Breaking News: The United States healthcare system is imperfect—and by the way, so is college admission. Coincidentally, we know that access to both is beneficial but we cannot seem to figure out how to deliver either effectively. As private healthcare insurers compete for patients and scramble for profit, the main goal of treating illness in the most efficient and thorough way possible often falls by the wayside. Any attempt to remedy this flawed model is stymied by politicians whose pockets are lined with money from these very insurers. A similar situation prevails in the world of admission to college, but it happens more subtly, far from the halls of Congress. Instead it is most evident in the closed doors of the “Exhibitor’s Hall” at the annual conference of college admission professionals and high school counselors.
It was here that I found myself this fall, adrift amid the cavernous but crowded aisles of the convention center with a queasy pit in my stomach. Perhaps it was the rum I consumed at the sponsored happy hour the evening before. More likely the nausea was due to my growing discomfort with the shameless and crass commercialism parasitizing my profession and surging to dizzying heights in recent years. For the last two decades, I have gathered each fall with over 5,000 colleagues—among the finest of educators—to discuss the state of college admission and imagine how we can better serve the students, families and schools for which we work. During three days, as we network with colleagues, attend workshops and mingle in the hallways, I am always inspired by the deep commitment to young people and education that is shared by so many.
Then there is the Exhibitor’s Hall, a sobering reminder of the growing industry that has emerged to prey on student anxiety and institutional dysfunction. I am in a daze as I walk through the aisles; sales people calling out to me like street vendors. With a drop of a business card, I could win an iPad, smart watch or case of beer. At the very least, I will depart with a handful of pens, phone chargers and other gimmicks that my children have come to expect when I return home. Meanwhile, my email inbox is full of messages, virtual come-ons from education’s equivalent to pharmaceutical representatives—testing and tutoring outfits, marketing firms, start-up companies and summer “leadership” programs, eager to wine and dine counselors. If they can entice us with their giveaways, they might win our business and a guarantee that we will prescribe their services to students and families. These attempts to co-opt the very people who ought to be providing neutral advice to young people is no different from the influence of the insurance industry, compromising patient health when physicians’ impartiality and the Hippocratic Oath ought to be what is best practice.
Everywhere I look, I am confronted with companies that promise to increase test scores, facilitate the college search or help universities target applicants. In the distance, spectators listen to presentations on “How Texting Increases Engagement and Enrollment Yield,” “The Secret Edge in the Admissions Process: In-Cycle Data and Digital Records” “15+ Amazing One-Minute Ideas to Take Your College Essay Consulting to the Next Level” and “Admission Interview Hacks – Tips to Help Your Students Ace Their College Interviews.” Meanwhile nearby I overhear a pitch from The College Board about grade inflation and why in their eyes (and pockets) standardized tests are still relevant. Despite the conference’s workshops on best practices in providing access and engagement in higher education, I am reminded that our field, like healthcare, is still a business. We know that access and quality are important, but as with Congress we cannot agree on how to get there or what the most fair and effective approach will be.
Diagnosis
Freewheeling opportunism has hijacked our education systems and we must scrutinize the impact of industrialization on pedagogy, practice and people. So how did our profession get to this vulnerable place? In a word, fear. It is in the industry’s interest to fuel the hype around selective admission, because nothing sells better than fear and the “inside edge.” In an effort to attract the most qualified and engaged applicants we succumbed to market influences and permitted a more corporate approach to education. Colleges responded to rankings and sought to swell application numbers. High schools inflated grades and attempted to package their students for selectivity. Parents pushed their children to achieve as they chased prestige. We all listened to external influences tell us how we could be better known, better positioned and better desired.
The college market—just like healthcare—is in truth a lot simpler and easy to navigate than the pushers would have us believe. Do we need a lot of expensive medications and high-tech surgeries? No, we need to wash our hands, quit smoking and lose weight. Do students need essay specialists, test prep experts, and guided community service ventures? No, they need to work hard in school and dedicate themselves to one or two activities that they really like and find thoughtful college matches that will honor their strengths, help them realize their goals and provide a meaningful educational experience. Do colleges need marketing firms telling them how to deny more applicants? No, they need mission-driven approaches to thoughtfully attract the right students for their community and be confident in their institutional identity.
I will not pretend to dissect the infirmities of our healthcare system, but over the years I have witnessed what I believe is the root diagnosis of a disordered college admission experience. It is really quite simple—our cultural fixation with the most prestigious 20-30 schools in the country makes admission vulnerable to big business. The poison of “Ivy obsession” is more potent than we like to admit, and from rankings to packaging, millions of dollars are to be made from exploiting the search for the right educational experience while deteriorating what is meant to be a meaningful transition and intellectual journey. The hype around college admission would have one believe that being accepted to college is a near impossible feat and that students must clamor for one of the few spots. The truth is, that as of May 1, 2017 (the National Candidate Reply Date for college enrollment) only 34% of colleges and universities had met their enrollment goals. This is not a game of musical chairs with a diminishing number of seats. The majority of schools in the country have admit rates well over 50% and though there is a small cohort of highly selective colleges where an acceptance is a rarity, we need not fear being left out of a quality education.
Preexisting Conditions
College admission cannot be analyzed in a void—we must consider the societal ills that exist as context:
• FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt): We are living in a culture of fear and uncertainty and we are reminded daily of potential threats to our health, financial security and well-being. In a world that can often seem out of control, college admission erroneously feels like one tangible area over which we might exert power. There is a false perception that an acceptance to an “elite” college or university will guarantee “success”, safety and happiness. Related conditions: Anxiety & Atychiphobia (fear of failure).
• Affluenza: Entitlement and status are further challenges to a healthy college admission environment. When so much cultural capital is attached to matriculation at any given school, it is sure to create a frenzy. Perhaps Groucho Marx put it best when he said, “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.” The less selective a college is, the less desirable it becomes. There are certain names and reputations that hold weight on the cocktail circuit or displayed on the back of an automobile, and this “members only” approach to education can be toxic. Matthew Struckmeyer, Director of College Counseling at Laguna Blanca School in Santa Barbara, California calls this the “Patagonia Effect.” He explains that this is “the situation wherein a leading brand is so coveted that even extremely similar products on the market--in some cases virtually indistinguishable products--are seen as much less desirable, and the demand for them is much less.” Related condition: FOMO (fear of missing out).
• “Jock” Itch: The role of athletics in tainting the business of higher education is evident to anyone spending a weekend watching college football. Read the reports of potential corruption in college basketball as Adidas, Nike and Under Armour align themselves with high profile university athletic teams, and there are undeniable implications of athletics on admission and the financial model of institutions. It should be no surprise that marketing firms like 160over90 (“From ultra high-stakes admissions efforts and multi-billion dollar fundraising campaigns to mega consumer activations”) simultaneously tout 36% increases in revenue for sneaker companies and 36% increase in applications for admission offices. Some might even argue that the NCAA is complicit in these scandals. When nearly a fifth of the incoming class at some Ivy League schools are recruited athletes and over a third of admission spots at many highly selective small liberal arts colleges are reserved for athletes, college admission exposes itself to a rash industry predators. Related condition: Repetitive Use Injury.
• Arithmomania: And then there is our fixation on numbers. While there are many imperfections in the college admission juggernaut, one of the most pervasive ailments is standardized testing. It is this criterion in the admission equation that is possibly the most inequitable, gamed, limiting and exploited. Increasing numbers of colleges and universities have optional test policies, acknowledging that a more valuable prediction of college success is high school academic performance. Regardless, many of the most selective schools in the country still use standardized tests to thin the applicant pool, and as long as this persists it will inevitably set the stage for the influence of big business, restrict access, and impact student health and wellness. Meanwhile, as colleges attempt to reduce students to quantifiable criteria, rankings purport to tell us what is best for us based on subjective opinion and “fuzzy math”—all while someone makes a lot of money manipulating our need for extrinsic validation. Ask any admission professional and they will tell you that the premise of, and criteria for, ranking schools are flawed (unless of course their institution finds its way to the top). Princeton Review, Niche, U.S. News & World Report and countless other companies sort colleges and universities by everything from food to beauty, and these lists only feed the mania around college admission. Rick Clark, Director of Undergraduate Admission at Georgia Tech does a great job at unpacking and contextualizing rankings in his admission blog. Related conditions: Egomania & Inferiority Complex. (also see: fake news).
Symptoms
Anyone who works in education or has college bound children of their own can list off the indicators of an unhealthy college admission climate. We see these symptoms play out in the lives of young people and the choices of institutions every day. Here are just a few:
• Applicants compete in a “Hunger Games” style contest for the few coveted spots at highly selective colleges. High school is becoming less about learning and maturing and more about positioning one-self for college admission. We are experiencing the loss of childhood, as students load up on AP courses and over-schedule themselves with activities at the expense of sleep, family time and joy.
• Research from Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Making Caring Common Project and from the Education Conservancy suggest that young people are increasingly valuing achievement over concern for others and becoming cynical in the name of admission to college. In a world that is in desperate need of kindness and dedication to the common good, we cannot afford to allow this unhealthy behavior.
• Meanwhile college admission offices—where admits rates are not in the single digits and teens—battle for applicants with outreach, merit scholarships, tuition discounting and other strategies to attract students and boost application numbers. Often less selective college fall prey to enrollment management and marketing companies—that promise results but are not committed to the same educational values as the admission professionals who must employ every tactic possible to remain in the game.
• Youth sports as we know them have changed drastically. What was once an opportunity to feel connected and competent has been replaced by ten year-old career athletes who specialize year-round in a single sport. All for what? To maybe be one of the 2% of high school athletes who will receive scholarship money to compete in college?
• In the past decade, student mental health has become an increasing concern with levels of anxiety, depression and suicide growing exponentially in high school and college. Many college mental health centers are doubling staff, and substance abuse, eating disorders and other repercussions of stress run rampant on campus.
Prognosis
The influence of big business on college admission is hardly new and there have been attempts to tame it for some time. Thoughtful books have delved deeply into the world of higher education and challenged the “consumer” to consider assumptions, manage expectations and resolve inaccuracies in their thinking around what constitutes success. In the late 1990’s Loren Pope encouraged us to consider “Colleges That Change Lives” as an alternative to fixating on status and prestige, advocating a more student centered college search. Then over a decade ago, Lloyd Thacker brought attention to the role of commercialization in admission in his book “College Unranked,” with a collection of essays that invited a thoughtfully and frenzy free approach to admission. More recently Frank Bruni’s “Where You Go Is Not Who You'll Be: An Antidote to the College Admissions Mania,” makes a compelling case against brand obsession. Yet the influence of industry continues to metastasize. We read these titles that urge a more intentional and discerning college search while nodding our heads vehemently in agreement, however, the climate worsens. We need systematic revolution.
Let’s not be naïve—colleges and universities are beholden to their governing boards and alumni who expect results, sometimes at a cost to the mission and educational ideals. But there is hope—high school educators, admission deans and researchers are exploring innovation in admission that would allow for non-cognitive attributes to play a larger role in enrollment models. The Education Conservancy, Harvard’s Making Caring Common Project, The University of Pennsylvania’s Character Lab, the Institute on Character in Admission, and The Enrollment Management Association are a few example of organizations with initiatives gaining momentum to shift the paradigm for admission to be more about purpose and less about packaging. Armed with an increasing amount of data about outcomes and predictors of post graduation success, these organizations will equip institutions with the power to speak truth to leadership.
Repeal or Replace?
Congress has had little success with repeated attempts to replace our healthcare system. A combination of partisan politics and the insurance lobby has prohibited any effort to imagine a more effective system. If we are to render big business impotent in college admission, then we must be vigilant about abolishing the ability to prey on insecurity. There will always be opportunists looking to manipulate and profit from the experience of applying to college, but we can be proactive about minimizing their influence and the power they exert over young people and their families. We must refuse to acknowledge and publicize rankings. When colleges and universities choose to tout their status on these lists, it only gives the ratings credence. Faced with pressure to “perform” in rankings, college administrators make strategic decisions that enable entrepreneurs to hijack the educational focus of admission.
It is also time to put standardized testing as we know it out to pasture. It is asinine to assert that one test on a Saturday morning is the strong predictor of future success (in fact we know that high school academic performance is the best indicator). The time and money spent on test preparation, not only creates inequity, but is also a waste of resources and an absurd exercise in positioning. If we feel compelled to have students sit captive for a few hours on a Saturday, we should have them write their personal statement (college essay) in a controlled setting without the aid of the multiple editors or essay “specialists” coaching for perfection. Laguna Blanca’s Struckmeyer proposes this concept as a way to truly level the playing field.
Speaking of playing fields, imagine admission without the influence of collegiate athletics. We should take the lead from international universities where sports teams do not define an institution or control admission in such significant ways. Club athletic programs increasingly dominate at the high school level, where young people compete at a higher level and gain exposure. Why not take this approach at the college level? If we cannot control the ludicrous recruiting practices and pattern of professional athletes who happen to be enrolled at a college, then we need to dissociate these entities.
Instead of allowing industry to drive the frenzy around selectivity, from the highest levels of business and leadership, we must resist brand obsession and assumptions that “Ivy League educated” implies that one is more knowledgeable or better qualified. It is incumbent upon employers to use their collective power in hiring to reinforce the idea that “where you go is not who you will be.” Just look at the influence that Amazon’s HQ2 decision had, with towns willing to rename themselves and states going to great lengths to respond to the company's request for proposals. The Amazon’s, Google’s and Apple’s of the world could easily send the message that they are equally seeking graduates from Harvard, Hampshire and University of Hawaii. Only then will students and families believe that rankings and prestige are less important than engagement and actualization.
Given the absence of a Hogwarts style “sorting hat” we are well advised to focus on addressing the aspects of admission that are dysfunctional and envision changes that will bring sanity and balance to this educational experience. We have self-driving cars, phones with facial recognition and algorithms that tell us what music to listen to and whom to date, but college admission seems bound to archaic paradigms for evaluating and accepting students. Educators must think outside the box—maybe it is time to consider an undergraduate admissions model similar to medical residency matching programs, or develop a lottery method like many charter schools employ. At the very least we are negligent if we continue to reinforce misguided practices that have allowed for the nauseating commercial influences that were so present as I walked through that exhibitor’s hall this fall. We need a systematic overhaul that both addresses the preexisting conditions of enrollment management and imagines innovative ways to meet the goals of our institutions—and society—free of the heavy hand of industry. Only then will we be able to focus on the purposeful and important work of helping students value the common good while growing and learning collaboratively.