arrow 2008 columns
  arrow 2006 columns
  arrow 2005 columns
  Back to Home
   
arrow 12/29/07 - The gift card shuffle
arrow 12/22/07 - Tracking the mild coyote
arrow 12/15/07 - Knocked up but not out
arrow 12/08/07 - Save the world: stay married
arrow 12/01/07 - The Red Cross' latest emergency
arrow 11/24/07 - No more reading the readers
arrow 11/17/07 - Pictures imperfect
arrow 11/10/07 - Shelter Mag Blues
arrow 11/03/07 - The Tao of Blowhards
arrow 10/27/07 - Cliche and cataclysm
arrow 10/20/07 - The Porn Age's unsexiness
arrow 10/13/07 - Art as child's play
arrow 10/06/07 - Did 9/11 kill feminism?
arrow 09/29/07 - Everyone's a 'genius'
arrow 09/22/07 - Live and let live -- nah . . .
arrow 09/15/07 - Should kids be seen?
arrow 09/08/07 - Defending Jerry Lewis
arrow 09/01/07 - Our wonder of Wonder Bread
arrow 08/25/07 - American Apparel's ick
arrow 08/18/07 - Death by numbers
arrow 08/11/07 - When Hillary met Robert
arrow 08/04/07 - The case for conspiracies
arrow 07/28/07 - A) Do you love polls, or b) are you weird?
arrow 07/21/07 - Good ... and smug
arrow 07/14/07 - The little black dress of 'responsibility'
arrow 07/07/07 - Little voices of distraction
arrow 06/30/07 - Who killed Antioch? Womyn
arrow 06/23/07 - 40-love, or 20-love?
arrow 06/16/07 - Our blond obsession, from Di to Paris
arrow 06/09/07 - Down the aisle and over the top
arrow 06/02/07 - Dr. Death, American icon
arrow 05/26/07 - Curse of the normal
arrow 05/19/07 - Without smoking, films lose some fire
arrow 05/12/07 - Palm Tuesday
arrow 05/05/07 - Write free and get locked up
arrow 04/28/07 - Does getting him a beer count as work?
arrow 04/21/07 - Try this wrinkle: Grow up
arrow 04/14/07 - NBC flop could be a hit -- on HBO
arrow 04/09/07 - Why doesn't Harvard love me?
arrow 04/02/07 - Attack of the Killer Memoir
arrow 03/26/07 - Dreaming your dream house
arrow 03/19/07 - Documentaries or propaganda?
arrow 03/12/07 - Sleep at your own risk
arrow 03/03/07 - What a card!
arrow 02/24/07 - Echo Park in Mexico
arrow 02/17/07 - Fame-iness
arrow 02/10/07 - I'm with Cupid
arrow 02/03/07 - What Hillary's humor reveals
arrow 01/27/07 - Doggy gentrification
arrow 01/20/07 - Wanna be happy? Expect the worst
arrow 01/13/07 - Adam Carolla's genius -- spoiled
arrow 01/06/07 - The books that read women
 
     
Why doesn't Harvard love me?
Thanks partly to rankings, seniors are all trying to cram through the same small college doors.
April 09, 2007
IN THE LAST few weeks, the anxiety of high school seniors awaiting news of their college fates seems to have spilled over into the general population. It's easy to see why. UCLA received more than 50,000 applications, more than any other university in the country, and accepted just 11,837 of them. Harvard turned down 91% of about 23,000 hopefuls, 1,100 of whom had perfect SAT math scores. Acceptance rates for Stanford, Yale and Columbia were 10.3%, 9.6%, and 8.9%, respectively. That means thousands of valedictorians and people with grade-point averages of 4.0 or higher were passed over in favor of whatever form of superhuman DNA now constitutes a worthy Ivy Leaguer.
Of course, as admissions officers are quick to point out, you can be an infinitely worthy candidate and still get a no. In a Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article March 30, Stanford's Richard Shaw, dean of admission and financial aid, wrote of the "many exceptional youths who did not get offered one of the 1,650 slots in the class of 2011," and he characterized the selection process as "as much an art as it is a science" (in other words, not quantifiable in terms of grades or test scores). But an April 1 story in the New York Times, about a handful of stratospherically high-achieving female students in affluent Newton, Mass., suggested that in many academically rigorous high schools, "exceptional" is now the norm.
An applicant can have perfect grades and scores, be a star athlete, perform community service and exhibit dazzling talents in the extracurricular arena and still be rejected by colleges that, a decade ago, less capable students would have considered safety schools.
You don't have to be a high school student or the parent of one to feel your blood pressure rise over this. We can all sense that the bar is constantly being raised on a lot of things that used to seem like reasonable goals — homeownership, affordable child care, the ability to retire. To read the college acceptance stats is to harbor the retroactive self-doubt that comes from suspecting that you'd be rejected from your alma mater if you applied today, and to wonder whether the whole notion of "college prep" is a fool's errand.
What's the point of forking over private school tuition or the astronomical taxes and housing prices in towns that have exceptional public schools when the level of competition within those schools creates zombified students and all but cancels out any one student's ability to win the prize?
I called Jeff Brenzel, dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, and asked him that very question. He admitted that there is fierce competition within certain high schools but emphasized that if you're in a position to even apply to longshot institutions, you're ahead of the game. The glut of applications to a tiny fraction of colleges, he said, is the result of an artificial hierarchy created by the college-ranking system, most notably U.S. News & World Report's annual "best colleges" report.
"Before the rankings systems, [the process] was much more regionalized," Brenzel said. Now because of the rankings, " you have kids from Texas trying to get into a school in Maine. You have perfectly wonderful students, but they're all trying to get into the same handful of schools."
Believe it or not, the National Assn. for College Admission Counseling's most recent Annual State of College Admission Report shows that the median acceptance rate for four-year colleges, private and public, is about 70%. Do less flashy schools provide a faulty education? Do they lack high-quality professors? Judging from the brilliant academics I know who would be grateful to get a job anywhere, I doubt it.
So why are we so fixated on the places that don't seem to want us? Lloyd Thacker, executive director of Education Conservancy, a Portland, Ore.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the college admission process, points out that the ranking system came about in the early 1980s, when enrollment was down, federal aid had diminished and colleges were looking to market themselves.
The best form of advertising, he suggested, was to increase applications so they could say no to more people — and hence seem more exclusive. And boy, did we buy into it, not just with money (many of these schools now cost about $45,000 a year, by the way) but with our entire sense of self-worth.
"Why should we judge a college's quality by how many kids they can say no to?" Thacker asked.
That's a good question. But we've been fed the gospel of the ranking system for nearly 25 years, and redefining "a good college" will be a lot like cult deprogramming. Until then, opening those notification letters will probably remain a defining educational experience. It's when we're likely to learn that we don't want to belong to any club that would have us as a member. And that's a lesson that sticks for life.
© Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
 
© 2008, Meghan Daum
 
Meghan Daum Quality of Life Report