College Admissions, Gen X style

This New York Times writer makes many of the points I have been thinking regarding the otherwise pathetic college-admissions scandal. The scandal is shocking for its involvement of celebrities and huge amounts of money, but it seems just a routine example in other ways of how corrupt and unseemly the admissions process has become. The system is corrupt on the most basic levels of assessment. We are often not basing admissions on student ability but rather on test preparation and, arguably, more abstract values associated with success in this area, such as motivation and organizational skills.

My wife and I remember this differently, but I don't recall many people studying for or worrying about the SAT test in the 1980s. There were test-preparation booklets and courses available, but the general consensus as I remember it was that you couldn't really study for this test, just as you couldn't really study for an IQ test. It was designed by experts in assessment to measure your ability to think and the likelihood of your success in college. (This viewpoint was confirmed by Brandon in a recent reviewing of a 90120 episode, in which he says "you can't study" for the SATs, even as his always-in-for-a-scam friend Steve Sanders spends hundreds of dollars on a prep package. Of course Brandon was being naive, and I know the fact that I have been watching 90210, in reruns no less, says little of my own intelligence or credibility.)

Granted, the stakes were lower in the 1980s. Admission into the Ivies was still very difficult and mysterious, but getting into the flagship public universities like the University of Texas at Austin was much easier. Fewer people were attending college, and those who knew they were college bound tended to have a pretty good idea, more or less, of where they were going. As has been well documented in writing and films about Generation X, parents were much more hands-off, as well. This had its advantages and disadvantages -- perhaps better fleshed out in another piece.

Photograph by with an eye. Used under Creative Commons license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/legalcode

This is basically a problem with assessment, in that once again, a test designed for one purpose is being used in a different way and becoming just one more hoop that people will jump through in whatever way they see fit.

The New York Times piece mentions paying "editors" to help with college-admissions essays as well. This might seem innocent enough, but I can tell you from personal experience that students often want more than revision suggestions or basic editing assistance, and, in many cases, I'm sure the consultant ends up being the main author of the essay. We end up with a seemingly holistic piece of evidence that really tells us nothing about the student. This is corrupt, yes, but it can even happen without money being exchanged, such as when a student is simply able to enlist the help of an older sibling, parent, or teacher.

Those objecting to this point of view (that admissions corruption is a matter of degree) argue that these minor acts of subversion obviously do not compare to the fraud and outright bribery alleged in the FBI sting. There are many comments under the N.Y. Times op-ed that say this very thing, and it is true enough as a basic matter of fact. "Getting help" on an essay is not a crime, and in many cases is encouraged as part of the process, an acknowledgement that writing is a collaborative activity involving conversation and exchange of ideas. On moral and ethical levels, however, we're really just talking about how far one is willing to go. This doesn't mean that a student "shouldn't" get help or advice (or even a paid tutor) in writing a college-admissions essay; I have even helped students myself. We should be reminded, though, that what a college is or should be really interested in is the abilities and voice of the student.

What is a No. 1 pencil?

A former grad-school professor of mine enjoyed touting the benefits of No. 1 pencils. We had never heard of such a thing. Apparently, not many people have, especially in the age of standardized testing the ubiquity of the No. 2 pencil. My professor believed the pencils to be superior for writing in books because the marks could be more easily erased, as the lead was softer. Years later, I bought a box of No. 1 pencils and found they weren't that easy to locate as an item. (This must have been before Amazon started carrying everything.) When I did find a box, I was disappointed to learn that sometimes in the era of modern pencils the "No. 1" designation was just a marketing gimmick and bore no relation to the softness of the lead. I think I will buy another box now (on Amazon) to test this theory out in a more empirical way. Surely the graphic-arts industry demands a wide variety of pencils, whatever the numbering system.

Photo by Hafiz Issadeen. (Used under Creative Commons license. Image is unaltered.)