[quote]
Harry Brighouse, professor of philosophy and education policy studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, [suggests] throwing traditional measures of merit out and replacing them with others... </p>
<p>A better system, he said, would define applicants as meritorious in this way: “It means possession of traits that predict a student will gain more from a spot [than another would] and that they will contribute more to the social good than a rival candidate would." In this system, students would still need to demonstrate the ability to do the work, but slot would be awarded in completely different ways.</p>
<p>… The university's contribution to society, he argued, isn't just educating students, but training professionals in fields that will reach those who aren't headed to elite higher education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Should elite colleges give admissions priority to applicants who aspire to become social workers?</p>
<p>If that is part of their stated mission, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
They could team up with organizations that underwrite scholarships for those entering a career involved in the greater good.</p>
<p>" that they will contribute more to the social good than a rival candidate would." </p>
<p>How would they define that? The name of the major alone wouldn’t reveal that. So, essays would be a stronger factor? And what would keep students from pretending that they want a career that is known for “social good” in order to secure a seat?</p>
<p>Sounds like this kind of thinking could become political. If a prospective student indicated an interest in becoming a military officer, there may be some adcoms who might think that career is “anti-social good”</p>
<p>What a surprise. An education professor wants more merit scholarships for education majors. Not that there is anything wrong with that in theory, but it suggests that “greater good” majors can’t compete with other majors on the basis of academic stats for merit awards. The argument used, that we can determine which 18-year-old is more likely to contribute to the greater good as an adult based on prospective college major, is pretty thin.</p>
<p>“The argument used, that we can determine which 18-year-old is more likely to contribute to the greater good as an adult based on prospective college major, is pretty thin.”</p>
<p>^^Exactly. It would be very hard to predict who is gong to contribute to the greater good as the definition of the greater good is going to be completely shaped by our our personal belief systems. Who is to say that what you define as the greater good outweighs my definition of the greater good? Is the person who develops a music software package that helps Alzheimer’s patients contributing more to the greater good than a special education teacher? </p>
<p>Also, where an 18 year old starts out and where (s)he ends up can be two very different places.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the article, just the quote in the OP. In my opinion, it just makes it more difficult for kids to get merit scholarships because earning them becomes less transparent when it is based on if they can contribute to the “greater good” of society. I think there is a place for true merit scholarships and a place for departmental scholarships. So . . . if a student wants to be a teacher, and is a great candidate, then the education department can award that student a scholarship. I don’t think it has to be either/or. </p>
<p>I think at many schools, especially selective private colleges, merit is already more than just a numbers game–the whole “package” is considered. I see nothing wrong with letting the colleges decide what “merit” is in relation to their mission.</p>
<p>That rhetoric may work at small schools, but if you look at a stack of 10K applications that flow into a state school there is no logistical way score them subjectively and have it be fair. </p>
<p>The reason they use test scores is because its practical. Just sort the database and out come your winners. </p>
<p>Or on the flipside, some adcoms may be heavily biased against those who hope to go into education, become artists/musicians, grew up on a hippie commune, or were active in causes considered anti-military or at least, perceived to be contrary to “military/patriotic” values based on preconceived stereotypes. </p>
<p>I experienced a bit of this firsthand at an interview with a small investment firm when the interviewer openly stated his preconceived stereotypes about my LAC upon reading off where I attended college. Upon that, I knew my chances for landing the position was dim. </p>
<p>While admissions, especially for smaller colleges trying to build viable cohesive communities shouldn’t be all about the stats, excessive emphasis on the “holistic” aspects or worse, adding judgmental factors like what’s proposed by that Professor would add a level of capricious arbitrariness that I feel should have no place in higher education. </p>
<p>I also echo those who feel it’s counterproductive as who’s to say the student who is so keen on serving the public good as a high school senior isn’t going to end up as the next Ivan Boesky, Unabomber, or the Enron boys? </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure students’ sense of social justice or passion about their causes comes through in the package they present in their college applications (most of the time, anyway).</p>
<p>I do see why some colleges’ mission would lead them to seeking out more students looking for unconventional ways to succeed, but I have a hard time envisioning schools that send a substantial percentage of their graduates into lucrative fields like finance (HYP, Penn, Dartmouth, for instance) wanting FEWER of those alumni in the ranks. Obviously, a successful CEO or hedge fund manager is going to have a greater ability to give back to his/her school than a social worker.</p>
<p>I figured this was just a ‘newspeak’ way of reinstating the parts of affirmative action that had been found to be unconstitutional. YOu can’t consciously give a ‘bump’ to someone on the basis of race, but you can still make the argument that “this racial group is underrepresented in this profession. Therefore, we have to let her in and give her the money as well since she will make a greater contribution to the profession in the long run than another white boy from Philadelphia.” Seems kind of unfair to the white boy from Philadelphia. It’s not his fault he’s not an African-American female.</p>
<p>Would an essay by an applicant expressing desire for a career in investment banking, management consulting, CEO, or politics be a plus or minus for admissions at HYP?</p>
<p>I doubt if Beethoven or Mozart would have produced college essays that showed a huge commitment to community services but I would argue that both of them contributed far more to “social good” than 99.999999999% (or whatever) of people ever born.</p>
<p>Schools give “merit” money to get the students they most want. Some of it does go for high stats, some to attract kids to undersubscribed programs, some for diversity in geographics, gender, ethnicity. Lots of reasons. </p>
<p>@Consolation, Beethoven and Mozart would audition for a conservatory and been admitted on the spot regardless of what they wrote, or would by-pass college to study on their own with premier teachers. Not a good example.</p>
<p>My point is that “social good” is not so easily discerned and defined. What about Yeats, or any great poet? Half the parents here would say that they are bums who are interested in an “easy” major and are barely worth the expense of sending to college because they aren’t interested in Almighty STEM! :)</p>