Crazy U

Andrew Ferguson’s Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College might be our best hope for reframing the college admissions process.  Not changing it - that’s unlikely given the market forces and administrative intransigence Ferguson reveals.  But reframing is possible – examining the assumptions and overblown claims that cause hysteria and lead us to forget that the whole endeavor is really about kids – sweaty, distracted and lovable kids.  Ferguson accomplishes this thanks to his son, the applicant who graciously allows his father to write about him (such generosity alone should be rewarded with admission!).  The author’s endearing descriptions of his son are the most touching passages in the book.  

Crazy U was a refreshing read in a genre that is committed to repackaging information with minimal analysis.  I found myself questioning my opinions on college rankings and the SAT.  According to Ferguson, rankings like U.S News provide information that parents would otherwise lack.  He questions why colleges complain about U.S. News yet withhold information like the NESSE survey which attempts to assess what students actually learn in college.  Ferguson took the SAT on the same morning as his son – a feat of fatherly love that resulted in hilarity and enlightenment.  How many in the “college admissions” field would subject themselves to such humbling?  This is one of the guilty pleasures of reading Ferguson’s book – he makes us feel like it’s ok to be less than perfect, to come to the admissions process late and ill-prepared.  More importantly, it’s ok for kids to be kids, even when the admissions officers expect them to show a level of maturity few of us (thankfully) ever achieve.

Ferguson discovers that college admissions literature abides by the “law of constant contradictions.”  Advice is everywhere, but it is never consistent and rarely of any use.  Too often, it is detached from reality at the student’s expense.  When his family visits Harvard, they suffer through a video encouraging students to “give it a try” and apply to Harvard.  No wonder parents nearly revolt when the topic of legacies and low admissions rates comes up.  Coincidentally, or rather not, when I called Harvard to ask if it had any advice for rejected students, I got the same line Ferguson had to swallow during his visit – we are limited by the “number of beds” in Harvard Yard.  The script has not been altered - Tommy Lee Jones would be proud (Harvard seems very taken with this particular alum).

Ferguson knows his way around a keyboard.  Here is one of my favorite lines:  “We confuse a coveted degree with an excellent education –eat the menu instead of the dinner.”  His vocabulary had me finally using the dictionary feature on my Kindle, but the book never came off as pretentious. 

Unfortunately, Crazy U was written for parents, not students.  Applicants could surely benefit from the book, but I’m afraid they might not pick it up.  Also, coping with rejection isn’t addressed directly (spoiler alert!), but rejected students will gain perspective on the process, and have a few much-needed laughs.

The $$$ Value of an Elite College

People are starting to get the message that attending an elite school is not necessary for future success.  I just wish those “people” were students!

There is solid research out there dispelling the myth of the elite college, but it is often out of reach for the average student.  One example is a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research entitled: “Value of an Elite College.”  I found this study through an April 8 article in TIME claiming that students might be better off attending a safety school than their “dream” college (The Upside of College Rejection: Your Safety School Might be the Smarter Choice, Kayla Webley, TIME, April 8, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063935,00.html).  

According to the article, “students rejected by highly selective schools go on to bank the same average earnings as Ivy League graduates.” 

Curious about this claim, I checked out the report.  It is very academic, full of statistical jargon like coefficients, regression models, variables, etc.  The purpose of the report was to measure “labor market return to college quality,” i.e., whether attendance at an elite college results in higher income.  The answer is no. 

There is more encouraging news for rejected students.  The study found that for students with “unobserved student characteristics” such as ambition and persistence, the elite factor had an insignificant relationship to future earnings.  Students who applied to elite schools displayed ambition, and students who applied to a long list of schools were considered persistent.  So simply applying to an elite school shows you’ve got the stuff to make it, regardless of the end result. 

According to Alan B. Krueger, Princeton economist and co-author of the study, "Even if students don't get in, the fact that they are confident enough to apply indicates they are ambitious and hardworking, which are qualities that will help them regardless of where they go to school.”

To be fair, it must be noted that there are three exceptions to the findings.  For black, Hispanic and students with parents who have little education, attending an elite college does impact their future earnings.  The authors suggest this could be because elite colleges offer these students access to connections and networks otherwise unavailable. 

The TIME article also makes the point that applying to graduate school from a safety school could be easier than from an elite school, where it is harder to stand out from the pack of overachievers. 

Getting back to my initial statement about students receiving this positive news.  The thing is, this is old news.  The researchers published another report with similar findings ten years ago, yet in the past ten years the pressure to attend an elite college has only intensified.

A New York Times blog posted the following quote from Krueger, and it is particularly applicable to students reading this blog. 

Krueger’s advice for students:  “Don’t believe that the only school worth attending is one that would not admit you. That you go to college is more important than where you go. Find a school whose academic strengths match your interests and that devotes resources to instruction in those fields. Recognize that your own motivation, ambition and talents will determine your success more than the college name on your diploma.”

Krueger’s advice for elite colleges:  “Recognize that the most disadvantaged students benefit most from your instruction. Set financial aid and admission policies accordingly.”

PDF of the report: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/education/returntocollege.pdf

April 8, 2011 TIME article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063935,00.html

Feb. 21, 2011 New York Times blog post: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/

A Dream Deferred

On April 10 The New York Times reported that some colleges are offering “deferred admission” to candidates willing to wait a semester or a year to matriculate (Admission to College, With Catch: Year’s Wait, Lisa W. Foderaro http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/education/11accept.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp ).   I don’t recall this being an option when I applied to college, albeit that was quite some time ago.  The reason for the new trend?  Beds.

Colleges seeking to keep the beds warm in the dorms throughout the year are finding that “deferred admission” is an effective way to combat declines due to drop-outs and transfers.  When the beds are full, colleges close their doors.  As the beds begin to grow cold, the door creeps open to allow a few deferred students to sneak through.

Rejected students should take comfort that this practice, like so much of admissions, is governed by limited space on campus.  When I sought advice for this blog from a Harvard admissions counselor, she responded that students must remember Harvard is limited by the number of beds in Harvard Yard.  I question this assumption.  In the age of online courses and satellite campuses, why should any college be limited by its real estate portfolio?  I believe Harvard could find space for more students.  That is, if it wanted to. 

The second notable aspect of this article is how “deferred admission” is also a tool to boost a college’s U.S. News ranking.  U.S. News statistics are only drawn from the class of freshmen entering in the fall.  Students with lower test scores can be hidden from U.S. News if they matriculate at a later date.  Furthermore, deferred students are not counted in the total number of admitted students, thereby lowering the admission rate and creating the illusion that the college is more selective than it truly is.  Just further evidence of the gamesmanship behind the U.S. News rankings.  

Would you accept a “deferred admission”?  

The Cost of Rejection

We’ve all heard about the rising cost of college tuition.  What about the cost of rejection?  It may not be measured in dollars, but it is still very real.

Students squeezed through the sausage grinder of the college admissions process often arrive on campus jaded and burned out.  In his March 16, 2001 piece for the New York Times, Andrew DelBanco quoted a Columbia professor complaining that, “Every year I read that our incoming students have better grades and better SAT scores than in the past.  But in the classroom, I do not find a commensurate increase in the number of students who are intellectually curious, adventurous or imbued with fruitful doubt.  Many students are chronically stressed, grade-obsessed and, for fear of jeopardizing their ambitions, reluctant to explore subjects in which they doubt their proficiency.”

Similarly, Barry Schwartz wrote in a 2007 LA Times article: “By making themselves so competitive, our selective institutions are subverting their aims.”  The article by Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore College, was appropriately named:  “Why the Best Schools Can’t Pick the Best Kids - and Vice Versa” (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/18/opinion/op-schwartz18). 

Perhaps the persistent branding sends the message that getting in is all that matters, not performance in college.  After all, even the worst Harvard graduate is still a Harvard graduate.  It is not surprising that students who view college as nothing more than a brand name will coast through their four years and probably not even realize what they are missing.

For rejected students, the cost is higher.  These students face the risk of not bouncing back.  I fell into this trap myself.  After pushing towards the singular goal of acceptance at Princeton, rejection left me questioning my efforts and hesitant to throw myself upon the unwelcoming world of academia.  I did not “attack” the college curriculum or outside activities with the same vigor I had in high school.  I shied away from risks like studying abroad, writing for the school newspaper or independent research.  I had a deep appreciation for learning, but couldn’t muster the energy for what seemed like jumping through even more hoops.  I looked at my fellow classmates with their eyes on graduate school, but refused to join them.  Why risk rejection again?  Why try when I was already told my best wasn’t good enough?

I doubt I’m the only student for whom the aftermath of rejection lingered throughout college.  I wish I could shake the rejection out of them and send them to college with a blank slate.  My wish for these students is that they give themselves a second chance.  Not doing so is a cost too high for any college. 

    

As Bill Mayher writes in The College Admissions Mystique, “In a generation or two, it will become clear how much we have invested in the madness surrounding selective admissions and how much we have lost.”

The Admissions Lottery

The psychologist Barry Schwartz has suggested that elite colleges would be better off conducting a lottery rather than the current admissions process.  Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this proposal in his 2008 book Outliers.  Here’s how it would work:  “Put people into two categories.  Good enough and not good enough.  The ones who are good enough get put into a hat.  And those who are not good enough get rejected.”

Gladwell calls this proposal “absolutely right.” He notes that in 2008 Harvard rejected 93 out of every 100 applicants, many of whom had identical academic records.  Of those rejected, 2,500 had perfect English SAT scores and 3,300 had perfect Math SAT scores.  Writes Gladwell: “Is it really possible to say that one student is Harvard material and another isn’t, when both have identical – and perfect – academic records?  Of course not.  Harvard is being dishonest.  Schwartz is right.  They should just have a lottery.”

This proposal would certainly save colleges the money, time and energy wasted each year on the pointless process of separating one perfect application from another.  Even more important, it would spare students from the misguided notion that their tireless efforts to achieve perfection were in vain.  A lottery doesn’t make the system any more just, but at least the randomness of the system would be clear for all to see.   

How can I be “genuine” when I don’t know who I am yet?

Admissions officers say they are looking for “authenticity” from college applicants.  This is one factor they use to sift through thousands of applications, but is it unfair to ask high school students to possess a quality that only comes with time? 

In order to be “authentic” or “genuine” (another catchphrase used by admissions officers) you have to know yourself on a level that most high school students do not.  The adults on the admissions committees may be too far removed from adolescence to remember how rare, and scary, true authenticity can be. 

I bet the Princeton admissions officers who read my application tossed it right into the “big phony” bucket.  The application asked me to describe my ideal roommate.  I answered a non-white roommate because my high school was so homogeneous.  I was writing from the heart, but looking back my stomach turns imagining how this was perceived.  My adult self knows such a statement stinks of insincerity.  The admissions officers had no way of knowing that one day I would marry outside of my race, raise bi-racial children and traverse racial boundaries in my friendships and work.  Ironically, these relationships taught me that all people are the same, but the girl filling out the Princeton application had not yet lived enough to learn that lesson. 

Students should not be penalized for submitting applications less than “genuine.”  Perhaps one reason so many applications look identical (another complaint of admissions officers) is because students are being deluged with the same advice.  Is it any surprise that these students are good at following instructions?  Must “find yourself” be added to the to-do list of overscheduled teenagers?  Isn’t that what college is for, anyway?

An Inside Look at Amherst Admissions

Anyone doubting the randomness of the admissions process should check out this March 28, 2011 NPR story
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134916924/Amherst-Admissions-Process, in which journalist Tovia Smith reports on her observations of the admissions committee at Amherst College.

The piece reveals that the admissions process is getting worse, especially for highly qualified students.  During the story, admissions officers at Amherst wrestle over student applications that largely look the same, even though these mirror images reflect industrious and intelligent students clearly capable of success at any college.  The officers search for ways to distinguish the students, sometimes even resorting to one line in a student essay.  One officer admits that for qualified students, the final round of decisions is really just a lottery.

This confirmation that admission decisions are highly subjective and random is discouraging and encouraging at the same time.  Discouraging because admissions officers are still on the wrong path, but encouraging because at least students rejected from Amherst can see that the decision was not about them.  

Rejection Advice from Yale

Some colleges recognize the limits and randomness of the admissions process.  Yale is one of them.

On the Yale Admissions website you can find a thoughtful, honest essay by the Dean of Admissions, Jeffrey Brenzel.  The essay is titled “Epilogue:  After Colleges Accept You,” but “Accept” could just as easily be replaced with “Reject.” 

Brenzel is writing to Yale applicants, whom he admits most likely applied to other “strong colleges.”  He understands that these students “may feel as if everything depends on which colleges admit you, or whether a certain one does.”  His response to this concern:

“After years of experience, however, here is what I know, virtually to the point of certainty: almost nothing depends on exactly which strong college admits you. Everything depends on what you decide to do once you get to a strong college, and how well prepared you are to take advantage of the infinite opportunities you will find there.

As responses come back to you from colleges, you will tend to dwell on the rejections, should you get some. It’s only natural – what you didn’t get and can’t have feels suddenly infinitely more valuable than what you did get and can have. You will be tempted to waste valuable time pondering what you could have done differently to be accepted by this or that school. You may be tempted to appeal the decision, if you had a “dream” school that didn’t come through. But there is only one good answer to make to any thin envelope you may receive: ‘Your loss, baby.’”

There’s not much I can add except to thank Yale for getting it.  Even though we may have disagreed in the past (they rejected my application), we do agree on this.  To view the full essay, visit: http://admissions.yale.edu/after-colleges-accept-you.  

J.K. Rowling on the Benefits of Failure

     Who needs four years at Harvard when you can get the commencement address for free? (Thank you, Youtube!)  In the case of JK Rowling’s 2008 Harvard commencement speech, her advice on failure is apt for high school seniors denied the opportunity to sit in the seats she was addressing.

Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, had notoriously “failed” by society’s standards.  Before introducing us to the boy wizard, she was a poor, divorced single mother with no job prospects but a very active imagination. 

Rowling’s message is this: “…personal happiness lies in knowing that life is not a check-list of acquisition or achievement. Your qualifications, your CV, are not your life, though you will meet many people of my age and older who confuse the two. Life is difficult, and complicated, and beyond anyone’s total control, and the humility to know that will enable you to survive its vicissitudes.” [Check out the speech at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkREt4ZB-ck]

Not all Harvard students got Rowling’s message.  One student complained, “You know, we're Harvard. We're like the most prominent national institution. And I think we should be entitled to ... we should be able to get anyone. And in my opinion, we're settling here.” 

Who knows what I would have thought if I had heard Rowling’s words on graduation day.  I certainly had confused my CV with my life, and sought shelter from my insecurities in my academic achievements.  After being rejected from Princeton (my dream school) the shelter was in ruins, as was my self esteem.  I didn’t have the confidence to take risks in college or believe in my ability despite the rejection.  I was bitter and jaded just when I should have been viewing the world with fresh eyes.

Rowling is grateful for her failures.  As she said, “Failure gave me an inner security that I had never attained by passing examinations.”  That inner security is priceless.  If college rejection is the cost for inner security, I’d say you got a bargain.

Don't Stalk the Admissions Officer!

“The ‘Admit’ or ‘Reject’ decision is usually based on the idiosyncrasies of the admissions officers handling your application.”

So writes Risa Lewak in her funny, clever and much needed book Don’t Stalk the Admissions Officer.   Risa and I were friends in high school, and we are both recovering overachievers, although you might question our “recovery” if you heard us gush over our beloved AP European history textbook (which Risa recently purchased from Amazon!).  If we had read Risa’s book years ago, we certainly would have left high school with happier memories, rather than a sick textbook obsession! 

While the book is intended for all students, I think overachievers would especially benefit from Risa’s humorous spin on the college admissions process.  Section headings like “Enjoy High School Now, Avoid Therapy Later,” and “Don’t Take It Personally Unless the Letter Says ‘We Hate You’” will force a smile on the most tightly wound applicant.    Even my husband enjoyed the book, and that’s saying a lot given that he applied to one school, was accepted early, and generally has no interest in the college admissions process.  Maybe he wanted to know what the rest of us endured…

I asked Risa to expand on the all-powerful “idiosyncrasies” of admissions officers that creep into the decision process.  Admissions officers have told her (under the condition of anonymity) that they “might simply be in a bad mood and reject an application or hate the applicant's essay subject or be more inclined to accept someone from a certain geographic area.”  She drew from these conversations that the process “is so random and so not based on a meritocracy.”  One admissions officer told Risa that his colleague pushed for an applicant who played the clarinet because he used to play the clarinet.  Even though Risa and I both believe the clarinet is a superior instrument (we played clarinet in our high school band), we cannot support such musical favoritism.  The “juicy tidbits and anecdotes” Risa gathered while researching her book led her to conclude that “rejection or acceptance is sometimes and often times more about the admissions officer than the applicant.”

Don’t Stalk the Admissions Officer also includes practical tips on selecting a school (for the right reasons), completing the application, dealing with pushy parents, financial aid and other topics that would otherwise be dry if not handled with Risa’s light and witty touch.  Risa also advises students act as their own information gatherers and advocates, rather than relying on guidance counselors.  In all, this book is a refreshing break from the stacks of college books known to induce panic attacks in students.

The Epilogue title captures the message of this blog – “Whether It’s Fat or Thin, an Envelope Will Not Change Your Life.”  It took Risa and I years after high school to learn this, but we’re offering you a short cut to sanity, so take it!     

Amazon Link to Don’t Stalk the Admissions Officer: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_34?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=don%27t+stalk+the+admissions+officer&sprefix=don%27t+stalk+the+admissions+officer

Don’t be a College Hater

They are on every campus - students who act like they are too good for their own school.  I call them college haters.  Don’t be one.

College haters arrive on campus with unhealed wounds of rejection.  Most were stunned to receive rejection letters, and take out their bitterness on the colleges that actually accept them.  Deeply insecure, haters look upon their fellow classmates as intellectual lightweights, even though most of these students are as qualified, if not more so, than the haters themselves.  Haters can never admit this because their identity is so wrapped up in being “the smart ones” that they will do anything, even sabotage their college experience, to defend it. 

I should know.  I came across many haters in college, and might have sipped from the keg of condescension once or twice myself.  Fortunately, I saw the light sophomore year when I met my future husband.  His crowd taught me that intelligence and having fun are not mutually exclusive.  Most students don’t wear their resumes on their sleeve.  The smartest student might be the one with the painted face streaking the football field.  You just never know. 

So even if you are angry, don’t become a hater.  It is a losing battle.  Your dream school isn’t going to change its mind, and hating your school will really piss off the people who want to be there. 

My advice for non-haters:  Don’t hate back.  The college haters are really self-haters who haven’t forgiven themselves for being rejected.  Take pity on them. Not only are they ruining their college experience, but the humbling waiting for them in the post-college world will not be gentle.    

My advice for haters:  I understand it’s hard.  Your self image has been shattered.  Maybe it is time just to be you, or at least try to figure out who that is.  

The Scoop on the U.S. News Rankings

    What makes a school a “top” college?  For many, this simply means placement at the “top” of the U.S. News & World Report annual college rankings.  After years of criticism, the U.S. News rankings are still looked to as the final word on how colleges stack up against each other. 

U.S. News & World Report stumbled onto a goldmine when it first published the college rankings issue in 1983.  It sold so well that the U.S. News staff referred to it as their “swimsuit issue.”  The rankings issue has even outlived the hard copy version of the magazine.  In November 2010, U.S. News ceased printing and shifted to an online format.  What was the only issue to remain on newsstands?  The U.S. News annual rankings.      

Why are the U.S. News rankings still so popular, especially among students fixated on the top of the list?  Academics and university administrators have long questioned the legitimacy of the rankings, but this criticism does not seem to have reached those who need to hear it the most – students and parents.  Did you know that Stanford President Gerhard Casper wrote a protest letter to U.S. News in 1996, and in 1997 Stanford refused to submit “reputational ranking” data to the magazine?  Or that in 2007 Yale hosted a conference titled “Beyond Ranking” as part of the movement to find an alternative to the broken and misleading commercial rankings?  If not, read on.

Below are the reasons critics give more weight to David Letterman’s Top Ten list than the U.S. News list.

Colleges game the system.  Thanks to one Dean of Admissions, we have a window into what he calls the “blatant falsification of data” pulled off by deans and admissions staff at “excellent U.S. colleges with selective admissions policies.”  As he writes in the essay “Faked Figures Make Fools of Us,” James M. Sumner, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Grinnell College, colleges improve their rank by not including data for “development cases” (students accepted because of family’s gifts), student athletes, legacies and waitlist students.  These students are often the weaker students offered admission.  Sumner writes his sources also admitted to calculating in-house, adjusted SAT/ACT scores before reporting them to U.S. News, and using tactics to drive up the number of applications. 

Reputation is everything.  Every year, U.S. News sends “reputational surveys” to college administrators asking them to rank their peer institutions.  Critics complain that these surveys are merely popularity contests and reinforce preconceived notions, since administrators rarely know in detail what is happening on other college campuses.  The survey results comprise 22.5% of the final U.S. News rank, more than any other factor (for a full list of the U.S. News ranking factors see: http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/08/17/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings?PageNr=4).  To address this criticism, U.S. News now sends the surveys to high school guidance counselors.  Regardless of who fills out the survey, we should question why reputation plays such a dominant role in the rankings at all.  Doesn’t this just lead students to make decisions for the wrong reasons?

The list is biased, at least according to the writings of statistician Amy Graham and journalist Nicholas Thompson (who founded Forget U.S. News Coalition (FUNC) as a Stanford student).  Graham and Thompson claim that the ranking favors the alma maters of the U.S. News editors - Harvard, Princeton and Yale.  “Upsetting that equilibrium,” they wrote in 2001, “upsets the equilibrium in the U.S. News publishing offices.”

It’s all in how you crunch the numbers.  In 1999, the same Amy Graham from above was asked by U.S. News to lend her statistician’s eye to the ranking effort.  Graham’s formula placed greater weight on the money colleges actually spend on students, and in a shocking turn, Caltech ended up in the #1 spot (up from #9 in 1998).  The next year, the formula was reworked again and Harvard, Princeton and Yale were restored to the top three spots.  The truth is that the rankings, like the college admissions process, are not scientific but human endeavors.  Most students probably do not know that U.S. News takes into account faculty salaries and alumni giving.  Nicholas Thompson described the U.S. News methodology as: “Good students plus good faculty equals good school…That’s like measuring the quality of a restaurant by calculating how much it paid for silverware and food: not completely useless, but pretty far from ideal.” 

The ranking does not measure how much students learn in college.  To be fair to U.S. News, it must be said that the quality of an education is very difficult to define, and even harder to measure.  Yet critics point to the hoops colleges jump through to rise in the rankings and argue that if U.S. News asked for the right data, colleges would find a way to supply it.  Currently, schools that offer rigorous curriculums, like Caltech and University of Chicago, are punished by the rankings.   In his 1996 letter to U.S. News, the President of Stanford wrote:  “Caltech is crucified for having a predicted graduation rate of 99 percent and an actual graduation rate of 85 percent. Did it ever occur to the people who created this ‘measure’ that many students do not graduate from Caltech precisely because they find [the institution] too rigorous and demanding that is, adding too much value ­ for them?”

U.S. News has made an effort to respond to these challenges, and the Wizard of Oz behind the rankings, Bob Morse, even writes a blog to lend transparency to the system (http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog).  Colleges are also working together to find a better method of providing students the information they need for comparison shopping. 

So if you were rejected by a “top” college, chances are it was only considered “top” because U.S. News said so.  Recalculate the list based on your own priorities, and the schools that accepted you just might rise to the top!

College Admissions Around the World

What is the admissions process like in other countries?  Would you have a better shot at Oxford or Cambridge than Harvard or Yale?  Well, consider this – Cambridge applicants are interviewed by two professors and face questions like “What do you most like about the brain?” or “Was Romeo impulsive?”  A student applying to Oxford might be asked, “If I could fold this piece of paper an infinite number of times how many times must I fold it to reach the moon?”  

Clearly, the interview is just one way the US system differs from those abroad.  From my experience, US college interviews are nothing more than chat fests with nostalgic alums.  I remember one interviewer told me he had recently interviewed the daughter of a prominent local doctor, and then asked me what my father did for a living.  Another complained how his college had gone downhill since his days on campus.  It was all a waste of time; a bone thrown to alumni to make them feel important.  I prefer the quirky “Oxbridge” questions because at least they show these institutions value student intellectual curiosity and ingenuity, not the ability to make small talk.

The differences between admissions in the US and overseas do not end with the interview questions.  You might be surprised to learn that the US and Sweden are the only countries that require an “aptitude” test (SAT).  Almost all other countries base admissions decisions on subject-oriented “achievement” tests.  In other words, you are judged by what you actually learned in high school, not whether you took a prep course to decipher the secret code of the SAT.

How would you like a computer to make admissions decisions, rather than an admissions officer?  This is the case in Australia.  Students are ranked based on their performance on a national exam, then select their top choices and the computer does the rest.  Just think how much money universities could save if they replaced their admissions offices with a computer.  Maybe then they could afford to accept more applicants. 

Japanese students take a national entrance exam that determines where they can apply.   If adopted in the US, this would save students from applying to schools where they really don’t have strong chances of admission, and reduce the workload for admissions officers.  However, this system doesn’t suit students with their heart set on one school, because poor performance on the national entrance exam can block them from even applying to their dream school.  Japanese students in this situation often wait another year to retake the entrance exam. 

Not surprisingly, in China the state controls the admissions process, right down to setting the number of available spots to meet the projected needs of society.  If the US government could do this, we’d see a lot more engineers and fewer lawyers!

If I had to be an applicant in a non-US system, I would pick Ireland.  Irish applicants rank their choices and are then “matched” based on their rank and their test scores.  What I like is the idea that students pick the college, not the other way around.  The transparency of student preferences also helps admissions officers, who waste too much time guessing whether they are a student’s first choice.

Now back to those “Oxbridge” interview questions.  As one Brit comparing the two systems wrote, American universities place greater value on “personality characteristics” such as extra-curricular activities, athletics and legacy status.  American universities are held in high regard, their admissions process is viewed as a popularity contest.  While American students rush from activity to activity to fill up their applications, what are students abroad doing?  Acquiring skills.  Gaining a deeper level of knowledge, rather than spreading themselves too thin.  Preparing themselves for the global economy.      

So, if you want to ditch the SAT, field some unusual interview questions and create your own rankings, stick an international stamp on your application and get your passport ready!  

Courting International Students

When rejecting students, colleges often use the excuse that they simply don’t have the resources to accept all qualified applicants.  Budgetary restraints, especially at public universities, are blamed.  Even private schools argue that campus housing and class size would suffer if student levels increased.  

Yet in the face of these limitations, colleges are recruiting students from outside the US.  There is no doubt that international students enrich a college campus and contribute to the US economy.  However, when faced with limited resources, how many spots should colleges reserve for international students?  Are the new recruits filling spots once available to qualified US applicants? 

The number of international students at US universities has been steadily increasing in the past few years, largely due to overseas recruiting.  This trend was tracked in the 2010 Open Doors report by the Institute of International Education.  In the 2008/09 school year, new international student enrollment at US colleges increased by 15.8%.  In 2009/10, the rate increased by 1.3% over the previous year.  The number of new students is still increasing, although the economic downturn has slowed the pace.  The top five countries of student origin were China, India, South Korea, Canada and Taiwan, and the college with the highest number of international students was the University of Southern California (http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors).


Universities in the US should be open to students from around the world.  What puzzles me is that US admissions officers are actively recruiting international students, often at a high price tag.  The London Times reported in 2008 that US colleges are hiring recruiting agencies to market themselves “aggressively” to British students. Coincidentally, today NPR aired a story about state schools hiring for-profit recruiting agencies to target international students.  Public universities in New Hampshire and Massachusetts are using international students to buffer budget cuts in education.  The full tuition paid by these students helps replace funds cut by state government.  

A 2007 article in The London Times claims that Harvard is offering top British students very generous financial aid packages, and by not adjusting the amounts for the exchange rate, the aid often surpasses the need.  What is not covered by financial aid is picked up by scholarships, waived fees and stipends for airfare, lodging and even medical insurance.  Try not to choke as you read the following quote from the article:

“The surprising fact is that for low and even middle-income families, sending a child to one of America’s most prestigious universities may be less expensive than sending them to Oxford, Cambridge or any other of the better British universities.  Exploiting its vast wealth and the financial pressures on UK colleges, Harvard has begun promoting itself as a “low-cost” alternative to students in Britain.”  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1289006.ece

Harvard is now a “low-cost” option for some British families, but out of reach for most Americans.  Something isn’t right about that. 

In 2010, Brown established an office in Mumbai, India to lure more Indian undergraduates to Providence.   The officer of the Brown Mumbai office explained, "We want to set up an office and have Brown's representative here. We have had record number of applications to our undergraduate programs from India. But we feel we haven't been able to reach out to as many schools as we want.” As of 2010, Brown had 249 undergraduates students who had done their secondary education in India, up from 98 five years ago. 

I am no xenophobe, and I appreciate the benefits of education flowing across borders.  Yet the “aggressive” recruiting of international students still feels like a slap in the face of qualified US students, especially Asians-Americans.  Many Asian-American immigrants struggle and sacrifice to give their children a first-rate education in America.  After all of their hard work, their children are at a disadvantage because elite colleges are flooded with applicants from overqualified Asian-Americans.  Perhaps their chances of acceptance would be higher if they had never come to America in the first place.  Is this the messages colleges want to send? 

Additional Reading:

“Colleges Hire Firms to Court Foreign Students,” Sheryl Rich-Kern, NPR, March 16, 2011.   http://www.npr.org/2011/03/16/134585499/U-S-Schools-Hire-Companies-To-Court-Foreign-Students

“Ivy League Targets Britain’s Top Students,” Nicola Woolcock, The London Times, September 5, 2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4678019.ece

“Ivy League University to Set Up Mumbai Office,” Times of India, August 17, 2010. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-17/india/28315229_1_office-site-indian-students-schools