 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Stan Katz teaches public and international affairs and directs the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at the Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is a past president of the American Council of Learned Societies, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society for Legal History. He comments frequently on policy issues relating to higher education, particularly liberal education, and on the humanities and social sciences, philanthropy, scholarly relations with Cuba, and the interplay of civil society, constitutionalism, and democracy. And on his beloved Cubs.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Bronislaw Geremek: Scholar-Statesman | Comment
Who Is Sara Martinez Tucker? | Comment [17]
The Princeton Bamboo Workshop | Comment
Humanities Cyberinfrastructure: Project Bamboo | Comment
How Many Gyms Does Corpore Sano Require? | Comment [7]
Featured Articles By the Author
April Admissions Madness
April madness has occurred even as March madness continues. The selective colleges and universities have now sent out letters of admission. This will produce tears of joy for the chosen few, but salt tears for the large numbers of students who have failed — and failure is the construction most of them will place upon their thin letters of rejection (though most will of course have learned by going right to college admissions Web sites rather than waiting for snail mail).
The numbers are horrifying. I will use only my own institution, though I think that ours is only the third most selective process this year (following Harvard and Yale). Princeton has admitted only 9.25 percent of the 21,369 students who applied for admission to the class of 2012. This year was “the most selective in Princeton’s history,” according to our admirable dean of admissions, Jane Rapelye. Our applications increased by 12.8 percent this year, and their quality by the usual measure was staggering (to me, at least): More than 7,000 applicants had better than a 4.0 grade point average and more than 11,000 had a combined score of 2100 or higher on the three parts of the SAT examination. And they came from all over — from 7,436 U.S. high schools and 137 foreign countries. It is a strikingly diverse group along a number of parameters, including gender (50 percent each) and race/ethnicity (44.8 percent students of color). Students have been admitted from 61 different countries. If you are fortunate enough to teach in such an institution, these numbers are a boon. I happen to teach in the only selective major field (public policy) in a highly selective school, and my students are a joy to work with.
But of course the price of this selectivity is high. The elite colleges use alumni to interview high-school admissions applicants (Princeton “alumni volunteers had personal contact with an unprecedented 98.5 percent of applicants, or 21,052 students”), and those of us who participate have at least some sense of the pain out there. I have interviewed Harvard applicants for more than 35 years. I normally see four or five students each year, and speak to them for 30 to 45 minutes — enough for an experienced educator to form a superficial impression of quality — before writing an e-mail report for the admissions committee. But I cannot remember the last time one of the students I have interviewed has been admitted to Harvard.
This year I received a particularly painful e-mail message from one rejected applicant shortly after she had visited the Web site on Decision Day. She could not understand why her remarkable grades and test scores (and she was outstanding in other ways) had not qualified her for admission. The answer, of course, is that “many are called and few are chosen,” but only committed Calvinists will comprehend this response. Harvard, after all, admitted only a little over 7 percent of its applicants. My crude guess would be that, at a minimum, 20 percent of applicants to elite institutions are in fact fully qualified to do well in these colleges. Many of them, of course, will be admitted to other elite institutions, but not all, and many will harbor long-term feelings of rejection.
And the problem is exacerbated by the increasing asymmetry in the financial aid available to the best students — the more prestigious the institution, the greater the chance of the student (and her parents) emerging debt-free at the end of four years. So there is emotional pain and material consequence to the increasing selectivity of undergraduate education in these United States. I am grateful for the quality of students Janet Rapelye provides me with. But I worry a lot about those who did not have such fortunate lottery tickets — and I have absolutely no solution to propose.
Posted at 10:24:41 AM on April 6, 2008 | All postings by Stan KatzComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Two Bobs, R.I.P.
Next: The Emergence of the Digital Humanities
Well, transparency comes to mind as the first step toward a “solution”.
For example, we all know that, the more selective the school, the more likely it is to have “legacy admissions” (the posting didn’t mention those, now, did it?). Grandpa and Mom and Dad went to this or that Ivy so this or that Ivy lowers its expectations for the admission of a certain percentage of students from this category. This is, I believe, the origin of the expression “a gentleman’s C”, for example. And note, as well, that alumni interviewers play a role in admissions as well.
A lottery ticket? I don’t think so.
Maybe if the student applying states an intended economics major (or some other equally “impacted” major) the last steps in selectivity might resemble those of a lottery. As one friend and colleague once put it: The Ivies should simply throw the applications down a stairway and then collect those on every other step. The candidates will indeed “resemble” each other in their stellar backgrounds and there might then be some semblance of “fairness”.
But if a student is applying to a less-impacted major, might not this play in his or her favor? I believe the (in)famous US News and World Report rankings issue carried an article about admissions a few years ago which said just that.
So, let’s ask ourselves why there is no real transparency to speak of in admissions at America’s most selective schools? (That’s what the posting actually draws our attention to, does it not?)
Well, for one thing, the public “elites” fear another Gratz-and-Grutter decision (those were on diversity admissions, you will recall). So, transparency forces discussions of equity, of diversity, of gender, of class, of age, of political affiliation, etc. — and even of which disciplines are in or out of favor with the administration.
So, one thing is for sure: by maintaining tight control of admissions in the private elites — and now by offering full scholarships — a handful of schools is engaging in the power politics of “designer education”, having virtually eliminated outside variables to the control of its brands.
And let us not forget that the Ivies are notorious for “mostly A & B” grade inflation — therefore, once admitted, it is difficult to fail if the student does the bare minimum required.
The really interesting scholarship on admissions will be in the years to come, as the public watches just who, indeed, the elites select for the “privilege” of walking among them — and going forth into society as “the chosen: the anointed of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.”, ready for their place in the inter-locking directorates of global corporate power, for example.
Indeed, heaven help us, oh Lord….
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Apr 6, 03:00 PM · #
What about gender norming?
— Sterling · Apr 6, 10:42 PM · #
2: e.g. The “thousand male leaders a year” promise at Yale when it went co-ed in the late 60’s?
You’re surely not referring to the stats which indicate that women are out-performing men in education settings, high school and college.
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Apr 7, 07:52 AM · #