What surprised me, as I wrote this, was realizing how much our present system benefits the schools themselves. Ultra-filtering burnishes their reputations, which is all-important for fund-raising and promotes a sense of self-congratulation which is quite pleasurable.
Yes! Or so I've heard -- a longstanding attempt at geographic balance. The view from a semi-arid agricultural state, always threatened by the severity of the climate, politically deeply conservative, is different than the view from Boston.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Judith! The piece is well written, interesting, and provocative. I certainly understand your point that, after a certain stage in the process (when only the strongest applicants remain, but they are still more of them than spots in that fall's incoming class), those remaining in the pool are equally qualified (and that efforts to distinguish among them are pointless). But I might also add that, as the parent of a recent college graduate (so we went through that admission process just a few years ago), I think many would feel that leaving things up to a lottery would be unfair or a cause of tremendous stress. Some would be able to let go and just say it is up to fate now but others would find the worry/anxiety a problem. Also, it would probably lead to students applying to far more schools (since that would increase their odds), just like purchasing more lottery tickets increases one's odds of winning the jackpot (even if only by a small amount), don’t you think?
The recent applicant in my life applied to at least ten schools, maybe more, because of the odds. If the arbitrariness were more explicit, would he have applied to more? Dunno.
More to the point, however, making the role of chance explicit would be healthy. At the point when further effort is recognized as pointless, the energy put into fine-tuning one's application could be used in freer, more adventurous, ways.
Still speculating, these lotteries should diminish a bit the status attached to attending the most elite schools, making admission decisions feel less existentially important.
If the committee has reached a group of equally valued candidates and only thing standing in the way are arbitrary reasons like differing hobbies skills etc, lottery system takes the rejection and resentment out of the equation so I see it as the most painless logical way to go about these college admissions.
What surprised me, as I wrote this, was realizing how much our present system benefits the schools themselves. Ultra-filtering burnishes their reputations, which is all-important for fund-raising and promotes a sense of self-congratulation which is quite pleasurable.
North Dakotans?
Yes! Or so I've heard -- a longstanding attempt at geographic balance. The view from a semi-arid agricultural state, always threatened by the severity of the climate, politically deeply conservative, is different than the view from Boston.
As a midwesterner, I appreciate the effort.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Judith! The piece is well written, interesting, and provocative. I certainly understand your point that, after a certain stage in the process (when only the strongest applicants remain, but they are still more of them than spots in that fall's incoming class), those remaining in the pool are equally qualified (and that efforts to distinguish among them are pointless). But I might also add that, as the parent of a recent college graduate (so we went through that admission process just a few years ago), I think many would feel that leaving things up to a lottery would be unfair or a cause of tremendous stress. Some would be able to let go and just say it is up to fate now but others would find the worry/anxiety a problem. Also, it would probably lead to students applying to far more schools (since that would increase their odds), just like purchasing more lottery tickets increases one's odds of winning the jackpot (even if only by a small amount), don’t you think?
The recent applicant in my life applied to at least ten schools, maybe more, because of the odds. If the arbitrariness were more explicit, would he have applied to more? Dunno.
More to the point, however, making the role of chance explicit would be healthy. At the point when further effort is recognized as pointless, the energy put into fine-tuning one's application could be used in freer, more adventurous, ways.
Still speculating, these lotteries should diminish a bit the status attached to attending the most elite schools, making admission decisions feel less existentially important.
If the committee has reached a group of equally valued candidates and only thing standing in the way are arbitrary reasons like differing hobbies skills etc, lottery system takes the rejection and resentment out of the equation so I see it as the most painless logical way to go about these college admissions.