Ivy League Admissions Are a Sham: Confessions of a Harvard Gatekeeper

> This is why admissions officers will say "well-rounded" until they're blue in the face. There's nothing wrong with plain old eggheads—but let's try and get out there once in a while, too.

If you want to exclude the smart middle class kids, this attitude is the way to do it. The kid whose parents belong to the country club doesn't work there. He goes on the carefully orchestrated volunteer trip to Africa. The middle class kid, on the other hand, can't count on the Bank of Dad to pay for movies and pizza. She's the "egghead" who spends her time either studying or working.

Even in the US, 1% of people are born in an environment that prepares them for acceptance into elite networks like Harvard. But the other 99% of people make up 99% of the geniuses.

Throughout history wealthy people have done almost all the great things, mostly for the simple fact that they were the only ones in a position to attempt them. Technology is rapidly leveling the playing field and, within a couple of generations, humanity will tap into the 99% potential it has always done without.

I don't know about this. His complaints seem to be that the pool of applicants is largely made up of highly coached overachievers, and that standardized tests and an hour-long interview aren't enough time to get to the core of whether someone will be a good Harvard student or not. I wouldn't call that a "sham," more like a systematic failure to recognize, highlight, and quantify the many forms of achievement and merit. A sham to me would be that someone upstream from these reviewers is throwing away all this data and just accepting a pre-formed list of rich white people.

Evaluating students in the first place is an extremely hard problem technically and philosophically. That Harvard even has in-person interviews for all its prospective students suggests it's less of a sham than many other admissions processes. Does this guy think the all the other schools are giving five-hour interviews, or psychological test batteries, or brain scans?

You have to decide who you're going to let in, and so far no one has found a really reliable way to separate the wheat from the chaff - that is, where the wheat is the type of student you want. Even selecting a 'type' of student is risky, considering people at the age of 16-18 are essentially larval. So not only do you have to gauge performance, but potential. Good luck with that!

There's also an ignorant undercurrent of "kids these days," as if kids in the 90s and before didn't have advisors or vanity trips or ultra-practiced answers for every question. The way he got in is the right way, even though as he points out shortly after, there is no right way.

Exclusion is tradition at these schools.

By 1926, Harvard moved away from admissions based strictly on academics to evaluating potential students on a number of qualifiers meant to reveal their "character." A report released that year by an admissions committee endorsed a limit of 1,000 freshman per class — allowing a shift in policy, as Harvard could no longer admit every student who achieved a certain academic cutoff.

Here's how Karabel sums up the new changes approved in 1926, which would effectively allow the Harvard administration to limit its Jewish student population:

The committee decisively rejected an admissions policy based on scholarship alone, stating that "it is neither feasible nor desirable to raise the standards of the College so high that none but brilliant scholars can enter" while stipulating that "the standards ought never to be so high for serious and ambitious students of average intelligence."

When the faculty formally approved the report eight days later, Lowell was further elated, for they also approved measures making the admissions process even more subjective. In particular, the faculty called on [Committee on Admissions chairman Henry Pennypacker] to interview as many applicants as possible to gather additional information on "character and fitness and the promise of the greatest usefulness in the future as a result of a Harvard education." Henceforth, declared the faculty, a passport-sized photo would be "required as an essential part of the application for admissions."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di...

disclosure: I am a Princeton alum and applicant interviewer. There is definitely a strong element of self-perpetuation at these schools, for better or for worse.

Had to use highlighting service to bypass gawker block. Sorry.

When you read this, it's so damn clear that education is going to change _dramatically_ in the next 15 years.

I'm pretty scared for late in my career when I'm going to be competing for jobs against people that got educated in a much better way.

I don't get it, they are having volunteers gatekeep and giving ratings on a scale of absolutely superior to not recommended?

I mean, we've heard lots about interviews for hiring, but this is just ridiculously misinformed and terrible on every level.

OP: Why post this stupid link instead of the Gawker story?

So? Post as much about the downsides of (admission to) prestigious schools as you want. People are still going to fawn over people who went there, and those who went there are going to continue to flaunt it (because, hey, it works).

> Instead of giving people a boost on the ladder to upward mobility

If college admissions went by this person's standard, that would indeed be a sham.