A couple of things in response to Adam and Tom. Adam, you say “almost EVERYONE is qualified enough to get in.” The crucial distinction I would make is that everyone APPEARS to be qualified to get in. The thrust of my argument is that the current admissions process is a breeding ground for pretense. It’s hard to hold that pretense up for a whole week. I’ve found that if you spend a whole week with someone (in say a WOA trip type experience), you get a pretty good idea of who they are and what they’re about. So then, under your framework, we would have a better metric with which to gauge the group’s likely success.

I actually agree with you on your second point. We are very successful. I just don’t think that’s any reason to “rest on our laurels,” as the saying goes. I find this is especially the case here as this new admissions criteria (the week-long WOA interview) would only compliment the current process rather than substituting for it. We might never eliminate the “how’d that guy get in gossip,” but we can make it less relevant. We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – especially when the perfect is a false utopia. Yes it would be tough logistically to implement these winter trips. Yes kids could still try and fake their way through. But the kids that play the oneupsmanship game will tend to be revealed as tools during the course of the week, and the fact that we would be the first school to do this increases the associated opportunity. No one else does this, giving us the opportunity to set the precedent and be the first in line for applicants’ precious time. I think the fact remains that a week outdoors – away from the college admission game of essays, test scores, and psuedo-formative experiences – would be a great way to see which of our eager young applicants truly are “leaders in the making.”

A couple of things in response to Adam and Tom. Adam, you say “almost EVERYONE is qualified enough to get in.” The crucial distinction I would make is that everyone APPEARS to be qualified to get in. The thrust of my argument is that the current admissions process is a breeding ground for pretense. It’s hard to hold that pretense up for a whole week. I’ve found that if you spend a whole week with someone (in say a WOA trip type experience), you get a pretty good idea of who they are and what they’re about. So then, under your framework, we would have a better metric with which to gauge the group’s likely success.

I actually agree with you on your second point. We are very successful. I just don’t think that’s any reason to “rest on our laurels,” as the saying goes. I find this is especially the case here as this new admissions criteria (the week-long WOA interview) would only compliment the current process rather than substituting for it. We might never eliminate the “how’d that guy get in gossip,” but we can make it less relevant. We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – especially when the perfect is a false utopia. Yes it would be tough logistically to implement these winter trips. Yes kids could still try and fake their way through. But the kids that play the oneupsmanship game will tend to be revealed as tools during the course of the week, and the fact that we would be the first school to do this increases the associated opportunity. No one else does this, giving us the opportunity to set the precedent and be the first in line for applicants’ precious time. I think the fact remains that a week outdoors – away from the college admission game of essays, test scores, and psuedo-formative experiences – would be a great way to see which of our eager young applicants truly are “leaders in the making.”

First, I would suggest you read the Daniel Golden book that Charles suggested, and I would also suggest you read the work of Barry Schwartz at Swarthmore. Although many disagree with him, I find his work an interesting way in which to frame some debates surrounding college admissions. I certainly don’t speak for the admission office, just for myself here, but it’s a good question you’ve posed: what do you do when almost EVERYONE is qualified enough to ‘get in’ and you have what appear to be too many good people to admit? Well, I can tell you there are no definite admissions answers about what success looks like when it comes to individuals, but there are fairly good ways to define a probability of what success looks like when it comes to the creation of an entire freshman class. Confused? That’s good. And really, it’s okay, I didn’t understand this idea until I actually worked in admissions for a while. It simply means there is more value in the group than in the sum of said group’s parts, so to focus on a few particular individuals as evidence that there is no ‘quality control’ on the front end is simply to ignore the vast majority of those which you have no problems with, which I would argue supports the idea that admissions works. Unless you think the MAJORITY of your peers are boring, in which case, then you have a point. (and, if you do think the majority of your peers are boring, then I would urge you to please write another article on that topic—watching THAT post-article comment box would bring me much enjoyment indeed).

Here’s Barry Schwartz at TED in 2006.
http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/09/paradox_of_choi.html

my second point is a little more basic: I don’t think you give CMC enough credit. Admissions is based on a million things, some tangible, others not so, but at the end of the day, whether you’re an over achiever or you’re a slacker, you still all have to get through the same long, hard slog that is the CMC experience, and if you do it right, that process will in fact make you ‘more interesting’ no matter how you started out. Honestly, while I see your points about a WOA-style trip for admission purposes, my honest opinion is that no matter what changes you may propose on the front end, your back end problem of the gossip surrounding “how THAT guy got into CMC” will actually not go away. So instead of OUR admission process on the chopping block, it will be YOUR admission process on the chopping block. Different process : same problem.

That’s my 2 cents.

and have to say this:
Thanks for writing this piece. It was interesting and articulate. If CMC is anything, it is a place where ideas matter and where well-intentioned opinions are to be respected and tested. You’ve presented an interesting position here. Nice job.

Adam Sapp

First, I would suggest you read the Daniel Golden book that Charles suggested, and I would also suggest you read the work of Barry Schwartz at Swarthmore. Although many disagree with him, I find his work an interesting way in which to frame some debates surrounding college admissions. I certainly don’t speak for the admission office, just for myself here, but it’s a good question you’ve posed: what do you do when almost EVERYONE is qualified enough to ‘get in’ and you have what appear to be too many good people to admit? Well, I can tell you there are no definite admissions answers about what success looks like when it comes to individuals, but there are fairly good ways to define a probability of what success looks like when it comes to the creation of an entire freshman class. Confused? That’s good. And really, it’s okay, I didn’t understand this idea until I actually worked in admissions for a while. It simply means there is more value in the group than in the sum of said group’s parts, so to focus on a few particular individuals as evidence that there is no ‘quality control’ on the front end is simply to ignore the vast majority of those which you have no problems with, which I would argue supports the idea that admissions works. Unless you think the MAJORITY of your peers are boring, in which case, then you have a point. (and, if you do think the majority of your peers are boring, then I would urge you to please write another article on that topic—watching THAT post-article comment box would bring me much enjoyment indeed).

Here’s Barry Schwartz at TED in 2006.
http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/09/paradox_of_choi.html

my second point is a little more basic: I don’t think you give CMC enough credit. Admissions is based on a million things, some tangible, others not so, but at the end of the day, whether you’re an over achiever or you’re a slacker, you still all have to get through the same long, hard slog that is the CMC experience, and if you do it right, that process will in fact make you ‘more interesting’ no matter how you started out. Honestly, while I see your points about a WOA-style trip for admission purposes, my honest opinion is that no matter what changes you may propose on the front end, your back end problem of the gossip surrounding “how THAT guy got into CMC” will actually not go away. So instead of OUR admission process on the chopping block, it will be YOUR admission process on the chopping block. Different process : same problem.

That’s my 2 cents.

and have to say this:
Thanks for writing this piece. It was interesting and articulate. If CMC is anything, it is a place where ideas matter and where well-intentioned opinions are to be respected and tested. You’ve presented an interesting position here. Nice job.

Adam Sapp

On the point of hooks, I thought I might recommend a book to you by Daniel Golden of the WSJ, titled, “The Price of Admission.” If you’re interested in how colleges are need blind, but not wealth blind, you might consider it.

Thanks!

On the point of hooks, I thought I might recommend a book to you by Daniel Golden of the WSJ, titled, “The Price of Admission.” If you’re interested in how colleges are need blind, but not wealth blind, you might consider it.

Thanks!