Ivy League Admission System: Far From Mature

Yan Sun

July 6, 2011

The Essay, Sec.7

Jill McDonough

It is a common notion to people not only from the United States but also from other countries around the world that going to an Ivy League school promises a bright future. Thus, the door to the Ivy League is crowded with determined and ambitious students. A smart and strong guard must work full time to decide who can pass through and who cannot. The current admission system is, or wants to be, that guard. It must help the colleges choose exactly who they desire. The current Ivy League selection system focuses less on applicants’ academic achievements than it used to and more on non-intellective factors. While it seems to be a responsible “guard,” it is, in fact, subjective, opaque, unfair, and far from perfect.

The original selection process depended only on academic brilliance, which gave birth to the boon of Jews’ enrollment in Ivy League schools. Though undoubtedly intelligent and hardworking, Jews were also considered to be “sickly and grasping, grade-grubbing and insular” (Malcolm Gladwell 2). The admission feared that Jews didn’t promise the generous reward in capital after they graduated. Under that certain circumstance, the Harvard admission office decided to maintain its sense of elitism and to increase its donation from alums by admitting less Jews (Gladwell 2). The only way they managed to do that was by changing the criteria of accepting students. They no longer focused exclusively on “academic prowess,” but instead, started to focus on the applicant’s personal life (Gladwell 2). Interviews played a crucial role in selecting a prospective student, and the applicant’s “background and breeding such as speech, dress, deportment and physical appearance” began to matter (Gladwell 2). The new merits benefited the school in several ways; for one thing it managed to reduce the number of Jews admitted successfully. However, it also began to receive critics for its subjectivity and ambiguity.

   “It’s hard to imagine a more objective and transparent procedure” (Gladwell 5) than admitting applicants only based on their achievements in academic exams. The results of the exams will be the only criterion to decide whether the applicant could get in or not. In China, the National Higher Education Entrance Exam (NHEEE) for high school students is the only exam they need to take to get into their dream schools. Though many criticize NHEEE as being cruel and ruthless, since students only get one chance to take the exam at the end of their senior year, it’s still considered as one of the most fair and impartial selecting systems exist in the world. As mentioned above, interviews play an important role inadmission; it is possible that the interviewer’s personal emotions are involved in deciding whether to admit the applicant or not. Wearing nice clothes, speaking with attractive voice, or simply just looking pretty, all might plant a good impression on the interviewer and thus increase the possibility of being admitted, regardless of how they perform in other fields. However, no personal emotions, under the current college admission system in China, can be involved in deciding whether to admit the applicant or not, thus promising the equality and objectivity of admission. By adopting this system, millions of lower-class students who have no eminent family background have been admitted by the top universities by working extremely hard. Families’ lack of money or power will not be the impediment towards the children’s success. The system does not stop at benefiting the students; it also guarantees schools getting the determined and hardworking students they want, instead of flamboyant and lazy kids who are admitted only because they have rich and successful parents.

   Admittedly, being smart and getting high scores in exams as a student does not guarantee being successful in one’s later life. By experimenting on a group of kids whose IQ has an average of 157, the researchers found out disappointedly that these kids didn’t grow up “as distinguished as they were expected to be” (Gladwell 5). Although these kids are, to some extent, successful, they are not exactly the superstars that Ivy League schools such as Harvard would want (Gladwell 5). “[M]otivation and social skills… probably matter more” (Gladwell 5) in building a superstar. That is why a lot of Ivy League schools consider “passion and engagement” (Gladwell 5) as one of the most important criteria in admitting students besides academic achievements. However, passion and engagement cannot be clearly understood and perceived without a long-term contact with the applicant, and the decision of whether someone is passionate or engaged enough or not is so personal that there’s no possible way to measure it “as precisely as academic proficiency” (Gladwell 5). Athletic students enjoy a clear preference towards them during admission in Ivy League schools, since they usually share some characteristics including being “highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups,” (Gladwell 6) which make them seem more passionate and engaged than non-athletic students. Even though these students might be inferior to their peers when it comes to other aspects, they still stand out and catch the attention of Ivy League admission officers. Amherst is one of the top liberal arts colleges in the United States. Though not a member of the Ivy League, it still share some commons with the Ivies: all are privately funded and highly admired, and all show clear preference towards athletic students during admission. A faculty committee of Amherst once searched through the “application records of students admitted between 1989 and 1998,” ranked them from 1 to 5 by their academic brilliance, with 1 the highest. It was found that while few from 3's and 4's were accepted, “nearly half of the athletes in the 3 category and one-third of those with a 4 were admitted” (Edward B. Fiske 5). Admission committees, understandably, have faith that these seemingly enthusiastic and active athletic students might overcome their academic disadvantage. However, they might be disappointed to see there’s no sign of improvement in these athletic students’ studies after college starts. Data shows that they ''consistently under-perform academically even after … standardized test scores and other variables [are controlled],'' (Shulman-Bowen) which is clearly not a pleasant piece of news to Ivies. By admitting people who look more passionate, Ivies might miss all the others who are truly more engaged in their study and work, which is clearly a huge loss to these schools.

   Another fact that contributes to the unfairness of the admission process in Ivy League schools is their sense of obligation to preserve elitism. This “obligation” raises some moral issues at the same time. The long-debated legacy preference during admission, for example, “[is] potentially unconstitutional and certainly contrary to American values of merit and social mobility,” argued Richard D. Kahlenberg in Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions. The development and prosperity of Ivy League schools, which are all privately-funded, depend heavily on the donation of their alums. In order to keep their alumni “generous and loyal” (Gladwell 6), the Ivy League has to reward them. One of the means is by admitting the children of Ivy League graduates at a rate higher than that of “non-legacy applicants” (Gladwell 6), even though they might be significantly inferior to their peers from nearly every perspective (Gladwell 6). One study shows that being a primary legacy——the son or daughter of an alum——could increase the possibility of getting admitted by more than forty percent; the exact figure is 45.1% (Jenny Anderson 1). Another similar study suggests that being a legacy is equal to an extra 160 points on the SAT (Kahlenberg). “Harvard’s acceptance rate for legacies has hovered around 30 percent—more than four times the regular admission rate—in recent admissions cycles,” according to a report in The Harvard Crimson (Justin C. Worland). Though some people may argue legacy preference is one of the most important ways for Ivy League schools to keep receiving donation from their alums, they ignore the fact that by doing this, Ivy League schools can only keep generous graduates but cannot further create generous graduates. If at the time of the admission, these schools choose to admit students who are more intelligent and brilliant instead of the plain “legacies” whose only advantage is their alumni parents, they may be able to create more successful graduates, and thus increase the possibility of getting more funds, which is obviously more beneficial to Ivy League schools.

   Though Ivy League schools are benefiting from the very admission system they’re using today, it still requires being refined and polished. The subjectivity and opacity of the admission process deny the possibility of students who are discriminated because of their economy condition, race and other non-intellective factors receiving the education they deserve. The admission process in Ivy League schools is far from perfect, and these highly-admired schools need to be aware of the problems that exist to find an admission system that can help them get the students they want, and avoid ambiguity and unfairness at the same time, in order to maintain its development and prosperity in the future.

Works Cited

Malcolm Gladwell, “Getting In”, New Yorker. Prints. 10 Oct. 2005.

James L.Shulman, William Bowen, “The Game of Life”. Print. 2001.

Edward B. Fiske, “Gaining Admission: Athletes Win Preference”, The New York Times, 7 Jan. 2001.

Jenny Anderson, “Debating Legacy Admissions at Yale, and Elsewhere”, The New York Times, 29 Apr. 2011.

Richard D. Kahlenberg，“Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions”, 2010

Ellie Levitt, “Legacy admissions come with a cost”, The Daily Pennsylvania, 21 Oct. 2010.

Justin C. Worland, “Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent”, The Harvard Crimson, 11 May. 2011.