Harvard Says It Wants To Change College Admissions
A new report suggests college applications emphasize how students strive for the “common good.”
Boston reports.
Harvard wants to revolutionize college admissions. Will it work?
For parents of burned-out kids, the recommendations of a new Harvard report sound like a fantasy world: No more endless extracurricular activities. No more juggling six honors classes, drama rehearsal, soccer practice and student council meetings with the hope of being accepted to an elite school.
And for low-income high schoolers who lack access to advanced-placement courses or fancy tennis lessons, the new parameters could help level the playing field.
The report released last Wednesday by the Harvard Graduate School of Education called for an admissions “revolution.” Instead of prioritizing high test scores and endless extracurricular activities, the report suggested admissions officials reward students who help out their families and strive toward the “common good”.
The broad, sweeping suggestions are great in theory. But are they realistic?
Comments
“The broad, sweeping suggestions are great in theory.” No, these are terrible in theory, and practice. Fifty years ago I considered my teenage years as the one time in my life where I could concentrate on getting an education, and did so. Of course I was active in a few extracurricular activities, but it seemed to me that those were better kept for later when you did not have school to worry about, and would have more and better resources. (Even then, there were a few people who seemed to major in extracurricular activities, with academics something to be worked in around the “important” stuff.) Fortunately so did the school I attended, well regarded, and on the edge of being described as “prestigious.
Forty years later, retired, I was part of a group reviewing admissions categories for my alma mater. One point was how many extracurricular activities the typical successful candidates were involved in. I asked if there was a point where too many became at least a modest negative for poor allocation of resources. The stunned silence and blank looks were clear enough. I suggested that perhaps a Gaussian distribution was appropriate, with too many having the same impact as too few. That suggestion was politely received, and ignored.
Which brings us, ten years later, to now. Academic excellence has fallen into disrepute because it stubbornly does not produce the desired “diversity,” and even community activities are now suspect based on opportunity. So we have some warm and fuzzy feeling by an admissions officer about how nice and caring a person is as the criteria? Really, is there no end to academic and political delusions?