The college application system has always seemed a little off to me. It was unbelievably stressful and tedious, that’s for sure. There’s a significant amount of debate as to whether the process is fair. A New York Time’s article titled, “Throw Out the College Application System” explores the viewpoint in opposition to the current process and proposes a new system. I also came across an interesting response to this article called, “A Better Way to Evaluate College Applicants?”

The author of the original article, Adam Grant, argues three main points. First, teacher recommendation letters and interviews with alumni reveal just as much about these people as they do about the applicant. Second, nontraditional students are disadvantaged by the fact that many colleges still rely heavily on grades and test scores to admit candidates. These tests focus more on book smarts than on wisdom and practical intelligence. Lastly, it is impossible to tell what portion of the materials an applicant submits, such essays and portfolios, were produced by the student alone, and what portion was done by/with the help of parents or mentors.

Grant proposes that all colleges begin to use assessment centers, where an applicant would spend a day completing a series of individual tasks, group activities and interviews. Some assessments would be objectively scored for performance; others are observed by multiple trained evaluators looking for key behaviors. Grant believes that this system would provide more complete information about students’ “values, social and emotional skills, and capacities for developing and discovering new ideas

Daniel Bronheim, the author of the response letter, argues that the assessment center system is just as flawed as the current system, and for similar reasons. The group of students who are currently advantaged in the application process (that is, those “achievement-oriented students from families with sufficient means”) will quickly put their money toward an expensive specialized industry that adequately prepares them for the assessment center processes. Further, because the assessment centers will not be testing on traditional high school content, students who can pay for this training will have an even greater advantage in these unlearned skills than before.

As a suburban white student from the upper-middle class who attended these preparatory courses for the SAT and ACT, I can confirm that they are both expensive and effective at what they do. They train students for a specific task. While you certainly use your educational background to solve the test problems, familiarity with the problems gained through these classes provides an inarguable advantage. For this reason, I think the assessment center process would a good solution. It isn’t fair that students’ whose families cannot pay for their enrollment in such courses should be disadvantaged in the college application process, even if they are equally as smart as the more privileged students. I also know from experience just how much help kids get in the college application process from parents and mentors, and how important it is to pick the teacher with not only the best opinion of you, but also the best writing skills, to write your recommendation letter.

I don’t think, however, that the testing done at the assessment centers should be searching solely for values and social/emotional skills. While I am in agreement with Garner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory, the sets of skills targeted by the current standardized tests are, according to the College Board, those “required for success in the 21^st Century.” The ideal assessment center would find an objective way to test these skills in order to identify the true best applicants.

This debate is moving in the right direction of making the necessary change to this flawed system. Grant’s argument seemed stronger here only because he presented a solution, whereas Bronheim simply contended Grant’s point. Three of the four basic steps toward creating change are satisfied: awareness, accomplished through this article’s publication; interaction, such as the debate that ensued as well as comments on the article; and process, which is what I am doing here. The final step would be to take action and actually make a change to the system. Considering the success of College Board (according to the Huffington Post, their revenues hit $65.6 million in 2010), it seems we’re still years, maybe even decades, away from that.

Image Sources:

1: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256422/Parents-unable-understand-teenage-childrens-homework.html

2: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/throw-out-the-college-application-system.html

3:  http://educ732.courseblock.com/2011/05/13/topic-4-2-gardner’s-multiple-intelligences-theory/