Ethical College Admissions: Time for a Time-Out for Admissions

I have always been fascinated with the concept of the time-out (in the athletic sense, not the tool for punishing 4-year-olds). Contrary to what those married to me might believe, my interest in the time-out is only partially related to the opportunity to replenish snacks without missing game action.

Knowing when and how to use time-outs is essential for a successful basketball or football coach. I remember watching a women’s college basketball game where the coach used up all her time-outs with 12 minutes left and her team comfortably ahead, only to have the opposing team storm back and win the game when she could not call time out to stop the momentum. It explained why she finished with a record of zero and 22 that season. I also remember my first admissions dean boss reflecting back on his days as the junior varsity basketball coach at a boarding school. His biggest fear was that the other team would call time out and he would have to think of something to say to his team.

The concept of the time-out has value in other venues besides sport. Pseudolus, the main character in the Broadway musical A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, saves his own life after being condemned to death at the end of the first act by asking for the opportunity to utter a single word. The word, of course, is “intermission.”

Even when not a matter of life or death, it would benefit most of us to have the ability to call time out whenever we’re about to step out of bounds or when we need to catch our breath, regroup and change the momentum of the workweek or school year. Unfortunately the clock doesn’t stop, no matter how frantically we signal for time out.

I have found myself wondering lately whether college admission needs a time-out, in a figurative sense, of course, since we’re all too harried at this time of year to actually take time out. There has been a lot of recent scrutiny of the practice of college admission, and the common thread seems to be a sense that the college admissions process is broken, or at least showing structural fatigue.

A recent passionate discussion on the NACAC Exchange bemoaned the number of colleges, including many that are hardly hyperselective, that advise students to take the most rigorous courses available in every area of the curriculum. Many of the secondary counselors who chimed in wondered if such advice is necessary, desirable or healthy. Does that advice contribute to increased anxiety and perfectionism in today’s high school and college students?

That is only one example. The high school transcript has come under fire, with the Mastery Transcript Consortium arguing that the high school transcript as currently constituted is a “broken instrument.” The College Board has made the same argument from a different perspective, seizing on widespread grade inflation as evidence for the value of the SAT.

Standardized testing is itself under fire in new ways. The number of colleges joining the test-optional movement increases each year, and there is a new initiative making the case that today’s standardized tests should be replaced by performance assessments such as digital portfolios and capstone projects that might show depth of learning, the same objective cited by those seeking to replace the current high school transcript.

The Turning the Tide initiative wants the college admissions process to encourage students to be concerned about others and the common good by adding essay questions with that focus, and yet an Inside Higher Ed article last fall raised questions about the value of the college essay given the development of an industry of essay consultants who work with students, editing -- and sometimes writing -- college essays. Several recent articles highlighted problems with college interviews, especially those conducted by alumni with minimal training or oversight. And the Department of Justice is apparently calling into question the legitimacy of a code of ethics for the college admission profession.

The list above includes most of the conventions, and several of the foundations, that have guided college admission. Is the dissatisfaction with many of them coincidental, or a sign that it may be time to rethink the college admissions process in fundamental ways? Is the debate healthy, cause for worry, or both?

In his monumental history of college admission at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities, The Chosen, Jerome Karabel identified three college admission “epochs” over the past century, each reflecting a different paradigm for what constitutes merit.

First there was the “best student” paradigm, where admission was based on academic considerations alone. Karabel argues convincingly that when that paradigm produced student bodies with large percentages of Jewish students, the paradigm shifted to finding the “best graduate,” with admission being not just about academic prowess but personal factors like “character” and “leadership,” both defined in ways that today seem quaint at best and bigoted at worst. The “best graduate” paradigm led to the introduction of things like college essays, recommendation letters and valuing the student who is well rounded.

Our current epoch revolves around the “best class” paradigm, where individuals are admitted not for individual merit but for what they add to the merit of the class. That paradigm relies on practices such as holistic admission and “sculpting” a class.

But have that epoch and that paradigm run their course? The current model serves institutions well -- at least, those at the top of the food chain. But does it serve society well, especially as the nation faces significant demographic changes? Do we care?

This column has always been better at posing questions than providing answers. Owning that, here are some questions worth contemplating:

• As higher education becomes more of an industry, can college admissions retain its claim to be a profession, not just a business?
• Does the current admissions process promote or prevent thoughtful decisions by young people about their futures?
• Does the current college admissions process reward gamesmanship by both applicants and institutions?
• Can selective college admissions escape the cult of selectivity?
• Are college admission professionals and secondary school counselors on different sides of the desk or at different desks?
• Is merit an outdated concept, or simply one that needs redefining?
• Are we measuring the right things?
• What responsibility does higher education have to promote upward economic and social mobility?
• Are we proud of the current college admissions process?

I don’t claim to have answers, but think the questions are worth asking. I hope we’ll take the time to discuss where we are and where we’re headed. If we don’t take a time-out, we may find ourselves and our profession placed in time-out.