As students all across the globe review acceptance and rejection letters, many will wonder what determined their fate. There are some mysterious factors, as David Ha ’18 noted in The Herald March 30, and many are in favor of demystifying these secrets. But there are other practices that occur in broad daylight that many regularly choose to ignore.
The New York Times recently published a “Room for Debate” feature in which a bunch of smart people describe their ideas on how to improve the college admission process in the United States. There are a lot of ideas. Swarthmore Professor of Psychology Barry Schwartz advocates a lottery after candidates meet a certain bar of qualification. If they do not, their names are weeded out, and the remaining names are “put into a hat and the winners would be drawn at random,” Schwartz wrote.
Others, such as college consultant Michele Hernandez, suggest that applicants be evaluated more holistically. Economist Alvin Roth advocates a system whereby students could signal which colleges they strongly want to attend, thereby informing schools of how seriously to consider their application.
There is unifying underlying assumption: America’s college processes are broken. And they are, but just because something is flawed does not mean that it’s still not the best. The United States’ college admission process far exceeds that of many other countries. But there is still room for improvement, and there are many perversions worth noting.
Let’s start with the concept of legacy, which baffles me. I understand there is a clear financial incentive for a school to have familial connections. This attempts to reduce the alienation between a corporation like Brown and individuals who choose to finance and donate to the school. It establishes a connection, however superficial it might be. But the fact that having a parent who attended Brown — or any other school — influences admission as heavily as it does runs counter to progressivism and the values of higher education. The consideration of legacy disadvantages people whose parents did not have the privilege of attending college, solidifies social strata and allows many to coast through high school knowing that their family already blazed the path for them.
And why should this bloodline matter more to a school than alumni interviews? The way in which the alumni interview has been propagated is perplexing. Professionals, interested parties and many others spend a considerable amount of time meeting with prospective students, adding their insights and learning about those who might matriculate.
Yet, according to Karen Richardson of Tufts University, these interviews do not “make or break” decisions. In short, they have little to no effect. Richardson argues that the interviews, in fact, are just as much an opportunity for the student to learn about the institution as they are a reflex of the admissions process.
These interviews should carry more weight than legacy does. Alumni interviewers care enough about their school to sit down with students and gauge whether they are worth admitting. I have heard of multiple cases where alumni interviewers sent voluntary letters supporting a particular applicant — many to no avail.
When these alums advocate, without coercion or pressure, on behalf of students, schools often disregard the information; yet if a student possesses alumni blood, this information is emphasized.
In Canada, the admission process is much worse since the major universities are public institutions. In Ontario, my native province, it took me less than 30 minutes to apply to college. You open the Ontario University Application Centre. Fill out your senior grades. Find corresponding school codes and click submit. This leads to universities that are even more stratified since little information beyond GPA is considered.
Though some programs have a more strenuous application process that includes personal statements, it is much less comprehensive than what is required by most elite U.S. institutions, which often require incredibly difficult supplements in addition to the Common Application. Anecdotally, when I visited Connecticut College, I was introduced to rugby players and asked about my tenure as class president. It felt as if the admission officer truly understood who I was rather than just seeing me as another number applying to a massive monolith.
I hope that my native Canada and its institutions adopt a more holistic application process so that they attract a wider swath of applicants. Canada might look to the U.S. model, even with its flaws. I also hope that Americans begin to improve upon the system and realize that, although strenuous, taxing and imperfect, the U.S. system is better than they might believe. We certainly don’t need newspaper sections and transparency to fix the invisible. The things that need fixing are already staring us in the face.
Graham Rotenberg ’17 can be reached at graham_rotenberg@brown.edu.
