Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Resume-Padding, Risk-Taking, and Intellectual Curiosity

In the last post, I laid out the salient points of Barry Schwartz's opinion piece on highly selective college admissions that ran in the LA Times. Today I am going to examine some of those points. Schwartz's first point:

1. The nature of admissions to highly selective institutions has encouraged students to expend more energy on high school resume-padding than engaging their minds and spirits on risk-taking and intellectual curiosity.

-Anyone who has worked with high schools students, including the students themselves, can see the validity of this point. Students are frequently looking for an angle on how the activities they are involved in can be put into play on their college applications. They may be genuinely interested in joining the chess club, for example, but if they want their involvement to have cache, then they better be one of the club officers. Similarly, they may want to help the less fortunate at a soup kitchen or by building a house (e.g. Habitat for Humanity), but at some level, they know doing so won't look bad on their college applications. The same is true for course selection. Students constantly weigh whether it is better to take a course that you know you can do well in or one in which you know your abilities will be stretched, but that nonetheless, you are interested in taking.

I don't mean to lump all students and their activities into an ulterior motive category, but it is hard to deny that at current levels of competition, the temptation exists. Because I know this, students know it, and college admissions officials know it, what can we do? All of us want to see students do things because they are genuinely interested in doing so. If someone likes chess, they should be able to be a member of the club without the nagging feeling that they should take on leadership.

By the way, if you listen to admissions officials, leadership is a buzz word. The student who is a member of a number of clubs because of interest but did not take on any leadership positions will not have the same leadership cred as the student who was intensely involved in only a couple of clubs and consistently held leadership positions in those clubs.

Colleges also love to talk about admitting applicants with "passion" and "spark" [see this LA Times article (subscription may be required) on UCLA's version of "holistic admissions"]. Colleges want students who will bring something unique to their campus. Passion and spark, apparently, are unique qualities. It seems reasonable that uniqueness will include passion and spark, but also may go in many different directions.

What about the unique kid who defies the tide of "me too" approaches to college admission by doing exactly what Schwartz argues - taking risks and being intellectually curious? Say this hypothetical student takes a couple of college courses, studies abroad, works at Starbucks, volunteers on a Habitat for Humanity project, but only gets middling grades (a 'B' average in today's heady times). Does she pass the passion and spark tests? I bet she doesn't and because of that, probably won't have a place at the "best" colleges. It is students such as this hypothetical one that are being left out of admissions equations. To display the kind of pizazz that UCLA and other "top" schools are looking for, you need to have it all - grades, leadership, sustained involvement. In truth, it sounds rather formulaic and thus, not so unique.

To think, this is only Schwartz's first point! I promise that there will be more of a positive bent in future posts surrounding Schwartz's article.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

A Thought-Provoking Article

A couple of Sunday's ago, one of the more thoughtful articles (subscription required) I have seen in a long time about the business of college admissions came out. The author, Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology, makes a number of points in the piece which are worth devoting some time to:

1. The nature of admissions to highly selective institutions has encouraged students to expend more energy on high school resume-padding than engaging their minds and spirits on risk-taking and intellectual curiosity.

2. So much is built into just "getting in" to Name Brand University, that once they get there, students can coast. They no longer have as much motivation to continue the life-long process of learning.

3. It is impossible to predict the fit of an institution to a student, and vice-versa. Differences between the "top" students and "top" institutions are so minute, that one cannot reliably evaluate those differences.

4. As a student, the most accurate time to determine whether or not a college is right for you is after you are actually enrolled at a college and have spent some time there, not before.

5. Because there is so little measurable difference between students at the top of the statistical heap (a group that grows larger seemingly every year), colleges could lump all of the "acceptable" students together and then randomly pick the names of those who will be admitted.

6. Instead of students working to be the "best" applicant to Name Brand University, they could work to be good enough. Once you have reached the point of "good enough," you have as good of a chance of being admitted as all the other "good enoughs." According to Schwartz, this would allow students to pursue activities because they want to, not because they want to pad their application.

7. Such a system would have the effect of teaching students about the randomness of life. We all like to think of the American system as a meritocracy (those who work hard and are smart are rewarded), but in actuality, success and failure have a lot to do with luck and chance. Schwartz argues that this would imbue students with a newfound level of sympathy and empathy for the less fortunate around them.

Schwartz acknowledges that his proposal for a new admissions environment has flaws (how to deal with historically underrepresented populations of students, for example) and that people will not like the random aspect of admissions. There is much to discuss here. I wanted to get Schwartz' salient points out in the open. The next few blog posts will deal with the various issues he raises. I encourage readers to respond if they are interested, as always. I would love to get a discussion going.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Interesting Writing Elsewhere on Education

I like the idea of providing some links to compelling reading about education. Though I wouldn't want this blog to become a link dump, I think it is appropriate to link to outside work from time to time. Thus, without further ado:

1. A Los Angeles Times (free subscription required) opinion piece on the soaring costs associated with attending some private institutions. The target of this particular screed is George Washington University, which recently became the first college in the United States to charge over $50,000 a year for tuition ($39,000/year) plus assorted fees, housing included. Though the first university to hit the $50K barrier, it will not be the last. What I like about the article is that it explicates the dirty reasons as to why the price of an education has risen so dramatically over the past decade.

2. An article from Inside Higher Ed on the upcoming novel, Acceptance, about the ridiculous nature of admissions to highly competitive colleges and universities. The novel is a satire of the entire process, from selecting the right preschool, to the hiring of consultants to help an applicant flush out their profile. In an admissions world that puts so much pressure on students to get into the "best" colleges, it is not surprising the measures people are resorting to.

3. A National Public Radio series on "The College Admissions Game." This is an examination of the issues surrounding how college admissions became so nutty, alternatives to following the herd, and tips for surviving the process with some integrity.

Enjoy!

Thursday, March 08, 2007

The Wisdom of Insecurity

"It must be obvious...that there is a contradiction in wanting to be perfectly secure in a universe whose very nature is momentariness and fluidity." -Alan Watts

I would like to take credit for the title of this post, but I cannot do so in good conscience. The post title is taken from a book by Alan Watts, bearing the same name. In it, Watts proposes that there is wisdom in not being sure of what you want to do, or wisdom in being insecure in your belief system, as well as other seemingly strange (to our sensibilities) philosophical positions. Likewise, in this post, I want to propound on the wisdom of major insecurity.

Students hold the belief that they should have a good idea of what they want to do upon entering college. People don't do much to help them in believing that they should think otherwise. How often have you been asked, "What is your major?" That question will be something you continually get asked throughout your college career and even beyond. We hold a particularly strong preoccupation with the future. Once you graduate from college, you will be asked, "What are you going to do now?" Once you get a job, you will be asked, "When are you going to start a family?" The questions about the future never end.

I want to help stop this insanity and fixation on the future. It is perfectly normal to not have the foggiest idea of what your major will be or even what you want to do with your life. Because of our fixation on the future, however, we feel inadequate or somehow left out if we don't have a strong sense of what we want to study or do. Don't fall into this illusory trap. Use college as a time to explore. Explore your interests, friendships, and self. College can be a place where individual growth is pursued. Growth, in my estimation, is stunted when we limit ourselves to fixating on one end point. Allow time to explore. You never know what you'll discover in both the world around you and in yourself.