Who is the genius that came up with the idea of a “well-rounded” 17- or 18-year-old as the way to decide college admissions?
Oh, it was antisemites.
The modern admissions system was started as a way for small private liberal arts colleges to keep out Jewish people.
But let’s not throw out the baby with the sullied bath water. I mean, we didn’t let Werner von Braun’s inconvenient past get in the way of all the good he could do for NASA.
Why should we forgo this excellent, made-up, rather arbitrary, formerly racist way to separate the also-rans from the truly deserving when all the applicants have stellar academic credentials and great teeth?
I mean, these well-meaning, highly regarded, highly selective institutions wouldn’t be putting their self-interest above some sort of broader social mission, would they?
We Trust Them with Nothing, Except This
Let’s be real. Seventeen and 18-year-olds are basically idiots. They are lovely, they might have a lot of talent, smarts, and potential, and they might even be wise for their age. But “well rounded?” Give me a break.
At that age, students don’t get to wherever they are without significant support—or lack thereof—from their parents. And it assumes teenagers didn’t decide to do the unthinkable—act like teenagers.
We don’t trust 17-year-olds with anything more sophisticated than a driver’s license. They can’t vote, smoke, drink, gamble, or sign contracts. However, they can join the Army with its tight regimen, rules, and discipline.
Why can’t they do more? Because we know from experience—Hello, Allstate?—that they are not ready. Science tells us that our brains are not fully cooked until our mid to late 20s.
But, somehow, the same teenagers that we don’t find competent enough to adopt a dog do some stuff we’ve decided is better than other stuff, and those are the true signifiers of their personality, character, and ability to succeed.
While well-rounded is still good, even better is “angular.” Meaning children need to have figured out their bliss by 13 (or earlier), so they can focus on that one thing to be that much more attractive to these institutions that replicate power, wealth, and social status.
For college admissions, the question should be, “How well did your parents groom you to look great on this college application so that we can pretend that this is some sort of fair assessment process?” And, perhaps, “do you need the number of a good therapist?”
Of course, when we talk about well-rounded and or angular, we are usually talking about expensive things like sports, performing arts, and volunteer activities. People need cash for lessons/coaching to get good at something or to be able to afford not to work while volunteering.
On the plus side, admissions officers do consider students that worked on the family farm, took care of their siblings when their parent(s) worked, or held down a job at Taco Bell while going to high school. As a society, we just don’t talk about it. And, let’s be honest, anyone can work in fast food, but how many teenagers start a non-profit to help three-legged cats?
Admissions officers at these elite schools say all this is justified so they can craft a class where each freshman brings something unique, as only that student mix allows magic college pixie dust to fill the air.
Where is the control group for the assertion that a college class is better (or a student is more suited for an institution) because more students did extracurricular activities and/or focused on something in high school?
The Power of State Schools
The schools that do the heavy lifting for our society are state institutions. They tend to forgo most of this well-rounded nonsense and look at grades and test scores. Then, if someone is close to getting in but not quite there, institutions look at a number of other life variables—extra circulars are one of many—that can help put that student over the top and gain them admission.
The way our society frets about college admissions to highly selective schools, you might think that people that go to state colleges and universities are barely feeding themselves.
A study conducted of 2,300 leaders in the United States across government, business, and major non-profit organizations found that only 16 percent had a degree from an Ivy Plus school.
Ivy plus are the eight schools of the Ivy League—Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, and University of Pennsylvania—plus Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Duke, and the University of Chicago.
Of the CEOs of the one thousand largest publicly-traded companies in the United States, only 13 percent have an Ivy-Plus bachelor's degree.
Of the lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives, only 10 percent have a bachelor’s from an Ivy Plus institution.
For state legislative leaders, House Speakers, and Senate Majority Leaders, it goes to 1 percent.
Note: Chart is from 2017
While Ivy Plus institutions are over-represented in these roles, the vast majority of leaders didn’t get a bachelor’s degree from one of those schools.
That means attending one of these super prestigious schools is not a requirement to have a successful career, a great life, or even a shot at becoming a “top leader.”
Do Better
College and university presidents, trustees, faculty, and alumni all want their institution to bask in the same glow as those at the top of the higher ed pyramid.
If you hang around higher ed circles long enough, someone will say, “We want to be the Harvard of this corner of our small universe.” They get a zero for imagination and should have a different target.
These elite schools could do so much more with their massive endowments to expand and admit more students, open another campus, or do something else to expand access.
Source: U.S. News & World Report
But they don’t and won’t. They are fat and happy with zero incentive to change.
People like belonging to an exclusive club. That means you need to keep membership small.
But let’s be brutally honest, are they really fulfilling a public mission through their admissions process? At 38 elite colleges and universities in the United States, more students came from families in the top 1 percent income bracket than from the entire bottom 60 percent.
When most of their students are from highly affluent families, aren’t they just giving those that already have a lot, a lot more?
Is that really the model we want to envy and emulate?