I believe, with vigor, in my comments from Twitter. As a college admission practitioner, I am able to make better, sharper admission decisions when given additional, contextual information about an applicant. Moreover, it's the consideration of factors such as race, gender and class that allows an admission committee to construct a balanced, well-rounded class of students through equitable practice.
It'd be great to live in a world where the playing fields are equal, and admission officers can evaluate applicants solely on the merits of their academic courses and performance, levels of engagement and qualities of essays. But the world we live in is hardly even - in fact it grows more uneven by the day. Having additional information about an applicant allows an admission officer or an admission committee to contextualize academic and personal merits and decipher what they really mean.
For instance, take a look at the the following academic resumes:
- Student A: 4.2 GPA/4.0 weighted scale, 2050 SAT, 6 AP classes taken, 4 years of Math, Science and foreign language
- Student B: 3.9 GPA/4.0 unweighted scale, 1910 SAT, 2 AP classes, 4 years of Math, 3 years of Science and foreign language.
Without additional information Student A clearly looks more impressive. But what if you knew that Student A's GPA places him in the top 9% of his graduating high school class and there are a total of 22 AP courses offered in his school - with no restriction on taking them? Meanwhile, Student B's GPA places her in the top 2% of her class, there are only 3 AP courses offered in her school, Physics is not offered in her school, and the fourth year of foreign language is only offered in Spanish - she studied French.
Which student do you favor now? What if I told you that Student A attends an affluent suburban high school, but lives in an urban neighborhood, will be the first member of his family to attend college, and comes from a low-income background? Student B lives in a rural community, but does not intend to apply for need-based financial aid. How does that change your opinion?
Which student do you favor now? What if I told you that Student A attends an affluent suburban high school, but lives in an urban neighborhood, will be the first member of his family to attend college, and comes from a low-income background? Student B lives in a rural community, but does not intend to apply for need-based financial aid. How does that change your opinion?
It's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to make a firm declaration that one student is superior to the other, nor should that be the goal of any admission evaluation. We don't compare apples to apples, we don't compare apples to oranges, and we don't compare apples to screwdrivers. We carefully evaluate the quality of each individual apple, orange and screwdriver in order to assess whether or not they will be good academic and personal fits for our institutions*.
*Sure, when push comes to shove there are moments when we must decide between two outstanding applicants, such as the two examples above, and times when we must select one out of three, or four, or more. But those moments are the rare occurrence - not the business as usual routine.
Working with information related to an applicant's race, cultural background, family income level, etc. allows an admission officer to evaluate courses pursued, grades earned, standardized testing performance, extracurricular involvement and qualities of writing from an appropriate point of view. Assumptions are dangerous, and knowing as much as we can about an applicant allows us to minimize the number of assumptions we must make.
I crave this sort of information because I know it empowers me to comprehend better the various credentials presented within an application. An SAT score below our middle 50% range may still be an impressive score depending on where and who it comes from. A lack of extracurricular involvements may be illuminated by a cultural background or obligations to a student's family. I wouldn't be able to reach these conclusions in the absence of information related to an applicant's race, upbringing and socioeconomic status.
I understand and respect the power of such personal information, and I appreciate the ethical responsibility I have to use it appropriately. Likewise, I understand the importance of diversity in higher education and am committed to enrolling students from underrepresented groups to any institution I may work for. But this doesn't mean that I admit applicants based on a single attribute. Rather, I work diligently to encourage students from all backgrounds and all the many forms of diversity, whom I feel would be a good fit, to apply to my institution, and I try to be a voice for applicants who I feel are being overlooked because their credentials are not being viewed in their full context.
Treating applicants as statistics or dollar signs does a disservice to them, to the institution and to the profession. It abandons the aforementioned notions of fit and negates the individuality of the students who apply to our schools. We need to ensure that access to higher education exists for all and not force it upon one group at the expense of another**.
**I'm referring to the infuriating practice of colleges and universities targeting students from high-income backgrounds, who can pay the full cost of attendance, so that they can sustain financial aid programs for students from low-income backgrounds as well as merit aid programs. Ultimately, such practice limits access to students from middle-income backgrounds, furthering the divide in American society. We need to fund financial aid and fund it much better than we are, but not this way.
Admission is more of an art than a science, though really it's neither. It is a commitment to opportunity. It is a commitment to equity. It is a commitment to risk-taking. And above all else, it is a commitment to acting in the best interest of our applicants, our current students, our institutions, and each other.
*Sure, when push comes to shove there are moments when we must decide between two outstanding applicants, such as the two examples above, and times when we must select one out of three, or four, or more. But those moments are the rare occurrence - not the business as usual routine.
Working with information related to an applicant's race, cultural background, family income level, etc. allows an admission officer to evaluate courses pursued, grades earned, standardized testing performance, extracurricular involvement and qualities of writing from an appropriate point of view. Assumptions are dangerous, and knowing as much as we can about an applicant allows us to minimize the number of assumptions we must make.
I crave this sort of information because I know it empowers me to comprehend better the various credentials presented within an application. An SAT score below our middle 50% range may still be an impressive score depending on where and who it comes from. A lack of extracurricular involvements may be illuminated by a cultural background or obligations to a student's family. I wouldn't be able to reach these conclusions in the absence of information related to an applicant's race, upbringing and socioeconomic status.
I understand and respect the power of such personal information, and I appreciate the ethical responsibility I have to use it appropriately. Likewise, I understand the importance of diversity in higher education and am committed to enrolling students from underrepresented groups to any institution I may work for. But this doesn't mean that I admit applicants based on a single attribute. Rather, I work diligently to encourage students from all backgrounds and all the many forms of diversity, whom I feel would be a good fit, to apply to my institution, and I try to be a voice for applicants who I feel are being overlooked because their credentials are not being viewed in their full context.
Treating applicants as statistics or dollar signs does a disservice to them, to the institution and to the profession. It abandons the aforementioned notions of fit and negates the individuality of the students who apply to our schools. We need to ensure that access to higher education exists for all and not force it upon one group at the expense of another**.
**I'm referring to the infuriating practice of colleges and universities targeting students from high-income backgrounds, who can pay the full cost of attendance, so that they can sustain financial aid programs for students from low-income backgrounds as well as merit aid programs. Ultimately, such practice limits access to students from middle-income backgrounds, furthering the divide in American society. We need to fund financial aid and fund it much better than we are, but not this way.
Admission is more of an art than a science, though really it's neither. It is a commitment to opportunity. It is a commitment to equity. It is a commitment to risk-taking. And above all else, it is a commitment to acting in the best interest of our applicants, our current students, our institutions, and each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment