Admission Reform: Turning the tide in the wrong direction

When the Harvard Graduate School of Education published its report “Turning the Tide” last month, a much-needed national conversation regarding college admissions reform erupted. The report, which has been endorsed by more than 80 of the nation’s most elite academic institutions,calls for a holistic restructuring of our current admissions process. The proposal is centered around a simple mantra: “inspiring concern for others and the common good through college admissions.” It aims to reshape the admissions process by emphasizing the importance of meaningful community service over individual achievement.

“Turning the Tide” hopes to relay the message that admissions should be catered to those who dedicatedly participate in impactful and “compassionate” activities, rather than just those with the highest SAT scores and the most AP classes.The proposed goal is three-tiered: to reward students who are active in their communities, to reduce academic pressure and to redefine achievement in a way that is more obtainable to the economically diverse. While these goals are undoubtedly noble, it is hard to imagine exactly how encouraging compassion and community service will radically alter the system and level the playing field. More attention on extracurricular activities in the form of community service is an added burden to students and parents, especially those of a lower socio-economic background, who will have to put more resources into achieving the mark of a competitive college applicant -- "a well-rounded student".

No matter how much we soften and moralize the admissions process, its greatest weakness continues to be its unaffordability for so many students. Unfortunately, this gap of opportunity between wealthy students and their lower-income peers is not something that can be mended in an instant. Not only do absurdly high tuition costs act as definitive road-blocks, but the admissions process itself hinders many students from applying. Harvard’s newly proposed system may be claiming to widen the scope of opportunity, but it is really introducing a new hurdle for the less wealthy. Whereas before lower-income students were disadvantaged by unequal access to test preparation and advanced placement courses, now the process will penalize them for not having the luxury of being as “well-rounded.” Students who need to hold down part-time jobs or help out at home in addition to their studies cannot dedicate hours on end to compassionate community activities.

The current college admissions process is certainly flawed, and there is no question that these early discussions of reform are a proactive beginning to seeking positive change. However, this so-called revolution seems to be lacking a call-to-arms against some of the system’s much greater inadequacies. Unaffordability, classism and the manner by which the application process undoubtedly caters to wealthier students, are factors that will continue to plague the system no matter how much “compassion” we insert into college admissions. The reality is that the best, most ethical way to reform the broken and elite system would be to reduce the cost of college itself. Elite universities can attempt to moralize the admissions process as much as they please, yet significant changes will not be made until the colleges themselves begin to practice what they preach in terms of increased ethical standards and compassion for all.