Harvard’s Graduate School of Education says it’s time for a kinder, gentler college admissions process.
In a recent report—endorsed by 85 educational institutions—the school claims we should de-emphasize AP courses, and devalue the hard work that ambitious kids do in order to get into the “best” colleges.
Why?
Because they believe the current college admission system emphasizes the wrong values and provides an uneven playing field; and that the emphasis on achievement is both designed for and gamed by middle and upper-middle class families.
But the report is totally silent on how the system also tilts the other way as well. Just ask the Asian American students who are suing Harvard and the University of North Carolina. They claim discrimination against them in favor of Black students who have much lower grades and SAT scores. That tilt, proponents say, is justified in the name of diversity.
Interestingly, while the report champions diversity, it doesn’t say a word about the consequences of watering down high school curricula or standards. It is silent about how American high school students test below average on international math exams (and slipping),and are barely average in science and reading.
Instead, the report lamented the fact that kids care more about happiness and individual achievements than in caring for others. “Only” 22% were outwardly focused. The report’s authors think these priorities need to be changed–by softening college admissions criteria.
I don’t disagree – completely. There are lots of problems with college admissions, and with American higher education itself: principally the unconscionable tuition. It costs upwards of $150,000 to attend a public university, and more than $250,000 for a private college largely because colleges can get away with doing so. With such a significant financial burden placed on both students and their parents, it is no wonder that families obsess about a college’s “ranking.” And however subjective those rankings are, a college’s “brand value” is a not irrational proxy for the family’s potential return on their investment. (“Investment” – rather than expense — is the rubric colleges have pushed for years as a way of justifying the cost.)
It is no secret that middle-and-upper-middle-class kids do have advantages, but they are not necessarily “unfair.” While they take SAT/ACT test-prep courses far more frequently than poorer kids, many school districts serving lower-income students now offer free test-prep courses, participation is often low; and the deficits these kids start with make the effort a too-little-too-late endeavor. Moreover, higher-income students simply often have more AP courses to choose from.
Other factors add to the disparity. Lower income kids are more likely to work in after-school jobs and are thus less likely to amass lots of extracurricular activities or engage in “community service” summer projects in exotic locales. An admissions disadvantage? Perhaps. But the Harvard report conveniently ignores the advice of admissions deans and counselors that colleges frown on a laundry list of extracurriculars, and seek leadership in one or two.
Focusing on the objectives of promoting more caring and community service, the Harvard group has proposed jiggering the college admissions formula. They believe, not unreasonably, that if colleges say that “meaningful” community service is the secret to admission at a top college, obedient, ambitious students will follow. And the de-emphasis of AP courses, standardized test scores, and individual achievement will level the academic playing field and promote diversity.
The report says more colleges should make the SAT/ACT tests optional. (About 300 already do.) Fewer AP course should be the norm for admission to top colleges. And the colleges should rely more on essays that delve deep into the 17-year-old soul. The group proposes that colleges ask students to answer questions such as “Define what you mean by community; and explain both why and how you have contributed to a community.” Or “How do you think you might contribute to your college community during college?” Or “Explore what you’ve learned about yourself … based on an experience you have had working with others who are different from you.” Or “Do you think of yourself as a good person?”
Without any apparent sense of irony, the Harvard group also wants to discourage “overcoaching.” Yet another advantage wealthier kids have is the essay “editing” help their receive from counselors and parents.
The wealthiest, most selective colleges will probably tinker with their applications, adding more essays, portfolios, and maybe even bring back interviews – which were omitted years ago because poorer applicants couldn’t afford trips to campus and interviews by alumni were not very useful. Less selective schools are less likely to change anything that might risk their ranking.
If colleges are serious about wanting to promote both diversity and community service, they can help level the admissions playing field by doing two things to send a clear message to applicants and high schools about what is important.
First they could implement a “McDonalds Bump,” and say to applicants that kids who work eight hours a week for at least a year in a minimum-wage job will receive an admissions preference equal to one standard deviation. This way, low-income kids who work will pay no penalty for having less time for extracurricular activities or test-prep courses. And higher-income kids will be exposed to some real-world diversity—something colleges claim to value.
Second, the higher education lobby could stop opposing proposals for mandatory national service.
Since the end of the draft in 1973, universities have been among the most vociferous opponents to plans that would require two years of national service – typically prior to college. All of these plans have included a totally voluntary military option, and have focused on a range of community needs – from child- and-elder care to natural resource reclamation. (Labor unions have also typically been staunch opponents.) But the higher ed lobby has typically couched its opposition in the rhetoric that national service shouldn’t be “coercive” but rather voluntary.
In reality, their opposition has been economic. Two years of national service would delay and possibly shrink the number of students applying to college.
If the 85-and-growing supporters of the Harvard report are serious about “Inspiring Concern for Others and the Common Good through College Admissions” – the subtitle of the report – they should embrace mandatory national service. That would do far more for the individuals and the nation than touchy-feely essays that will most likely be ghost written anyway.
Steve Cohen is an attorney at KDLM, and the co-author of Getting In.