out in a peer learning environment where students teach each other. Or, been obviously involved in contributing to the community in some interesting and challenging way. The kid who has refused to take his state’s mandatory high school test, led a protest against the testing in the state legistlature, and been denied a high school diploma. The kid who has spent three years working with the local judge as a peer judge in juvenile court. The kid who has made a signficant investment in time teaching math courses to immigrant and minority kids in public housing neighborhoods. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that admissions at Prof. Schwartz’ school is “random” by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason it even appears unpredicatable is that we don’t get to see the applications – the essays, the recommendations, etc. Even at that, there are easily observed and predictable trends year after year. Acceptance rates for enthusiastic early decision applicants are very high. Acceptance rates for RD applicants where Swarthmore is just another name on a list of highly ranked colleges are infinitesimal. Ethnic diversity has a major impact – over half of the acceptance letters go to non-white and/or non-US applicants. That has a decidedly “non-random” impact on the admissions odds for white US applicants that make up the majority of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>I think the Professor has identified the problem, but missed the mark on the solution.</p>
<p>I was hoping I’d hear from interesteddad in this discussion. I agree that “quality” is not what differentiates Swarthmore from its near-peers, but that doesn’t mean its admission office isn’t making meaningful distinctions among applicants and helping students find a most optimal fit.</p>
<p>In his argument, Schwartz is considering “quality” as a single, total measure (although unsaid, a measure that is closely correlated with per student endowment). There is a place for using “quality” as a single measure in this way.</p>
<p>There are, however, also meaningful differences in the choices colleges make among the thousands of possible elements that make up the total “quality”. For example, Swarthmore and Williams spend virtually the same amount per student each year and offer the same “quality”. Within that global picture, however, are very different choices about areas of emphasis, budgetary priorities, etc. Those differences define and differentiate schools in ways that I think we collectively do a horrible job of communicating to students. </p>
<p>It would probably be a worthwhile exercise to come up with a list of perhaps 100 characteristics of a college, each measurable along some continuum. For example, one measure might be drinking scene – from heavy binge drinking to Brigham Young. Another might be diversity - from Swarthmore to W&L. This would allow high schools students to consider an entire range of issues that they never think about when asked “what kind of college do you want”. </p>
<p>Instead, we get colleges going out of their way to avoid presenting distinctiveness and pretend like they can be all things to all people (an approach that, IMO, will not serve them well in a tightening market where you want a passionate customer base).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I don’t see why people would be “embittered and angry” by missing the cut-off by one or two points on the entrance exam. At least they would know that the people who gained admission did so by some objective measure, even if that objective measure didn’t tell the whole story.</p>
<p>Also, many specialized high schools admit somewhat like colleges inasmuch as they consider grades, recs, and SAT scores. Interestingly, the one I went to admitted only for academic ability (grades, recs, SAT scores), but did not consider athletic ability, leadership, or community service at all. Yet, despite being a very small school, we were able to support almost all the sports that most high schools offer. Also, instead of selecting based on community service activity, they selected based on intellect but tried to encourage community service and leadership through seminars, lectures, and some required community service (some people went above and beyond.)</p>
<p>
In my opinion this fact has nothing to do with how well Swarthmore Admissions is doing at identifying just the right students who look like future Swatties. Rather, it’s simply that ED kids are much more likely to be full pay. As with similar schools, the claim of “need-blind” is irrelevant here – they know that ED applicants are more likely to not be asking for financial aid and so they admit more.</p>
<p>
Not at all, danas. You were using the example of the med school admissions process to discredit the idea of randomizing college admissions:
“Let’s extend his ideas to other areas. Should our future MDs be those who COULD become doctors, randomly? Those who could do the work. Or are we after something else?”</p>
<p>No one is saying that admissions should be totally random. But I think it would be perfectly fine to throw the names in a hat above a certain threshold of stat requirements for both undergrad and med school. In the case of med school, the selectivity is only a product of the artificially low number of spots. I have heard med school deans admit that at least half of the rejects would make fine doctors and are indistinguishable from the students they do admit. I believe the same holds true for Ivy undergrad schools. Again, a matter of few spots and high demand, and rejects mostly indistinguishable from those accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes for a nice soundbyte, except that it’s not really true anymore. The early decision cohort reasonably mirrors the overall class in all respects: financial aid, diversity, etc. Applicants have figured out that, if they have very high financial need, there’s no reason not to apply early decision because a) Swarthmore’s aid packages are known to be strong and b) if the money’s not there, they aren’t going anyway. Applicants wanting to play the merit shopping game are locked out of early decision, but those tend to be affluent high-pay customers.</p>
<p>There is a very noticeable difference between early decision and regular decision applicants posting here on College Confidential. The early decision applicants are much more enthusiastic, much more knowledgeable, much better researched, and generally positioned to submit much stronger application packages. On three occasions over the last five years, the Dean of Admissions has volunteered the importance of the “Why Swarthmore?” essay. At a certain point, I think that we should believe him.</p>
<p>I suspect that the NRMP residency match system for physicians would have been found to run affoul of antitrust law if Congress hadn’t explicitly crafted an exemption for it in 2004.</p>
<p>Many of the solutions proposed on this thread raise dicey antitrust issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hear hear, from my end too. I think as long as talent students get into some very good schools, they should be at peace if they realize the above fact. If they don’t get into some very good schools, then I think there’s something messed up going on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The bigger issue is that applicants don’t really understand what colleges are looking for.</p>
<p>For example, it’s just amazing to me that someone would post a “chances” question without identifying their ethnicity. The question is simply unanswerable with knowing.</p>
<p>Or, not posting a class rank (and no, “my school doesn’t rank” is not a valid reason). The college is going to figure out your class rank and is going to weight it very heavily in the decision.</p>
<p>Or, claiming that the essays are excellent, even when they are about “the life lessons I learned by losing a polo club match on one of my horses” or “how I learned that people are the same around the world when we vacationed at our villa in the South of France”.</p>
<p>Or, EC lists that gloss over the stuff that an adcom might find interesting in favor of listing the usual school clubs.</p>
<p>The reason I gave up on “chances” threads is not that admission is random, but that we simply don’t get meaningful information in the way these questions are posed. The whole framing of the questions suggest poor understanding of the admissions criteria.</p>
<p>
Absolutely. We are not talking about schools for performance majors. These are just extracurricular activities, not the core mission of the school, which is supposedly academic education.</p>
<p>
No one is proposing admission solely by lottery or admitting unqualified kids just so that no one’s feelings are hurt. However, I am of the opinion that after a certain threshold has been passed, splitting hairs between candidates is useless and counterproductive. All this social engineering involved in “building a college class” strikes me as a ridiculous waste of time. There is no guarantee that all those kids carefully chosen for their great distribution of interests and majors will even enroll. All those tuba players may decide to go somewhere else.</p>
<p>
Where’s the evidence for this? Harvard made very public statements that the main reason for eliminating ED was that it gave an advantage to upper income students who did not need to compare financial aid packages. High school counselors all over the country rightly advise kids who need FA to avoid ED.
I don’t agree with your observation. But if it were true it would only suggest that ED applicants on CC are simply more obsessed with college admissions from an earlier age.</p>
<p>^ If Swarthmore’s ED pool mirrors its RD pool in financial need, then Swarthmore is clearly an outlier, as numerous college admissions officers, financial aid officers, and top administrators bluntly admit in the following article:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/education/31college.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/education/31college.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard makes all kinds of disingenuous public statements. They didn’t even offer binding ED, so the program they discontinued hardly prevented anyone from comparing aid packages.</p>
<p>With an 80% yield, Harvard benefited by forcing its competitors to stop offering early decision programs. Let’s not confuse self-serving with altruistic in Cambridge!</p>