Take two high school students: one has a 1600 SAT (or whatever the new top score is), a 4.0 GPA, but is reportedly shy, unathletic, and “short with big ears.” The other has lesser (but good) grades, is charming and outgoing, and is the captain of the football team. Which one should get into Harvard? Should university admissions be based on pure intellect (as best demonstrated through standard evaluations – don’t want to get into an argument about what the SATs “mean”), or should “personality” be a more decisive factor?
Having read the whole article, it seems to me that Mr. Gladwell is a bitter and jealous curmudgeon whose thesis is best summed up by this: “The issue was whether we attended college, and—most important—how seriously we took the experience once we got there. I thought everyone felt this way.” [Emphasis mine]
Well, they don’t. And apparently, the discovery that they don’t pissed him off.
I suppose I’m always put off by the “how could anyone possibly see things differently from the way I see them?” mindset. But if anyone is interested in 1920s antisemitism, he can find something relevant in the article.
As to your question about which one should get into Harvard, I don’t even understand how that’s a question open for debate. Would we have a debate about whether person A or person B should be selected as the tenant of Mr. Landlord who doesn’t post here? Upon what basis can anyone establish a position one way or the other about what Harvard should do, unless he is the president of Harvard?
I mean, it isn’t that people aren’t entitled to their opinions, but what’s the point of the exercise? Once we’ve determined what Harvard should do, will we then work on Duke? How about Oral Roberts University? How about MIT?
If it were Rick’s University, I’d probably lean towards the guy with the bigger brain, since in my experience people who are shy usually lose that in college. It was often the biggest nerds who ended up being the heaviest-drinking party animals in eight different clubs.
But Harvard can base their admissions standards on whatever they like. It’s not like someone with a 1200 SAT is a dumbass.
I’m surprised this article was even published. Although I usually like Gladwell’s work, his thesis in this article seems obvious to anyone with an understanding of how most colleges work.
I’d submit that (a) idealistic armchair liberals and (b) parents of college-age kids who are idealistic armchair liberals – both key components of The New Yorker’s target audience – may not be all that in touch with “how most colleges work.”
The ivy league gets a lot of attention, in some senses rightfully so. But they make up such a tiny proportion of the admissions decisions made each year, and enroll such a small number of U.S. undergraduates. This seems all too easy to forget when people get their panties in a twist over who Harvard or Princeton is giving a preference to.
When they deny someone, they aren’t denying them a chance to go to college. Those students have many other fine institutions to choose from.
I was intrigued about that “happy bottom quarter” comment. I hadn’t thought about that, but it’s something to think about. You have to have some people who are able to live with NOT being Top of the Class.
That said, time and experience has made me extremely cynical about this topic. I hear a lot of cries for “pure meritocracy” related to ethnicity. Some of these cries fade away when you bring up athletes, alumni, etc. At Michigan, you’ll hear denied students complain about their rightful “place” being taken by an “undeserving” minority student, despite the fact it’s much more likely that their so-called rightful place was taken by an out-of-state student or one enrolled in nursing, kinesiology, or art. It can get ugly fast.
There was a recent stink about Berkeley not being “selective” enough when it was found that some number of students with low SATs had been given spots in the ever-more-selective freshman class. Berkeley did something interesting, which was to release anonymous profiles of those students. It really illustrated the value of looking beyond raw statistics. Most of these students had compelling personal stories and had demonstrated excellence in academics despite hardships and challenges.
One - Harvard seems to make a big deal about “manliness”, “physical vigor and coordination and grace” and “pansies” for a school so worried about admitting homosexuals.
and two - When did any of the Ivy League ever a powerhouse football program?
Colleges arn’t in the business of rewarding you for doing well. We all work hard to get in to college- some of to extremes- but that still doesn’t mean that college is or should be a pure weighing of merits.
Colleges are interested in who will donate money to them when they are done. Mr. Bigears may be a good student, but he probably will go on to some quiet job at a lab somewhere. Mr. Football is probably already halfway to getting a lucrative career in business.
Beyond that, colleges are interested in having interesting, innovative, amazing kids in the classrooms. They don’t want the kids that do good on the tests. They want the kids that come up with some new theory in one of their papers. It doesn’t take a brilliant mind to do things well, especially in high school. But universities are still intersted in those brilliant minds. There are greater measures of success and likelyhood of being a great contributer to the world than high school grades and SATS.
Anyway, an meritocracy in college admissions would only work if there was equality of public schooling. This is nowhere near the case.
Of course, I think the whole system is messed up. I think that colleges should be payed for by the government, damn hard, and anyone can get in if they think they are up to the challenge- but they are responsible for payment if they drop out or fail. Our system of prestige colleges etc. is elitist and absurd.
I was admitted to Harvard in the early 80’s and I turned 'em down. It was fun. I got a personal phone call from the admission’s office checking to make sure I really meant it. I got the impression they didn’t hear “no” very often, particularly not from public high school kids from Tulsa.
(However, I have been turned down twice by MIT. Once as an undergrad, once as a grad student. Sniff.)
One of my wife’s colleagues is also in the “too smart for Harvard” club. He has actually had the rarified pleasure of informing pompous Harvard alums that he rejected their alma mater.
As to the OP, no, college admissions shouldn’t be based entirely on grades and test scores. There’s more to being a productive adult than wonkery.
Admission to competitive colleges isn’t based solely on grades and test scores. Competitive schools have plenty of straight-A, high SAT students to choose from. Admissions interviews tend to focus on what else you’ve managed to do with your life up to that point and whether you would be a good fit with that school.
Colleges and universities can and should admit those applicants that are a good fit with the school and what they have to offer. And different schools are going to emphasize different things: some a high level of academic rigor, others other things. It does no one any good for a college to admit someone who doesn’t have what it takes to succeed there academically—or socially or any other way, for that matter.