Overzealous overhaul? - Editor's Note

University Business, Jan, 2004 by Kathy Grayson

RECENTLY, JAY MATTHEWS' WASHINGTONPOST.COM COLUMN PLAYED host to a piece by CUff Sjogren, an ex-director of Admission at the University of Michigan ('73-'88), and the former dean of Admission and Financial Aid at the University of Southern California ('89-'93). Entitled "A Radical Plan for a Simplification of the College Admission Process," the proposal is quite detailed and worthy of more than the oversimplification I will attempt here. If you haven't seen it, please head to the site to download it (dateline: Tuesday, November 25).

But though the plan offers some excellent suggestions for revamping a system that is unarguably overcomplicated and anxiety-provoking for students, I take real issue with some of Sjogren's ideas, and see glaring areas of contradiction that must be addressed.

Some of Sjogren's better suggestions focus on the following: a) The current system is not "student centered," and keeps students from enjoying and taking proper advantage of a good part of their high school education. b) High school counselors are overly burdened by the process, most notably by the production of counselor recommendations. c) The college application itself has become unwieldy. d) The college essay has become corrupted by the assistance of "helpful" (usually highly educated and affluent) parents, family members, friends, and even essay-writing services. e) Not enough data from the high school is made available to place grades, course choices, etc., in proper context. f) The early decision process (and similar) is now abominable and needs to be eliminated. g) The role of SATs and ACTs must be modified (high scores are unambiguous, Sjogren points out, white low scores can be entirely ambiguous--lowered by all sorts of influencers). h) Legacy/alumni/faculty preferences need to be reprioritized. i) Advanced standing, rather than credits, should be awarded for AP and IB scores (why reduce a college student's opportunity for more advanced enrichment, by reducing credit requirements?). Now for the "cons."

First off, a dazzling contradiction in Sjogren's plan struck me like a frying pan upside the head. He opens by stating that "institutions should be able to implement an admission process that is based on the applicant's previous academic performance," and goes on to advocate the dropping of the essay, the elimination or drastic reduction of counselor recommendations, and a reduced emphasis on extracurricular activities. Yet, he later describes the importance of the "nudge" factor for almost-competitive students, and suggests that "personal," "creativity," and "diversity" (including economic and demographic) special considerations be used to figure out which near-competitive students might be admitted.

But how can an admissions professional judge--or even uncover--such criteria, with only academic performance information at hand?

Admissions consultant Matthew Greene (www.greenesguides.com) had the same reaction I had. "To make the process more 'student centered,'" he says, "the student needs to have more, rather than fewer, opportunities to present himself to the college. How else will the college learn about all those personal/social/environmental/familial factors that may have impacted the student's development?"

As it happens, Sjogren supports the "multiple intelligences" theory, whereby people possess verbal, logical, musical, physical, and interpersonal intelligences. "Determination and persistence" could even be added to the list, he says. Yet, asks Greene, "How will the college understand the multiple intelligences operating in the background of a student's black-and-white transcript or test scores?"

The fact is that a large number of applications to most IHEs come from students who are not clear-cut academic shoe-ins, those to whom the "nudge factor" does indeed need to be applied. Moreover, many clearly academically qualified students are not emotionally or otherwise prepared for college, and a somewhat less-academically qualified applicant may be a better-prepared addition, or for personal, creative, or other reasons, a more interesting addition to a class that seeks to be well-balanced and diversified.

As for the now unreliable application essays and burdensome crafting of recommendations, why not alter format and delivery, rather than eliminate two vital opportunities to "get inside" an applicant?

To keep the essay an honest form of communication, why not require it either as an in-person of online component of the application? If the applicant has come to the Admissions office for an interview (which we should be encouraging--not discouraging in favor of paper-only representation), just as in a job interview, a predetermined amount of time could be dedicated to answering a brief questionnaire. That questionnaire could consist of one or two reasonable questions whose responses would be enlightening for application reviewers. If an actual visit to the school is not possible, why not a "virtual" interview or e-mail process, in which the student must verify his identity, and then respond to a few questions designed to reveal other forms of "multiple intelligence" not apparent in a transcript. Surely in this age of cyber-communication and -security, we can come up with a way to make sure no parents, friends, or hired professionals are responding for the student.