In this 298 page book Golden explores the admission's process and evaluative criteria for applicants to America's most prestigious universities (focusing on Ivy schools). He makes the case that these universities contradict society's implicit assumption that the world of elite academia is meritocratic. Rather, they bend and alter their standards "to admit children of the rich, famous, and powerful" keeping alumni and donors happy while securing a sizable endowment.
Golden, who quite obviously believes admissions should be focused on the student's academic record (GPA, AP classes, SAT, etc) rather than other factors, calls for the following changes (not exhaustive):
- Eliminating legacy preference given to children of Alumni.
- Separating the fund raising wing of the university from the admissions wing. In the last few decades, it has become all too common for below-average students to receive admitance as a 'development case' since their parents might offer a large donation.
- Abolish scholarships for 'upper-crust' sports.
For the most part, I disagree with Golden. The one exception is point number two above - separating fund raising from admissions at all universities. I definitely agree that juggling both of those goals through a single decision process (or any form of hybrid) leads to trouble.
On everything else, I think Golden is being too narrow minded with his understanding of what college is. He argues as if academics is the end all and be all. That there is nothing for a student to learn outside of the classroom and consequently there is no reason for the university to invest (through the admissions process) in a student body that excels not only academically, but also atheltically, politically, and socially.
I understand his argument that when Ivy schools provide athletic scholarships for wealthier sports (like squash, polo, or equestiran sports), they create a feeder program for an exclusive and very wealthy group of kids (No kid in the Chicago public school system is going to Yale on scholarship for polo). However, the more that I think about it, the stronger I feel that it is necessary to maintain more than once class of sport. To regulate that all schools have to provide scholarships for the same sports would destroy much of the diversity that we see in athletic competition - a true shame. And at any given school, the scholarship sports reflect the culture of that school and maintaining that culture (or at least allowing it to grow naturally rather than through regulation) is nearly as important as the academics.
Further, I contest that the premise of his entire book is off base - that academics is pure and meritocratic. Maybe a lot has changed since he picked up his B.A. from Harvard, but since when has a person's GPA or SAT score been a good measure of their intelligence? Sure, it may be an indicator of intelligence, but it defintely is not a good measure. A class grade (even in mathematics) is just as subjective as a personality assesement in the admissions process. A straight A student is not necessarily a genius, they've just mastered their class-taking ability. A far cry from intelligence.
A bright person is going to make it, regardless of what school they went to or what their GPA was. They may decide to buy into the academic fevor and bust their balls for a 4.0, or they might develop their personality and skills sets outside of the classroom while settling for a 3.5. When it comes to admissions, champions don't complain about bad calls or the weather - they focus on what they can control. Going to USC instead of Yale or Arizona instead of Brown won't make or break a champion's dreams or ambitions - only a bad attitude or lack of desire will hinder someone like that.
We are coming to an age where information is easily disseminated across all boundaries (with the exception of the no-internet boundary...). I think universities as we know them today are headed for a shake-up in the next 20 years. Pissing and moaning about the admissions process seems like small beans to me.
Indifferent.
