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  

Could Rejection from an Elite School Improve Your Job Prospects?

People love to throw around the saying that a degree from an elite school “opens doors,” but they fail to mention that graduates now face a revolving door.  Time wasted leaning on the doorframe to drop the name of your alma mater will leave you on the outside looking in on a candidate who may not possess a degree from an “elite” college, but has the skill set employers are seeking.

But don’t take my word for it. 

In September 2010, Jennifer Merritt of the The Wall Street Journal surveyed recruiting executives at nearly 500 companies to “identify the majors and schools that best prepare students to land jobs that are satisfying, well-paid and have growth potential.”  Recruiters were asked to rank the best-qualified graduates by school and major.  Public and private companies participated, representing sectors such as finance, technology, consumer goods, energy, IT, manufacturing, consulting, healthcare, non-profit and government.

Penn State topped the list, followed by Texas A&M, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Purdue and Arizona State.  The only Ivy on the list was Cornell, ranked 14^th.   The complete list is reproduced at the end of this post.

The recruiters favored schools with large student populations that teach practical skills and offer a well-rounded academic program.  State schools fared well because of corporate internship programs that companies rely on for hiring.  According to the report, “Recruiters made clear they preferred big state schools over elite liberal arts schools, such as the Ivies.”

In responding to reader questions, the author emphasized the importance of internships and practical skills to recruiters.  Other factors affecting a school’s position on the list include the quality of the career services office, length of service at the company for school alumni, student professionalism and preparation for the work world, and school location.

When asked about the study, a Harvard professor tracking the career paths of Harvard graduates responded, “We have none of the basic bread-and-butter courses that serve you well in much of industry.”  I guess that was left out of the glossy brochures.  Parents might not react too well if they read that their money was going to a school that didn’t value preparing students for the workforce.

Top 25 List of Colleges as Ranked by Recruiters

-Penn State

-Texas A&M

-University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

-Purdue University

-Arizona State

-University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

-Georgia Institute of Technology

-University of Maryland, College Park

-University of Florida

-Carnegie Mellon University

-Brigham Young University

-Ohio State University

-Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

-Cornell University

-University of California – Berkeley

-University of Wisconsin – Madison

-University of California – Los Angeles

-Texas Tech

-North Carolina State University – Raleigh /University of Virginia (tie)

-Rutgers University – New Brunswick

-University of Notre Dame

-MIT

-University of Southern California

-Washington State University/University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (tie)

Source: Penn State Tops Recruiter Rankings, Wall Street Journal, 9/13/2010

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435563989873060.html

You Want to Win a Nobel Prize?

    Do you think you need a degree from an elite university to win a Nobel Prize?  One of my favorite authors, Malcolm Gladwell, says no.    

In his 2008 book Outliers: The Story of Success, Gladwell discovered that even at the highest levels of research, a degree from elite institution did not matter as much as one might think.  What does matter is getting a strong, solid education to serve as a foundation, regardless of your school.

Gladwell’s strongest evidence is a study of Nobel Prize winners in Medicine and Chemistry, no doubt fields that require a high degree of intelligence.  Gladwell collected data on the undergraduate schools for the last 25 Americans who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.  The list certainly included some Ivies, as well as Antioch, Holy Cross, Hunter, and DePauw. Gladwell politely surmised, “No one would say that this list represents the college choices of the absolute best high school students in America.” (For the complete list see pages 81-82 of Outliers). 

Next, Gladwell looked at Nobel laureates in Chemistry and concluded that while Harvard did appear more frequently than any other school, less prestigious institutions like Notre Dame and University of Illinois also appear on the list.  Gladwell writes, “To be a Nobel Prize winner, apparently, you have to be smart enough to get into a college at least as good as Notre Dame or the University of Illinois.  That’s all.”

This is especially surprising because most Nobel Prize winners work in academia.  If the prestige of a school brand would be a critical factor in any field, you would think academia would be it.  But even in academia, the elites do not have a lock on success.  

Did your Zip Code Sink Your Chances of Admission?

High school is tough.  Many students can't wait to move on to college.  You might be surprised to learn how much your high school plays a role in where you actually end up.  

According to Rachel Toor’s 2001 candid inside account of the admissions process at Duke, Admissions Confidential, colleges care about their relationships with certain high schools.  Toor writes, “We do care about offending the guidance counselors at the fancy schools, who are in large part responsible for making up the ‘college lists’ of the kids they advise.  If they start steering applicants away, that can affect our numbers…We wouldn’t want to do anything to affect our numbers.  Unless it’s to make them go up.”  

The “numbers” she is referring to apply to applicants, not acceptances.  Admissions officers want the number of applicants to rise, even as the number of available spots stagnates, or even decreases.  A low acceptance rate could lead to a high placement in the U.S. News & World Report rankings – those rejecting the most students must be the best, or so goes the logic of U.S. News. 

Also note that this courtship only applies to the “fancy” schools.  How do you know if your school is on a college’s dancing card?  Most of the “fancy” schools are private and located in and around major metropolitan areas – New York, Boston, D.C., San Francisco, etc.  Unless you go to one of these schools, or are a star from an underrepresented state (like Alaska), your zip code could be working against your chances of admission.

Toor also explains that Duke would accept weaker students if it meant establishing a fruitful relationship with a targeted school.  As she writes, “There’s nothing like having an enthusiastic first-year college student return to her high school in the fall, talking about how much she loves her university, to increase applications.  For that reason, we took special care with decisions on kids who were clearly ‘impact’ kids in their high school, where everyone in the school would be aware of their college application process and its outcome.”  

I wouldn’t be surprised if for every underqualified “impact” student at a “fancy” high school, an overqualified student at a regular old high school (the type most of us attended) is rejected. 

The courtship works both ways.  Guidance counselors from certain high schools have been known to lobby selective colleges on behalf of their students.  You can't blame them - these counselors are just doing their job, and doing it well.  Do you think it would have made a difference if your guidance counselor had the ear of the admissions official at your top-choice school?  Well, a personal conversation puts a face on an application, and gives the reader helpful information, such as explaining away a less than stellar performance in a particular class.  This is clearly not an equal playing field.  Regular students can’t compete with guidance counselors personally pitching their students to admissions officers. 

             

Your zip code could also sink your chances because colleges have regional targets to yield a geographically diverse class.  One expert in the field described it this way: “There is not a college president who does not like to stand before the freshman class and proudly announce that every state in the union and many foreign countries are represented there” (Evaluative Judgments vs. Bias In College Admissions, Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, Forbes.com, 8/11/2010). 

Given these targets, if you come from an area densely populated with qualified applicants, you have to stand out in order to be among the few accepted from the region.  So unless your parents are willing to move to Montana, this is yet another factor in the college admissions process that is simply out of your control. 

How a College Becomes Elite

It is hard to imagine in today’s college-obsessed world, but there was a time when college was viewed as merely a playground for rich young men.  The college experience has changed “radically” since then, writes Paul Boyer in his 2003 book College Rankings Exposed.   

One of my favorite quotes from Boyer’s book is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who said Harvard students “learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely and enter a room genteelly…[graduating] as great blockheads as ever, only more proud and conceited.”  

College could be a playground back then because most professions required an apprenticeship rather than a college degree.  In fact, ten presidents reached the Oval Office without a college diploma, including Abe Lincoln and Harry Truman. 

However, after World War II and passage of the GI Bill, the masses suddenly began arriving on college campuses.  Not everyone was ready to welcome these new students.  As the national student body swelled, the old guard feared the college degree was losing its exclusivity.  According to Boyer’s research “neither educators nor students were ready to give up the fantasy of the old elite system.”

So instead of opening their doors, several colleges (the modern “elites”) closed them to preserve their cherished exclusivity.  Restrictive admissions policies were adopted to keep these schools out of reach.  Boyer argues that these colleges still use the same tactics, describing them as “a relic of – or perhaps nostalgia for – the days when going to college really was an option for only the fortunate few” (quoting Carol Schneider, President, Association of American Colleges & Universities).  Today, a college degree is a necessity rather than a luxury, but Boyer writes that elite schools serve as a “refuge for those who are looking for the kind of advantage that a college degree alone no longer provides.”

Wouldn’t it be better for society if Harvard accepted all qualified applicants, rather than selecting just a few behind closed doors?  In my mind, the only loser in that scenario is the prestige of the Harvard brand.  Is protecting a brand worth the expense of breaking the spirits of thousands of qualified students every year?  For the elite schools, the answer appears to be yes.