After leaving Peabody Hall last night, I rushed to Barnes & Noble in hopes of securing a copy of the newest college admission "tell all", The Price of Admission. Talk amongst colleagues and the college search set (well, mostly the parents in that group) has been swirling for days and I imagined arriving at the store to find a Harry Potter-esque frenzy.
Instead, I walked around the "New Releases" and "New Non-Fiction" tables without seeing any sign of the book or an empty space where it could have sat prior to my arrival, when hordes must have snatched every copy. The information desk staffer was quick to take me to the children's section where one copy was shelved, spine out (not display style) next to The Chosen and The Gatekeepers.
Of course, I immediately looked UVA up in the index. The results aren't too surprising: one mention of alumni children, one of recruited athletes and one (oddly) of our initiative to give full scholarships to low income students (what we call AccessUVA).
Though I haven't gotten too deep into the book yet, I'm fairly certain that I know what Golden will say about two of the three issues above (what he finds problematic about scholarships for low income students is a mystery at the moment). My ability to predict his comments isn't a function of working in the industry. I believe these "juicy" bits of information are common knowledge (comments will support or refute that). I doubt anyone is ignorant to the fact that certain people get into college because of factors other than their GPA, rank, and SAT score.
So far, my reaction has been a "so what". Unless he proposes some sort of action, he's turned his Wall Street Journal articles into a 300 page book.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I read several articles in the WSJ series. I was particularly intrigued with an idea put forth by Justice Thomas: the supporters of legacy admissions and affirmative action are in a 'standoff'. Each realizes that, if one were eliminated, the other would not survive.
I think those who would engage in social engineering need to beware of unintended consequences. My two oldest children were rejected by their first choices in colleges, both of which were legacies for my wife and me. My oldest son, at UVa now, was rejected by my alma mater but accepted everywhere else--including private university equally as selective.
I don't think I'm an exception. At a reunion, I found there were many alumni in the same boat.
Most of us in this position will not donate one red cent to the institutions that rejected our children. The fundraising phone calls are short and sweet.
So, our expectations were raised by this series of WSJ articles, all the press about "legacy admissions", and the universities themselves. The result is a seething resentment and a loss of donations. That offsets (somewhat--the redbeard fortune is modest at best) the contributions from admitted legacies.
Clearly the overall system works, however, as the cranes on the UVa skyline can attest. It's a system that's so complex, however, that I doubt anybody can understand all the moving parts.
I just finished the book and feel as though I should add to my comments.
Golden makes some recommendations, though only about five pages of them. He sees CalTech, Berea, and Cooper Union as model schools (he missed Olin College of Engineering, which also practices fairly "pure" admission process).
The suggestion I most like is the proposed "firewall" between admission and development/alumni offices. If that ever happens, admission officers around the country will be cheering.
Post a Comment