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.