Thomas Sowell takes on college admissions

Parents Forum
1

<p>April 15, 2005
College Admissions Voodoo
By Thomas Sowell </p>

<p>Every year about this time, high school students get letters of admission -- or rejection -- from colleges around the country. The saddest part of this process is not their rejections but the assumption by some students that they were rejected because they just didn't measure up to the high standards of Ivy U. or their flagship state university. </p>

<p>The cold fact is that objective admissions standards are seldom decisive at most colleges. The admissions process is so shot through with fads and unsubstantiated assumptions that it is more like voodoo than anything else. </p>

<p>A student who did not get admitted to Ivy U. may be a better student than some -- or even most -- of those who did. Admissions officials love to believe that they can spot all sorts of intangibles that outweigh test scores and grade-point averages. </p>

<p>Such notions are hardly surprising in people who pay no price for being wrong. All sorts of self-indulgences are possible when people are unaccountable, whether they be college admissions officials, parole boards, planning commissions or copy-editors. </p>

<p>What is amazing is that nobody puts the notions and fetishes of college admissions offices to a test. Nothing would be easier than to admit half of a college's entering class on the basis of objective standards, such as test scores, and the other half according to the voodoo of the admissions office. Then, four years later, you could compare how the two halves of the class did. </p>

<p>But apparently this would not be politic. </p>

<p>Among the many reasons given for rejecting objective admissions standards is that they are "unfair." Much is made of the fact that high test scores are correlated with high family income. </p>

<p>Very little is made of the statistical principle that correlation is not causation. Practically nothing is made of the fact that, however a student got to where he is academically, that is in fact where he is -- and that is usually a better predictor of where he is going to go than is the psychobabble of admissions committees. </p>

<p>The denigration of objective standards allows admissions committees to play little tin gods, who think that their job is to reward students who are deserving, sociologically speaking, rather than to select students who can produce the most bang for the buck from the money contributed by donors and taxpayers for the purpose of turning out the best quality graduates possible. </p>

<p>Typical of the mindset that rejects the selection of students in the order of objective performances was a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education which said that colleges should "select randomly" from a pool of applicants who are "good enough." Nowhere in the real world, where people must face the consequences of their decisions, would such a principle be taken seriously. </p>

<p>Lots of pitchers are "good enough" to be in the major leagues but would you just as soon send one of those pitchers to the mound to pitch the deciding game of the World Series as you would send Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens out there with the world championship on the line? </p>

<p>Lots of military officers were considered to be "good enough" to be generals in World War II but troops who served under General Douglas MacArthur or General George Patton had more victories and fewer casualties. How many more lives would you be prepared to sacrifice as the price of selecting randomly among generals considered to be "good enough"? </p>

<p>If you or your child had to have a major operation for a life-threatening condition, would you be just as content to have the surgery done by anyone who was "good enough" to be a surgeon, as compared to someone who was a top surgeon in the relevant specialty? </p>

<p>The difference between first-rate and second-rate people is enormous in many fields. In a college classroom, marginally qualified students can affect the whole atmosphere and hold back the whole class. </p>

<p>In some professions, a large part of the time of first-rate people is spent countering the half-baked ideas of second-rate people and trying to salvage something from the wreckage of the disasters they create. "Good enough" is seldom good enough. </p>

<p>Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate</p>

2

<p>"Lots of pitchers are "good enough" to be in the major leagues but would you just as soon send one of those pitchers to the mound to pitch the deciding game of the World Series as you would send Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens out there with the world championship on the line? </p>

<p>Lots of military officers were considered to be "good enough" to be generals in World War II but troops who served under General Douglas MacArthur or General George Patton had more victories and fewer casualties. How many more lives would you be prepared to sacrifice as the price of selecting randomly among generals considered to be "good enough"? "</p>

<p>Simply Bravo My hats off to him, I wish the scoaslist and communist understand these things too.</p>

3

<p>I think he's misrepresenting that proposal in the Chronicle. It wasn't the typical manifesto of those who believe intangibles should matter in college admissions. It was a thought-provoking "what-if?" piece about interjecting true randomness into admissions.</p>

4

<p>I thought that Patton's troups had many casualties. Am I mistaken?</p>

5

<p>Well.... it's not that I don't see your point but, even a hard bitten results oriented admissions philosophy wouldn't necessarily decide on SATs and GPA alone. If I were in charge (I would be so great) I would would probably want to start by defining SUCCESS from the point of view of the university. As a business of sorts, we would want to focus on producing highly regarded, highly visible graduates. This would make the alumni proud and more likely to give money. Since virtually no unis are fully supported by tuition, happy alumni are vital to fund raising drives. Sure you can get corporate and government research grants but I'll bet even those are very much influenced by public perceptions of quality. Highly visible and highly regarded grads would also make recruitment of new students and faculty much easier. It would also allow us to raise tuition. ;-) </p>

<p>So, if you agree that HIGHLY VISIBLE AND HIGHLY REGARDED GRADUATES is our admit goal, how do we select for that?</p>

6

<p>This is very typical Thomas Sowell. He is again condemning a practice which, in another context he condones. In his world "socio-economic" factors is code for affirmative action. However I have no doubt that he would be more than willing to trash his ideal meritocracy for progeny of the rich and famous. Our President go rejected by UT but accepted into Harvard's School of Business. An in fairness the same is probably true for Al Gore and thousands of others. He also fails to mention the admission discrepancies between athletes and non athletes which is quite significant at the most selective colleges. Nor does he mention the discrepancied between ED and RD applicants which favor students unconcerned about finaid offers.</p>

<p>I would hate for the most selective colleges to resort to a pure statistics based meritocracy and question how it would even be accomplished? How should the SAT score of a student from West Port Connecticut who has been privately tutored, taken the test 4 times, taken the psat soph and junior year be compared to a student from rural Mississippi who took the test once with minimal preparation? How is a student in the third decile from Exeter & SAT of 1420 to be compared to that rural Mississippi student valedictorian with an SAT of 1420? How is a student from New Trier with 8 AP classes on the transcript to be compared to a student from East St Louis who took all 3 AP classes offered in her public HS?</p>

<p>Admissions cannot be numbers driven in a futile attempt to preserve an unattainable ideal of perfect meritocracy. The only thing required in my opinion is to ensure that every student admitted is qualified to handle the academic work required and contribute to the broadest range of talents, interests and life experiences envisaged by the admissions office. That too is a form of meritocracy.</p>

7

<p>Chinaman, Patton's troops had more casualties. "Old Blood and Guts...our blood, his guts," was the cynical comment by troops. </p>

<p>Objectivity is an illusion...corporations don't hire strictly by numbers, they look for the equivalent of good numbers but they look for someone who will fit well in any number of dimensions. Even many positions where there are tests, such as police captain, have selection from among a pool of "top three" or "top five." </p>

<p>If you want hiring done strictly by the numbers, I suggest you look at the Post Office, an institution that should bring joy to the cockles of your anti-socialist anti-communist heart.</p>

8

<p>Originaloog: Good points.
DVMMomd: Highly visible grads are seldom academic stars. In our high school, the most famous grads are Patrick Ewing and Ben Affleck. Neither is known for his illustrious scholarly career.</p>

9

<p>"rather than to select students who can produce the most bang for the buck from the money contributed by donors and taxpayers for the purpose of turning out the best quality graduates possible." </p>

<p>What does this mean? What is best quality graduates? The ones that make to most money? The ones hired to certain jobs? Or the ones that contribute to society? Does he take into account music, arts, or is his criteria for success the allmighty dollar? Who judges success? My husband, a lowly contractor, probably is happier and does better than some lawyers and money managers we know. The author never says what success is. Some people want to go into politics and may not make huge amounts of money, but they are successful. My D wants to do social work and law, would she be successful if she earns less then her counter parts? </p>

<p>I think the whole admission process needs some work. The frenzy right now is scary. Saying that, focusing on test scores is just stupid. </p>

<p>Okay- we are gonna put all the kids with a perfect score into a hat- school A, you pull a name first, and continue</p>

<p>Next- we will put into the hat scores of 2350-2390- lets divy those up</p>

<p>Anyone below a 2200, well, tough. You may be an award winning pianist, you may have organized a national book drive for kds in Appalachia, but if you don't score high enough or have a perfect GPA, we don't think you will add anything. And you probably can't succeed here anyway, cause its a numbers game.</p>

10

<p>Ayn Rand has better philosphy than right or left</p>

11

<p>Focusing on test scores and GPA alone is not the best strategy either for the college or for the student.</p>

<p>My S purposely chose to attend a liberal arts university over an engineering one though in his chosen field they are equally excellent because he wants to surround himself with others who bring to the student body qualities that are not captured by GPAS or test scores. One of his friends, already attending the university, was an excellent student in high school. But I would surmise that what made her standout among other stellar applicants and what constitutes her real value to the college community is her passion for operas. She spends most of her free time researching and producing operas. Other students spend much of their free time writing for the student paper, which is a very valuable source of information for all members of the college. Students are involved in hundreds of ECs. None of these were reflected in the "hard statistics" that Sowell would have adcoms use.</p>

12

<p>"Highly visible grads are seldom academic stars. In our high school, the most famous grads are Patrick Ewing and Ben Affleck. Neither is known for his illustrious scholarly career."</p>

<p>Agreed that highly visible alone would take us places that the university doesn't want to go but when you add highly regarded it would be hard to loose. Sure, some might be actors or athletes but if they are highly regarded, the school's reputation will benefit in some way. Afterall, a good basketball team brings the alumni out in droves and then we can work them over for major contributions. </p>

<p>I think that given the size of the student body, as administrators, it would be wise to hedge our bets. Once we determined that a student was bright enough and well prepared enough to hadle the curriculum and graduate, it would be best to take a variety of students hedging our bets on the "visible and highly regarded" scale. Do gooders, talent types, research brains, clever inventor types, and big talkers could all go on to do us proud. Yes, we want high stats so that our school looks competitive to applicants but there lots of other factors to take into account.</p>

13

<p>In that case, though, isn't it the system already in place at highly selective schools? Development admits get a break, athletes get a break, alum kids get a break, famous stars get a break. That's what is called a hook, and it has been suggested that hooks are worth a lot of points on SAT. Sowell et al focus only one one particular hook, the URM one, but there are a few others.</p>

14

<p>Exactly, my point is that even if you remove the political correctness factor of accepting URM and those with a variety of disabilities and differences, you still end up wanting to use lots of non GPA and SAT factors. The original writer suggests looking at two groups, one selected on the objective criteria and another using the "psychobabble" method, and then at the end of 4 years determine which group performed better. Nonsense! We need to wait at least 10 years after graduation and look at where they end up. How many are highly regarded and visible in their field or community? Now that would be an interesting study.</p>

15

<p>Ah, got it, thanks.</p>

16

<p>DVMMOM states, "Nonsense! We need to wait at least 10 years after graduation and look at where they end up. How many are highly regarded and visible in their field or community? Now that would be an interesting study."</p>

<p>You are precisely correct and in fact just such a study was done and published. In reply to Mr Sowell, I would suggest that he read "The Shape of the River by Loury, Bok and Bowen. It punches hole after hole in the conventional wisdom associated with race sensitive admissions policies. The following is a quote about the book.</p>

<p>"Written by two of the most respected figures in higher education, The Shape of the River offers to the public what has long been needed: a large dose of crucial, unvarnished fact about affirmative action. Mining new and sensitive information, Bowen and Bok present an analysis that is careful, clear, comprehensive, and, above all, candid. No work tells us nearly as much as this one about the social costs and benefits of affirmative action in our colleges and universities. A brilliant scholarly performance, The Shape of the River should be essential reading for anyone seeking a dependable guide through the morass of competing claims that obscure from public attention the questions that need to be posed and the answers that need to be assessed."--Randall Kennedy, Harvard Law School</p>

17

<p>ParentNY says:

[quote]
Ayn Rand has better philosphy than right or left

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually...no way.</p>

<p>A man is drowning 50 feet out in a lake.</p>

<p>The Leftist comes along, throws the man 75 feet of rope, drops his end, and goes off to do something else.</p>

<p>The RightWing Nut(tm) throws the man 15 feet of rope and tells him to swim for it.</p>

<p>The Randite comes along and gives the man a very useful lecture on either a) how to swim or b) how to make rope or c) that he's in his position as a result of his own choices.</p>

18

<p>Well lets see. Withe the liberal we loose 75 feet of rope. With the conservative we loose 15 feet of rope and with Ayn Rand lecturing we loose conciousness. All in all I'll stick with the rightwing solution. It seems to cause the leasr harm to the least number and that is probably the best we can hope for from government.</p>

19

<p>I guess it is not sufficient to say, "The guy sounds like an idiot" ?</p>

<p>How about, "He sounds like someone (or the parent of someone) with 1600 SATs who was rejected EA by Yale"... ?</p>

<p>His inappropriate analogies make no sense. Even in professional sports teams will draft "projects" which are kids that don't currently have tremendous ability but do seem to have a lot of potential.... and sometimes those "projects" don't work out.</p>

<p>His proposed objective "experiment" is unworkable. What if you did divide the admitted class into 2 halves. The one half of admits are the kids ranked by test scores and grades. The other half uses "vodoo"... but what if the so-called other half includes half of the first half? Many of the top schools would become even more boring places under his model.</p>

20

<p>Patuxent: how about "None of the Above."</p>