OK. Lets just have this conversation. I know many will strongly disagree with me on this. I am willing to be convinced that Holistic admission is a good system, but can’t see it now
Before we start. Here are my basic assumptions. Before you answer can you please state whether or not you disagree with my premise. That will make it better for me to understand your arguments, even if I don’t agree with it
My assumptions
I believe that there are enough colleges in the US to accommodate every student’s academic level
I don’t believe that ANY student is entitled to admission to any given university. They have to earn it
I believe that there are some elite Universities, that have resources that only certain academically talented kids can exploit to the fullest
I believe that it is possible to objectively measure and compare students’ academic preparation
I believe that elite universities should only admit truly academically talented and gifted kids
Just as there is performance criteria for playing sport at the professional level, there should be the same rigor to get into the elite institutions in the US.
I believe that focusing elite University education solely on academic merit will benefit America in the long run
Now given those premises, I think that elite Universities in the US should recruit solely on academic merit. This can be determined by a score that is openly publicized for everybody to see made up of GPA, test scores and the results of a really tough accreditation exam in different fields. Based on this score the student gets a national rank. Each student gets to rank their choice of schools based on whatever criteria they feel is appropriate. Based on the student’s national rank, they will be assigned to a school. Admissions are race blind, gender blind, geography blind and need blind and based solely on a match and national rank. Each college can specify which accreditation exam they will accept for which programs. Once a student is matched, they are removed from the admission pool.
Absolutely no weight is given to EC’s or any other non-academic strengths. Schools publish the cut-off criteria for last years class clearly.
Students who don’t get into the elite schools can go to many other universities in the US.
Will this hurt students from certain backgrounds? Yes. How do we fix this? Well we fix it by putting public money to help these kids excel before they apply. There can be some objective criteria for selecting kids for this program. But they have to ultimately go thru the same admission process as everybody else.
Without going into “whether this system will actually become a reality” or whether such a system would “hurt” or “help” certain demographics, convince me why holistic admissions is better than this approach and better for America in the longer run.
I believe that there are some elite Universities, that have resources that only certain academically talented kids can exploit to the fullest
Those colleges use EC’s as one indication of how well students will exploit and also contribute to the resources offered by the school.
“4) I believe that it is possible to objectively measure and compare students’ academic preparation.”
I don’t. Teachers at our school teaching the exact same course use different grading schemes. The ACT can’t even score their essays properly.
“This can be determined by a score that is openly publicized for everybody to see made up of GPA, test scores and the results of a really tough accreditation exam in different fields.”. Come back when you can design and properly score such exams. Come back when you can figure out a good objective way to compare students from different schools with different curricula. No one else can.
“I believe that focusing elite University education solely on academic merit will benefit America in the long run” Most people value many qualities that don’t translate directly into high test scores. And those qualities contribute the the undergraduate experience.
You are most welcome to apply to UK schools, which are much closer to your ideal. I don’t see top US students flocking to them, so evidently that’s not what most US students are looking for.
4 continues to reward kids whose parents can afford expensive private schools K-12 or who live in well funded districts. I strongly disagree with this -- students from lower income environments, parents who are first gen, families that can't afford expensive supplemental enrichment opportunities, and families that aren't already big winners in life deserve a shot at the resources of elite universities as well. Our family falls on the winner side economically already (top 5%). I don't begrudge those admissions spots to others who don't start with the same privileges my kids had.
I believe in the concept of holistic admission, but have some concerns with how it is currently practiced. I will get into those in a later post. But first, I disagree with two of your statements:
The reason is that I believe elite institutions are foremost interested in educating the future leaders of the USA, and to a lesser extent, the world. That is why the children of the POTUS and other foreign leaders are admitted, why famous actors are admitted, why children who overcome exceptional hardships are admitted, why athletes are admitted, and ofcourse why exceptional students are admitted.
Second, I believe that elite colleges are focused on remaining elite. This is why they are willing to sell a small number of seats to donors willing to write checks with 8 or 9 digits.
Do short folks deserve a shot at playing basketball in the NBA as well? Do children born to non-athletic parents deserve an equal shot at representing their country in the Olympics as well even if they are not the best athletes? Does an average Cello player deserve a shot at playing for a world leading Orchestra as well? Does every cadet deserve a shot at being a Navy seal, even if they clearly don’t have the chops? Does a mediocre actor deserve a shot at playing a lead role in a popular film as well?
“4) I believe that it is possible to objectively measure and compare students’ academic preparation.”
These schools are trying to compare students’ potential, both academic and in other areas. Because there are wide disparities in academic opportunities available to students in this country, depending on income, area of residence, parents’ educational level, to name a few, academic achievement does not accurately represent academic potential. By considering achievement in the context of the environment and opportunities available, the holistic colleges are trying to assess potential more accurately.
Kids born to non-athletic parents can be athletic. My oldest son is an example of that. He was on a relay team that set a state record in the 800 relay. He was also on a cross country team that won the Junior Olympic meet one year. He could run a mile in 4:26. I probably never ran a mile faster than 10 minutes! I was the slowest kid of 220 in my eighth grade class. DS got recruited by Amherst and Wash U for his running ability. I’m sure glad they didn’t consider MY lack of athletic ability.
But we don’t tolerate this strategy in any other domain. Can I show up at a Grand slam event and claim that given the context of my environment, I have great potential even if I am not a good tennis player right now, and I should be allowed to compete or can I claim this to enter the NFL or the NBA?
Certainly, no doubt. But suppose your child was not a gifted athlete, can you claim that he or she was done in by his or her genes and nevertheless has great potential so he should be given a spot on the relay team? The relay team picks strong runners. How they became strong runners is mildly interesting, but if you are not a strong runner NOW, you are not getting on the team.
It seems your system assigns zero value to: artistic talent, ability to write well, and leadership qualities (also overcoming hardship). Much of what makes the elite colleges desirable is that their students have these qualities (in addition to high scores). If you remove these ‘soft’ qualities, you diminish much of what makes ‘top’ colleges so desirable, and probably much of what makes their graduates so successful later.
" Do children born to non-athletic parents deserve an equal shot at representing their country in the Olympics as well even if they are not the best athletes? " Interesting that you bring this up. Actually kids born in the first few months of the year have a disproportionately high chance of succeeding in athletics. Precisely because they are being judged solely on achievement with no allowances for the fact that they are almost a year older than the other kids they are competing with, who may in fact be equally or more talented, but have to contend with a smaller, less mature body.
I think “pickpocket” hits on the fatal flaw in this plan. Will those with ultra high academic scores want to major in all the non-scientific fields? Will universities have to assign students to those majors against their will?
I fully concur with your first six assertions. #7 is your proposal to somehow fix this “scourge”.
What I disagree with is the existence of this so-called “scourge”. Who among the nation’s top academic scholars are being shafted? You’re not proposing that a couple of dozen colleges, because they give some berth to sports or legacy or development or social diversity – is somehow damaging the future prospects of the other (let’s say) 100,000 superior college applicants any given year, right?
Like someone else said, schools that practice pure academic evaluations exist in droves. Many with fantastic programs that award tons of merit $ to top applicants.
You see a cup half empty. I see a cup overflowing with resources and opportunities heretofore unheard of.
I agree with you. And if this system were implemented, nobody would do those other things at the expense of the test score. Our schools would become factories. Grade inflation would be even more rampant.
It also assumes one test is fair for every student.
Plus, would anyone want to go to a university where admission is based solely on one factor? I am reminded of that Groucho Marx quote, “I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member”
Most importantly tho, is this: Doesn’t this situation already exist? Don’t top academic performers almost have a guarantee of getting into one of the top 100 of the 4,000 colleges in the us? (that’s the top 2.5%, right?)
It might not be one of the top 8, but probably one of the top 50, and definitely the top 100.
I know some people make this claim, but I am not. I am just saying that since there are too many students and too few seats, only the ** best prepared** students academically should get those slots. Its not that others would not do well in these institutions or might even profit from attending it, but I think it is possible to objectively assess who is better academically and they should get first dibs. We do this for all other areas, such as sports.
For example it is possible to create a really tough science exam so that only 2% of the kids will have any chance of scoring well in this exam. This has been done in other countries. This exam would be nothing like the ACT or SAT. We actually have similar tests (not same) (MCAT) for medical school and USMLE exams for residencies to medical programs. Those who do, should get their shot at attending the best STEM schools in the country. Others just need to get used to attending less selective schools. There is no shame in that.
The problem with your ideal OP is that it just maintains the status quo. Even in the UK, which practices what you believe to be ideal,there have been moves afoot to shake things up. I just recently read a story that OXbridge will now start putting aside a number of places for kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
Your ideal system is super boring. The reason why holistic admissions evolved as they are now is probably because at some point in the last few decades people started realizing that white and rich really wasn’t very interesting. The US higher education system prides itself on being well-rounded, and white (or Asian) and rich clearly isn’t that any more.
As mentioned already, your ideal also completely ignores areas of talent apart from academics. How about the brilliant dyslexic student, or the incredible musician who is also very intelligent, or the kid who WOULD be truly outstanding if only he had the resources to show it. While I personally know that my own white and rich life means that makes things a little harder for my kids in terms of top choice colleges, I do not begrudge all those places at elite colleges that go to other kids not fitting that demographic. My kids, touch wood, have had dream lives compared to so many others. I am guessing that many on this forum have no right to complain.
That said, I agree with 1 and 2 of your tenets. No one should have a get in free card to the top universities, but you and I might disagree a bit on how much work one kid needs to put in over another. I would venture to say that if anything, additional hurdles should be put in place for demographics such as mine, just to even then playing field a bit. I suspect that would not be a popular idea though:-)
