NY Times - What Colleges Want in an Applicant (Everything)
by Eric Hoover
The
admissions process is out of whack. Just ask the heartbroken applicant,
rejected by her dream school. Ask high school counselors, who complain
that colleges don’t reward promising students for their creativity,
determination or service to others. Even the gatekeepers at some famous
institutions acknowledge, quietly, that the selection system is broken.
Ask
five people how to fix it, though, and they’ll give five different
answers. Sure, you might think colleges put too much stock in the SAT,
but your neighbor’s kid with the near-perfect score thinks it should
matter a lot. More than half of Americans say colleges shouldn’t give
children of alumni a leg up, according to a recent Gallup poll; yet
nearly half say parental connections should be at least a “minor
factor.”
The
debate about who gets into the nation’s competitive colleges, and why,
keeps boiling over. The Justice Department has confirmed that it’s
looking into a complaint, filed in 2015 by a coalition of 64
Asian-American associations, charging discrimination against
high-achieving Asian-American college applicants. Also, students for
Fair Admissions, which opposes affirmative action policies, has filed
discrimination lawsuits against Harvard, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Texas at Austin.
Although
the Supreme Court affirmed last year that admissions officers may
consider an applicant’s race among other factors, polls show that a
majority of Americans disagree with that decision. Critics of
affirmative action see plenty of room for future legal challenges.
Whatever
happens, age-old questions about fairness in admissions will surely
endure. For one thing, the nation can’t come to terms with a tricky
five-letter word: merit. Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined
the pejorative term “meritocracy” over a half-century ago to describe a
future in which standardized intelligence tests would crown a new elite.
Yet as Rebecca Zwick explains in her
new book
“Who Gets In?” the meaning has shifted. The word “merit,” she writes,
has come to mean “academic excellence, narrowly defined” as grades and
test scores.
But
that’s just one way to think of an applicant’s worthiness. Dr. Zwick,
professor emeritus at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has
long been a researcher at the Educational Testing Service, which
develops and administers the SAT. She disputes the notion that testing
prowess — or any other attribute, for that matter — entitles a student
to a spot at his chosen college. “There is, in fact, no absolute
definition of merit,” she writes.
That
brings us to you, the anxious applicant, the frazzled parent, the
confused citizen, all wondering what colleges want. It’s worth taking a
deep breath and noting that only 13 percent of four-year colleges accept
fewer than half of their applicants. That said, colleges where seats
are scarce stir up the nation’s emotions. Each year, the world-famous
institutions reject thousands and thousands of students who could thrive
there.
Yes,
rejection stings. But say these words aloud: The admissions process
isn’t fair. Like it or not, colleges aren’t looking to reel in the
greatest number of straight-A students who’ve taken seven or more
Advanced Placement courses. A rejection isn’t really about you; it’s
about a maddening mishmash of competing objectives.
Just
as parents give teenagers a set of chores, colleges hand their
admissions leaders a list of things to accomplish. When they fail, they
often get fired.
“We
don’t live in a cloud — the reality is, there’s a bottom line,” said
Angel B. Pérez, vice president for enrollment and student success at
Trinity College, in Hartford. “We’re an institution, but we’re also a
business.”
On many campuses, financial concerns affect decisions about whom to admit. A
recent report
by the National Association for College Admission Counseling found that
about half of institutions said an applicant’s “ability to pay” was of
at least “some importance” in admissions decisions. Among other targets
is geographic diversity, which is now seen as an indicator of
institutional strength and popularity. (Some presidents have been known
to gripe if the freshman class doesn’t represent all 50 states.) A
campus might also need a particular number of engineering majors or
goalies.
Indeed,
a college could accept 33 percent of all applicants, but that doesn’t
mean each applicant has a one-in-three chance. Success depends on what a
student brings to the table.
Generally,
nothing carries more weight in admissions than grades (plus strength of
the high school curriculum) and ACT/SAT scores. With limited time and
resources, those metrics offer a relatively quick way to predict who
will succeed. But the measures have drawbacks. Grade inflation has
complicated the task of evaluating achievements, and so has the variance
in high school grading policies. Standardized test scores correlate
with family income; white and Asian-American students fare better than
black and Hispanic students do. Also, when colleges talk about
predicting “success,” they usually mean first-year grades — a limited
definition.
And
so, many colleges rely on “holistic” evaluations, allowing colleges to
contextualize applicants’ academic records and to identify disadvantaged
students who might lack the sparkling credentials of their affluent
peers. Did they attend low-performing high schools or well-resourced
ones? Did they participate in extracurricular activities? Do they have
leadership experience?
What
colleges look for sends a powerful message about what matters, not just
to admissions officers but in life, and students often respond
accordingly.
Dr.
Pérez, a first-generation college student who grew up in a low-income
family, recently revamped Trinity’s process to better identify promising
students, particularly the disadvantaged. While reading applications,
its admissions officers now look for evidence of 13 characteristics —
including curiosity, empathy, openness to change and ability to overcome
adversity — that researchers associate with successful students. These
are also qualities that the liberal-arts college values, inside and
outside the classroom.
Trinity’s
officers can check as many qualities as apply using a drop-down box
labeled “Predictors of Success.” They must note where they saw evidence
of each quality in the application. “It can’t be just a hint,” Dr. Pérez
said. He recalls a teacher recommendation describing how an applicant
had taken a stand on a controversial social issue in class, even though
other students vocally disagreed with him. Impressed, Dr. Pérez checked
the box for “Comfort in Minority of 1,” a sign, perhaps, that the
student would contribute to campus dialogues. Also on the drop-down:
“Delayed Gratification” and “Risk Taking.”
While
Trinity still values conventional measures, the new model has expanded
the staff’s understanding of merit. “We’re trying to give students more
credit for these characteristics, especially those who’ve had some
challenges,” Dr. Pérez said. The new approach, along with the college’s
recent decision to stop requiring ACT/SAT scores, has helped it
diversify its classes. Low-income and first-generation students
represent 15 percent of this fall’s freshman class, up from 8 percent
three years ago.
“I’m
trying to increase the tools we have, and get beyond a system that is
absolutely antiquated,” Dr. Pérez said. “As the country becomes more
diverse, as we learn more about the correlation between standardized
test scores and wealth, we have to be a lot more creative in predicting
for success in college.”
What
most colleges ask for from applicants doesn’t reveal much about the
many skills and talents a student might possess. But what if colleges
asked for more?
The
admissions process at Olin College of Engineering includes a live
audition. After completing a traditional application, selected students
visit the campus, in Needham, Mass., for an intense two-day tryout. In
addition to sitting for interviews, they work in small groups to
complete a tabletop design challenge, such as building a tower that can
hold a specific weight. On the second day, they are given another task,
like designing a campus building. This time, evaluators observe each
student, noting how well they communicate with others and adapt on the
fly.
The
experience is meant to help prospective students understand Olin’s
collaborative culture, while giving the college a better glimpse of each
applicant before finalizing acceptance. “It’s hard to nail down a
student’s mind-set from the traditional elements of the application,”
said Emily Roper-Doten, the dean of admission and financial aid. “This
allows us to see them in motion, in an educational moment.”
A
desire to see what students can do with their hands inspired a recent
change at one of the world’s most renowned campuses. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (motto: “Mens et manus,” Latin for “Mind and
hand”) now gives applicants the option of submitting a Maker Portfolio
to show their “technical creativity.”
Applicants
can send images, a short video and a PDF that shed light on a project
they’ve undertaken — clothing they’ve made, apps they’ve designed, cakes
they’ve baked, furniture they’ve built, chain mail they’ve woven.
M.I.T. also asks students to explain what the project meant to them, as
well as how much help they got. A panel of faculty members and alumni
reviews the portfolios.
Last
year, about 5 percent of applicants submitted a Makers Portfolio. “It
gives us a fuller picture of the student,” said Stuart Schmill, dean of
admissions and student financial services. “Without this, some
applicants might not be able to fully get across how good a fit they are
for us.”
M.I.T.’s
experiment has sparked discussions among admissions deans, some of whom
say they plan to offer similar opportunities for applicants to send
evidence of project-based learning. They describe the Makers Portfolio
as an intriguing glimpse of how a college might better align its process
with its culture and values. The catch: Reviewing all those portfolios
takes time, something admissions offices lack. Even a small college like
Olin, which welcomed fewer than 100 new students this fall, must
scramble to pull off its elaborate evaluations. Larger campuses couldn’t
even consider such an approach.
Thorough
review has become more challenging over the last decade, with waves of
applicants overwhelming big-name colleges, victims of their own
popularity. The University of California at Los Angeles received more
than 100,000 applications for about 6,000 spots this fall. Stanford got
44,000 for just over 1,700 spots, and M.I.T. juggled more than 20,000
for 1,450 seats.
Most colleges are considering more incremental ways to enhance evaluations. The
Coalition
for Access, Affordability and Success, with more than 130 prominent
campuses as members, recently established an application platform with a
feature called a virtual college locker, a private space where students
can upload materials, such as videos and written work, that they could
later add to their applications. Among its stated goals: to make
admissions more personal.
So
far, most of its members aren’t asking applicants to send anything
different than before. But that could change. A handful of colleges are
planning experiments using alternative ways to measure student
potential. One hopes to enable applicants to demonstrate their
“emotional intelligence,” or E.Q., to showcase their ability to work
with others, according to Annie Reznik, the coalition’s executive
director. Another seeks a way for prospective students to display their
“fire” for learning.
“We
want better inputs,” said Jeremiah Quinlan, dean of undergraduate
admissions and financial aid at Yale. “The inputs we have predict
success academically. Now, we have the ability to get to know a student
better, from a different type of submission.”
Like
many deans, Mr. Quinlan has grown wary of polished personal essays in
which applicants describe their achievements. “They feel like they have
to show off, because we’re so selective,” he said, “and it’s completely
understandable.” Technology, he believes, can help colleges get to know
the student beneath the surface of a résumé, to gain a better sense of
their passions, the kind of community member the applicant might be.
Last
year, Yale allowed students using the coalition’s application to submit
a document, image, audio file or video in response to a prompt (they
also had to reflect, in 250 words or less, on their submission). When
Justin Aubin heard about that option last fall, he thought, “Cool!”
Mr.
Aubin, from Oak Lawn, Ill., was then a high school senior hoping to
attend Yale. The following prompt caught his eye: “A community to which
you belong and the footprint you have left.” He submitted a short video
documenting his Eagle Scout project, for which he oversaw the
construction of a monument honoring veterans. Even a well-written essay,
he figured, couldn’t capture his experience as well as four minutes of
footage, shot by his older brother.
The
content of the video impressed Yale’s admissions committee. “People sat
up in their chairs,” Mr. Quinlan said. “You could see how he handled
his leadership role, and we felt like we got a good sense of him in a
way that we didn’t get from recommendations.” Mr. Aubin is now a freshman at Yale.
Did the video tip the scales? “That was a difference-maker,” Mr. Quinlan said.
Even
as colleges consider innovation, it’s worth asking which fixtures of
the admissions process, if any, they are willing to discard. Some
prevalent practices seem to stand in the way of meaningful change.
Giving
an advantage to the sons and daughters of alumni is one such practice.
Some colleges admit legacies (and the children of potential donors) at a
much greater rate than non-legacies. Legacies make up nearly a third of
Harvard’s current freshman class, The Harvard Crimson has reported.
Princeton’s class of 2021 is 13 percent legacy, according to the
university’s website.
While
a handful of prominent institutions, including the University of
Georgia and Texas A&M University, stopped considering legacy status
more than a decade ago, most colleges seem unlikely to remove that
variable from the admissions equation anytime soon. “I don’t think an
applicant’s legacy status is a crazy thing to look at, especially in the
financial climate some colleges are in,” said Rick Clark, director of
undergraduate admission at Georgia Tech, where nearly a fifth of
freshmen are legacies. “Colleges have to think about their longevity.”
The
benefits of legacies go beyond maintaining good will with alumni who
might open their wallets, Mr. Clark said. In his experience, they tend
to be enthusiastic students who help foster community on campus, the
kind of relationships that help other students feel at home and succeed.
“Multigenerational ties to a place add value, creating this passionate,
magnetic source of energy,” he said.
The
key, Mr. Clark believes, is not to lower standards, or to enroll so
many legacies that other priorities, such as increasing racial and
socioeconomic diversity, suffer as a result. “Those two goals aren’t
mutually exclusive,” he said.
Other
measurements used by selective colleges have nothing to do with a
student’s accomplishments or attributes — and everything to do with a
college’s agenda.
About
one in five institutions allot “considerable importance” to
“demonstrated interest,” the degree to which applicants convey their
desire to enroll if accepted, according to a survey by the National
Association for College Admission Counseling. The strongest expression
of demonstrated interest is applying for binding early decision, a
policy that favors affluent students who don’t need to compare financial
aid offers and one that some colleges use to fill half their seats.
Beyond
that, technology has made it easier to track the number of times an
applicant engages with a college (by visiting the campus, contacting an
admissions officer, responding to an email). This valuable information
helps officers gauge who’s most likely to enroll, which can influence
who gets admitted in the first place. A higher “yield,” the percentage
of accepted students who actually enroll, is widely seen as a measure of
status.
The
problem is that savvy students who know colleges are watching them can
tilt the odds in their favor, said Nancy Leopold, executive director of
CollegeTracks,
a Maryland nonprofit group that helps low-income and first-generation
students get into college: “Demonstrated interest is biased against kids
who don’t know the game exists, or who don’t have the time or money to
play it.”
What
do colleges really cherish? The answer is influenced greatly by the
entities they seek to impress. U.S. News & World Report and other
college guides, not to mention bond-rating agencies, rely heavily on
conventional admissions metrics like ACT/SAT scores and acceptance rates
to evaluate institutions. A college president might wish to attract
more creative thinkers, but accomplishing that goal won’t help his
college’s ranking.
Generally,
colleges are risk-averse. Rocking the boat with a newfangled admissions
process could hurt their reputations. “The challenge for many
admissions offices is to make a change, but not so much change or
innovation that you’re risking the position you’re in,” said Ms.
Roper-Doten of Olin. Asking students to do more could scare off would-be
applicants.
“Colleges seek validation,” said Lloyd Thacker, executive director of the
Education Conservancy,
a nonprofit group that has sought to reform college admissions.
“Without a real external incentive for colleges to care about broadening
their understanding of what makes an applicant promising, they don’t
seem likely to change the definition on their own.”
A recent campaign called “
Turning the Tide,”
a project of Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, is urging
admissions deans to rethink the qualities they consider in applicants.
In a report signed by representatives of about 200 campuses, colleges
are asked to promote ethical character and service to others through the
admissions process.
Although
some deans say they have no business assessing the character of
still-maturing teenagers, the push has prompted a handful of
institutions to tweak their applications. The University of North
Carolina now emphasizes contributions to others when asking about
extracurricular activities. M.I.T. added an essay question asking
students to describe how they’ve helped people.
Richard
Weissbourd, a senior lecturer at Harvard, who leads the initiative,
recommends that colleges define service in ways that might resonate with
disadvantaged students. “Many students don’t have opportunities to do
community service,” he said. “They’re taking care of their siblings, or
they’re working part-time jobs to help their families. Colleges need to
say, ‘That matters to us.’ ”
In
the end, increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity in higher
education is a matter of will. A college can prioritize it or not, said
Shaun R. Harper, a professor at the University of Southern California’s
Rossier School of Education who studies race and student success.
In
September, Dr. Harper gave a keynote speech at the annual conference of
the National Association for College Admission Counseling, in Boston.
He urged his audience to think hard about racial inequality and “things
you perhaps inadvertently and unknowingly do to support it.”
He
cited as examples high school counselors who discourage promising
minority students from applying to highly selective colleges; college
leaders who say they “just can’t find enough” qualified black applicants
even as their athletics coaches comb the nation for black students who
excel at sports; admissions officers who recruit at the same high
schools year after year, overlooking those full of underrepresented
minorities.
As
Dr. Harper spoke, many listeners applauded; a few scowled. He concluded
his remarks by criticizing the lack of racial diversity among
admissions deans themselves. He received a standing ovation.
In
a subsequent interview, Dr. Harper elaborated on his concerns. “When
the demographics of the profession have not changed, particularly at the
senior level,” he said, “I don’t know that we can expect a major
change, especially in terms of diversifying the class.”
Although
Dr. Harper believes colleges rely too heavily on ACT/SAT scores, he
says that the major barriers arise well before the application process
even begins. Colleges, he said, must do more in terms of outreach to
encourage underrepresented students to apply.
Dr.
Pérez, at Trinity, has similar concerns. Although he is convinced that
the selection process can be successfully revamped, he doesn’t think
that will solve the No. 1 problem he sees in admissions. “The problem is
money,” he said. “If I had more funding, my class would be more
diverse. The conversation we’re not having in this country is: How do we
fund colleges and universities?”
However
the admissions process might evolve, it surely will continue to serve
the interests of colleges first and foremost. Even if someone invents a
better, more equitable way to gauge applicants’ potential, a college’s
many wants and needs wouldn’t change. Deans would still seek to balance
their classes by enrolling a diverse mix of majors from many states and
countries. Colleges would still need enough oboe players and
theater-arts majors.
“What
compels institutions to change is deep discontent,” said Marie Bigham,
director of college counseling at Isidore Newman School, in New Orleans.
“If they’re only making changes on the margins, it indicates that
they’re mostly content with the way things are.”
That
leads to a big question in an age of widening social inequality. How
unhappy are the wealthiest colleges, really, with the status quo? Some
of the nation’s most selective institutions enroll more students from
the top 1 percent of the income ladder than from the bottom 60 percent.
Is that simply because of lack of preparation in the K-12 system? Flaws
within the selection process? Or is it evidence, as Dr. Harper suggests,
of a systemic lack of will to change those numbers?
Jon
Boeckenstedt, associate vice president for enrollment management and
marketing at DePaul University, says that it is the high-profile
colleges that have the power to redefine the admissions process.
“Unless
and until something changes at the top, nothing else is going to
change,” he said. “That’s because, at a lot of colleges, people will go
to their graves trying to imitate the Ivy League.”
Eric Hoover is a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education covering admissions.
