The "Best Graduates" Objective in College Admissions

Parent Cafe
1

<p>In another thread, Malcolm</a> Gladwell, College Admissions, and the Elite College Mystique, I cited the "Getting</a> In" New Yorker essay by Malcolm Gladwell; one of the things he points out is that elite college admissions are heavily influenced by the "best graduates" objective:<br>

[quote]
The Ivy League schools justified their emphasis on character and personality, however, by arguing that they were searching for the students who would have the greatest success after college.

[/quote]

One reason the US college admissions process is so perplexing to international students is that it seems nebulous and arbitrary. Many elite colleges around the world are incredibly selective, but the process is fairly transparent - score above a set level on a nationally-administered test, and you are in, for example. Others may combine various measures of academic achievement, but it's clear that these schools are looking for those students who are most academically qualified and who will excell at the highest level in college.</p>

<p>While many colleges and universities in the US employ numbers-driven admissions, as you move up the elite food chain non-academic factors play a larger role. Legacies, athletes, musicians, and published authors (to name just a few) all get preferential treatment. (Academic standards are hardly chucked out the window, of course.)</p>

<p>While this may seem arbitrary and capricious, look at it from the point of view of an elite university:
- long-term survival is the most basic institutional goal
- reputation enhancement will help ensure survival and is itself a desirable institutional goal
- large donations both ensure survival and help the school's reputation (by enabling new facilities to be constructed, top profs to be hired, top students to be lured, etc.)</p>

<p>If you accept that institutional survival and prosperity is paramount, then a university should seek to admit those students who may embody one or more of these characteristics:
- are likely to achieve the highest levels of professional success (e.g., be a Nobel-winning scientist, a Supreme Court justice, a head of state, Pope, Queen, etc...)
- are likely to be highly visible to the public (e.g., run for President, star in movies, etc.)
- are likely to achieve great financial success after graduation
- are likely to be loyal to the university, both in financial support and ongoing engagement with the school</p>

<p>Naturally, these qualities are difficult to select for when looking at high school seniors. If you accept them as valid, though, then choosing between Candidates A, B, and C becomes a lot more than checking for the best combination of grades and scores. Leadership, motivation, personality, and a history of accomplishment all take on a priority. Even legacies get a rational boost, mostly from a loyalty standpoint but perhaps from a financial standpoint if their family is either wealthy or well-networked.</p>

<p>It's important to recognize that exceptional academic accomplishment has weak correlation with exceptional life accomplishment. The Hunter College study mentioned in the Gladwell article is one demonstration of that. Beyond that, we have probably all known (or known of) extremely successful people - businesspeople, politicians, etc. who may have been good students but didn't have scores or grades in the top 1% of their cohort.</p>

<p>Even in science, where one might expect a stronger correlation between academic ability and professional success, other factors can play a huge role - a drive to succeed no matter what, a personality that attracts funding and talented assistants, etc. can determine who makes the discovery ahead of their competitors.</p>

<p>What happens in reality is that admissions officers make a lot of guesses - they start with a set of students who are well-qualified academically and from that group try to pick the stars - not just academic stars (although there will be many of those), but those who may have a shot at a starring role after graduation.</p>

<p>What do you think? Do you accept the premise that elite schools are pursuing an admissions strategy driven by self-interest, and that their strategy really works to their long-term benefit? Do you thing Gladwell's somewhat narrow and pessimistic view of elite admissions (not too many short kids with big ears, and limits on other "undesirables") is accurate?</p>

2

<p>An administrator at my son's school told me a related tidbit: the "best graduates" objective also means that elite schools are increasingly open to ADD kids-- passionate, bright, motivated (but busywork-challenged) ADD kids can end up as entrepreneurs and innovators.</p>

<p>I agree that potential for later success is important and may not correlate with val/sal-level HS performance. </p>

<p>I have complete confidence in the later-life potential of my ADD son-- he's funny, winning, smart, & intellectual. It's HS that is giving me fits.</p>

3

<p>I think indeed "elite schools are pursuing an admissions strategy driven by self-interest," and that it is precisely such a strategy that keeps them elite. </p>

<p>Just my opinion.</p>

4

<p>The "Hunter College study"is a reference to a study of students at Hunter College ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, a public lab school for the gifted who were chosen for high IQ SCORES and to a lesser extent, the ability to work well with peers at age 3 or 4, and NOT selected for academic achievement. What the study found was that the school produced few super star achievers despite the fact that the average IQ of its students was in the mid 150s.</p>

<p>This is not unlike the results of the study of the "Termites," students who were selected as "gifted" by Dr. Terman at Stanford, who developed the Stanford-Binet intelligence test and conducted one of the ground breaking longitudinal studies of high IQ kids. None of the Termites did anything earth-shattering, but 2 of the kids he deemed insufficiently gifted to be included in the study went on to win Nobel Prizes in science. </p>

<p>The Hunter study doesn't support the conclusions you draw from it because it isn't a study of academic achievement at all. Indeed, many of the HCES kids are underachievers academically early on. One of the more famous studies done at HCES found, for example, that there is no correlation whatsoever between fourth grade reading scores and IQ scores.</p>

5

<p>I had the opportunity to speak to the President of an Ivy League school about admissions. The answer: yes, the schools are looking for the students who will be the leaders of tomorrow in all different fields. They are also looking for a vibrant campus full of diverse ideas and voices. They want the future leaders of the hispanic community as well as whites, and they want innovators, entrepreneurs, nobel laureates, etc. This President said to me, "College admission is not a reward for good grades - that's what students don't understand and why they dson't always think it is fair." In other words, you can have stayed home and studied 24/7 and someone else got worse grades but has shown more leadership potential or more of a creative spark and the school might rather have that other person. Bush may not have had great grades or SATs, but hey, he's President, and I'm sure Yale is happy he went there.</p>

6

<p>We just had the conversation tonight about my son applying for an honors program at one of the colleges that he was accepted to and the fact that he does not think he qualifies. I told him that obviously the college must think he does to which he told me that he is not as smart as I think he is. But then I picked the one student in his class who got accepted to Dartmouth early decision and asked him if he thought being a class full of people like that would be interesting. It would be a pretty boring experience to be with a class of number 1 studious young people. In retrospect, I could have forced my son to study more, instead I encouraged him to do what he wanted to do and to enjoy high school. It all works out in the end.</p>

7

<p>Jonri, the conclusion was more Gladwell's than mine. I think the key point is that whether you look at US presidents and senators, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc., you'll find that most weren't academic superstars. In medicine and law, because of the numbers-oriented screening process employed by professional schools, the big success stories probably do have a decent academic record, but I'd hazard a guess that the really successful individuals weren't exclusively at the top of their class.</p>

<p>I've been in business for a few decades, and I've known some very bright people who were largely ineffective (typically because they lacked some combination of people skills, outside-the-box creativity, leadership ability, or a single-minded focus on accomplishing the task at hand), and others who were definitely not on MENSA's short list but were extremely effective and successful. A college that selected students purely by academic ability would graduate some great researchers and academics, but would miss out on a lot of future world leaders, CEOs, etc. </p>

<p>I'm certainly not saying that superb academics doom the individual to a life of nerdiness, but rather that academic accomplishment is merely one of several dimensions that can serve as a predictor of achieving prominence and success in life. And that's the point of the post... elite colleges may well be striving for the "best graduates". Or, "best alumni" if you prefer.</p>

8

<p>I agree with you; my casual observation is that that is exactly why Chicago and Caltech, for example, may produce a disproportionate number of brilliant academics and researchers, but perhaps not commensurately many leaders overall.</p>

<p>The problem is that it is devilishly difficult for admissions offices to identify potential leaders, other than intellectual leaders in math and sciences, where youthful signs are often good predictors. This reminds me of an old joke:</p>

<p>A shop catering to tourists in a cannibal triibe offers brains for sell. The prices are:</p>

<p>Ordinary brain: $3/lb
Artist's brain: $5/lb
Scientist's brain: $10/lb
Politician's brain: $100/lb.</p>

<p>The tourist asks: why is there such a demand for politician's brain? The cannibal answers: do you know how many politicians we have to kill to get a pound of brain?</p>

<p>My guess is that admissions offices have to deal with the identification problem (other than for true academic superstars, which are EXTREMELY rare) by casting a very wide net and hope for the best, and that may explain why some of their decisions appear random to us.</p>

9

<p>..I'm just saying that citing a study that concluded that high intelligence alone doesn't lead to super star achievements doesn't support your point.
You said:
"It's important to recognize that exceptional academic accomplishment has weak correlation with exceptional life accomplishment. The Hunter College study mentioned in the Gladwell article is one demonstration of that. "</p>

<p>That is an utterly and completely untrue statement. So, if you want to make your argument, that's fine, but say what it is--your personal opinion --and don't cite a study tp support your point when it doesn't.</p>

10

<p>This article has always bugged me because the writer conflated intellectual leadership (winning a Nobel) with political and social leadership (becoming president). But we know that by the former criteria Caltech and Chicago do better. By the latter, the Ivies do better.</p>

<p>It is worth bearing in mind that the reason the top US universities are the envy of the world has almost nothing to do with their ability to produce social leaders but almost everything to do with intellectual leaders and tech entrepreneurs (perhaps one of the few business areas where academic achievement does correlate well if not perfectly with success). University of Tokyo and the Grandes Ecoles in France produce a much greater share of their countries' leaders than HYP or even the entire Ivy League. However, when Europeans and Chinese and Japanese talk about emulating the US universities, they almost always talk about the Caltech/MIT model NOT improving their social selection. [Indeed, in private meetings I've attended, Chinese are emphatic that they want to emulate the high research parts of the US and not the other stuff. I have heard the same in France.]</p>

<p>Judged by the very thing that makes US universities stand out, grades and test scores and research are almost the only predictors that really matter.</p>

<p>Moreover, you should note that all the top universities have become more academically oriented over time. I would venture that the top 50-70% of the classes at most Ivies are selected almost entirely on the g-loaded criteria that dominate selection at Caltech and Chicago. The only difference is that the Ivies have a fatter academic tail to make room for legacies, athletes, AA, and the wild card admissions that they use to "Diversify." In olden times, the ratios of academics to "good old boys" would have been reversed. But it was also those early days (before the 1960s) when the Ivies really dominated the Fortune 500 and politics -- certainly much more than they do today. Gore, Bush, and Kerry come from the period when social admission was being replaced by intellectual capability.</p>

11

<br>


<br>

<p>Often true, unfortunately. This makes the admissions process that much trickier if you want to nab those future political leaders while maintaining academic standards.</p>

12

<p>Thankyou Jennymccool. I've been having this very same debate -- push hard for top grades, let the student decide how hard to work, or find a middle groun -- with several friends all with hs seniors. My husband and chose the middle ground. we encouraged, reminded, and occassionally insisted with our S that he put in a reasonable effort not to get straight As but to keep his options open. we also let him follow his heart in the big important things. as a result he is an award-winning cartoonist with a solid B+ (3.43) GPA. he reads, reads, reads for the love of it hence the 800 on his verbal SAT, but can do math if he must (690 SAT M), and writes short stories for fun, and scored a 770 on the writing portion of the new SAT. S also is a National Merit Commended Student and an AP Scholar with Distinction. Was Class President Sophormore year and countywide student government rep for three years. NYU didn't take him ED though. Who knows why? We await word from Columbia, Fordham LC, the New School and PSU. The mother of his best friend pushed, and pushed, and pushed. she's a teacher so it was maybe more important to her than to some. his GPA 3.8, SATs 2100 first time 2250 second time. National Merit Semifinalist. No obvious talents as in he doesn't draw, play an instrument, until recently, act or win science contests activites but no leadership positions. he's applied all Ivy, except one. Will he get in to any? UPenn called him for an interview so that's promising. Does it matter? Would he be just as happy at a less elite school? I think yes. I think things do work out as they're meant to. I've spent some time reading these posts and I'm telling you some of these kids really scare me. What will they do when life is no longer measured by grades?</p>

13

<p>Is there some magic that occurs when you mix the future "bench scientists" with athletes, legacies and high profile media stars who attend these elite schools? Or do the ivies just think they're hedging their bets by having a "well rounded class" rather than well rounded kids?
How would this compare to the elite honors programs at public universities? These kids can be segregated by housing and honors classes but are still affected by the mission to educate large groups of students who would be unlikely to end up at the ivies.</p>

14

<p>The really top academic superstars do not measure themselves by grades either. </p>

<p>I think there is the misconception that you can "push" kids, make them "work hard" to "get good grades," and voila you have an academic superstar that Harvard will take. No. The top academic superstars are born that way. They are driven by themselves, not by their parents. They life of the mind (as they say at Chicago) does not care about grades, either. It is the "weenies" (as we used to call them disparagingly in college in the old days) who slaved for grades. They are not the academic superstars.</p>

<p>Most of your high-grade high-scoring kids are not academic superstars. They get into Harvard not through that hook. They get in by the wide net Harvard casts to hopefully catch the next generation of leaders, political, business, or otherwise.</p>

<hr>

<p>Not quite old, I understand what you are saying, but it is not quite fair to compare HYPS with the University of Tokyo or the Grandes Ecoles. For example, the University of Tokyo is an automatic (I exaggerate, but that's the popular conception in Japan) entry to the Minister of Finance (the most prestigious employer). To a much larger extent, leadership in Japan is reached by promotion. In the US, it is much more so the case (I didn't say always) that you have to prove yourself with achievements, especially in the private sector. It actually takes much more raw ability of a special kind in the US. That's what HYPS looks for, and (they would like you to think) develop.</p>

<p>The fact that our system places a greater burden on aspirants to prove themselves in a competitive arena helps to explain, I think, why depite everything we still have better entrepreneurs, business leaders, even political leaders, than what they have in France or Japan. At least that's what I hope.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
you have to prove yourself with achievements, especially in the private sector.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Generally as true at the Federal government level as in the private sector.</p>

16

<p>"- are likely to be loyal to the university, both in financial support and ongoing engagement with the school"</p>

<p>During one of my daughter's college interviews, she talked at length about her high school. As she was talking, she was able to read the notes the adrep was making. He wrote, "Extremely loyal...what we want in our alums."</p>

<p>Just one anecdote...</p>

17

<p>Quote (Roger Dooley #1):</p>

<p>"One reason the US college admissions process is so perplexing to international students is that it seems nebulous and arbitrary. Many elite colleges around the world are incredibly selective, but the process is fairly transparent - score above a set level on a nationally-administered test, and you are in, for example. Others may combine various measures of academic achievement, but it's clear that these schools are looking for those students who are most academically qualified and who will excell at the highest level in college."</p>

<p>Well, at the level of admissions to the tippy-top US elites, it seems nebulous and arbitrary to a lot of Americans, too! :) </p>

<p>As defined by the author, we're essentially examining the two models of "best graduates" (subjectively chosen -- as, in the author's words, matriculants to elite colleges are chosen -- in an opaque admissions process; those likely to succeed post-graduation) v. "best students" (objectively chosen -- as, in the author's words, the HCES students were chosen -- in a transparent process; those likely to succeed in school and, by implication, post-graduation). </p>

<p>Which one is "better"? Depends on what you're looking for, as the author points out. In a market-driven economy like ours, money rules. If a prize student athlete or actress or author will bring more cachet, thus more high-profile publicity, thus more "exclusivity" and "desirability" that strengthen the brand... well then the greater the likelihood that over time the brand will survive and thrive. The cycle has a way of rewarding itself (the "Matthew effect": rewards accrue disproportionately to the victors who already have the spoils). When rocket scientists earn what rock stars do, priorities and elite admission policies will change.</p>

<p>It's difficult to put our college admissions up against international standards for admission. We don't look for the same things they do because we don't need, or many times even want, the same things they do, which translates to different national goals. Elite schools overseas begin with a selective (read "weeding out" or "tracking") process at a much younger age than we do. Ours just tends to begin, in general, at the college level. If we tried to identify the potential achievers earlier, as many other countries do, we would probably rely more on so-called objective measures such as screening exams because young kids haven't had time to develop much of a track record of accomplishment.</p>

<p>It's interesting also to note that the same elites that Gladwell and Karabel profile use an entirely different set of criteria for graduate admissions, much more "best-student" oriented.</p>

18

<p>4th floor,</p>

<p>I too believe that the US is more competitive but I am not so sanguine that HYP's discretion does a better job of picking those hard charging "leaders". I think that they simply pick a higher percentage of socially connected individuals (legacies, etc.) who succeed partly through their connections. Moreover, the share of business leaders from HYP in the Fortune 500 has declined if I am not mistaken over the period when they shifted to more academic enrollments.</p>

<p>A bit of circumstantial evidence regarding the dubiousness of the "leadership" and "roundedness" claims is the following: According to a study of economic diversity a few years ago (I think it's percentage of Pell grants) Princeton, Yale, and Stanford had less class diversity than Caltech, Chicago or MIT. [Google it and correct me if I'm mistaken. Have to rush here.]</p>

<p>If there's any argument for diversity it should be the ability to select well-rounded individuals, especially from poorer families. But apparently the more meritocratic, grade-conscious schools do a better job of that than the Ivies or other elite-enhancing schools like Stanford.</p>

19

<p>Yes, it is indeed difficult for HYPS (or anyone else, for that matter) to pick future leaders, other than intellectual leaders in math & science, hence my less-than-reverent joke on in brain sales. I think we agree on that.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, I think HYPS admissions offices do try to do the best job they can to pick future leaders, so yes, if social connections are a good predictor, they will use it, and if diversity isn't, they will put less weight on it, and if loyalty packs a good punch, they'll take it too (as someone posted previously). Their mission is to simply to pick future leaders including but not limited to intellectual ones, and "doing a better job" has to be measured against that yardstick alone. Whether they achieve well-roundedness, diversity, or intellectual prominence is a secondary consideration. It may be your concept of "doing a better job", but not theirs.</p>

<p>There was indeed a study that showed that the University of Wisconsin produced more Fortune 500 CEOs than the elite schools. Being a Fortune 500 CEO is not, however, the only dimension of leadership, nor even the only dimension of wealth; a Wall Street trader easily makes more than many CEOs, and the Ivies are well represented in both investment banking and management consulting.</p>

<p>I think both Chicago and Caltech are national treasures. They maximize a different utility function from HYPS, and they do an excellent job relative to their respective missions.</p>

20

<p>

I can only speak to this based on personal experience. Our older son applied to quite a few schools, since I was concerned that he had so many selective schools he was interested in -- I kept adding safety schools to his list. In the end, he was accepted to almost all of them, with only one rejection. He applied to 6 out of the top 10, and was accepted at 3 of them, plus others. I think there were students at his school who had better test scores and cumulative GPAs, but the schools saw something in him which I saw beginning in the middle of 10th grade. There was (and is) an intensity to his learning which made good grades an effect, not a goal. He was just focused to a degree which was beyond anything we, as parents, could have forced. And this is what I think the selective schools are looking for. The other students I've met at his college are quite similar in this way -- they come from very different backgrounds and have different interests, but they all excelled in some way outside of the classroom.</p>