A few weeks ago, Harvard University released a report titled, “Turning the Tide: Inspiring Concern for Others and the Common Good through College Admissions.” In the twenty-six paged document, the renowned institution compiled a list of recommendations intended to help “reduce undue academic pressure” while “redefining achievement.”
It seems like a step in the right direction. For the first time in a long time, a university is taking a stance against unhealthy, competitive educational environments that are familiar to many of us. If Harvard is doing it, many other schools are likely to follow suit. And maybe, with some luck, the admissions process will be less nightmarish than it has been for the past decade.
It seems wonderful; yet, I’m skeptical.
So what exactly are Harvard administrators recommending?
Well, let’s address the problem first. The Harvard report claims that the issue at hand is one that plagues high schools nationwide — a college application process that has students focusing on themselves rather than the people around them.
“Students often perceive colleges as simply valuing their achievements, not their responsibility for others and their communities,” the report states. Furthermore, Harvard recommends that the admissions process should be revised altogether; it should value a concern for the “common good” and “ethical citizenship” over self-furthering endeavors — all while reducing the incredible pressure some high school students face.
The document then lists its recommendations, each categorized under a larger “goal” category.
In writing and on paper, these recommendations seem clear, concise and productive. Yes, the college admissions system is becoming more and more stressful. Yes, changes need to be made. Yes, most of these recommendations seem to provide decent solutions.
But that is all they are. Recommendations.
And most — if not all — of them would fall short if actually implemented.
On the Recommendations for Community Engagement and Service: This section calls for students to engage in meaningful, sustained community service that develops awareness for diversity and gratitude as well as a sense of responsibility for the future.
I understand the theory behind this. We want students who are committed to giving back to the community. We want students who will engage and invest in the people around them. But how exactly do you “measure” service and community commitment? How do you compare one student’s dedication to service to another’s? This is an application process after all. It can and will get to a point where two equivalent students will differ only in the nature of their service commitments. Then how will we pick between them?
Second, doesn’t all of this sound forceful? As if we’re coercing students into taking part in community service not for the sake of personal experience and growth but for the sake of their applications?
And isn’t this oddly similar to the other “suggestions” that colleges have had for us in the past? A simple search of “how to get into Harvard” yields an endless list of these recommendations: “join a sport or a school band,” “participate extensively in a club,” “volunteer in your community,” maintain a high GPA,” “be well rounded.”
Most students know that this isn’t factually representative of what it takes to actually get in. But the Harvard report is more or less suggesting that we add “experiences with diversity” and “demonstrated gratitude” onto the growing stack of expectations for high school teenagers.
On the Recommendations for Assessing Ethical Engagement and Contributions to Others Across Race, Culture, and Class: This portion suggests a need to address students’ contributions outside of the classroom to their families and others in college application questions.
I think this is wonderful in theory. There are so many students who spend an undocumented amount of time on issues surrounding their family lives, and this should be acknowledged in applications. But how does one verify this time committed? And, again, how can you compare one student to another? Is caring for a sick grandmother more relevant than helping out a single mom? Where do you draw the line?
On the Recommendations for Reducing Undue Achievement, Pressure, Redefining Achievement, and Leveling the Playing Field for Economically Diverse Students: This segment discusses the need to change how high school students’ academic successes are regarded through changes in the SAT/ACT testing system and/or the AP/IB class system. It also demands for college administrations to lessen how higher ranked colleges are viewed and idolized.
These recommendations are ones that I believe are the most important in making strides towards improving the college admissions process. They have the capability to turn around some of the biggest issues as to how both high schools and colleges are currently being viewed and treated. The recommendations address the need to alleviate the many pressures that surround a competitive educational environment.
Diminishing the importance of the SAT, broadening the meaning of a “good college,” encouraging honesty and confidence, reducing the pressure to overload on APs … it all sounds perfect.
But will it work? Have we built up this cutthroat system to a point of no return? Can we really just say that the SAT is no longer important and that APs do not need to be taken in excess and expect parents and students to simply abide? After all, these standards have been held up as the golden standard, engraved into the minds of overachieving students (and their parents) as habit.
And how long will it take for high school students to believe what high-ranked universities have to say? The schools seem to be saying, “Hey, take it easy. You don’t need to drill yourself about your education. Just be a good person and you’re set.”
Is it too late to try to make such large-scale changes?
All in all, I do appreciate Harvard’s report. It is the beginning of a large-scale effort to at least admit the fact that the education system is failing in the admissions sector.
But for now this is all talk — an ideal perspective into making the process better, fairer and calmer, an ideal perspective that is too ideal to effectively play into reality.
Asking for change is one thing. Following through with it and keeping the system afloat is another.
Your move, Harvard.
Sunidhi Ramesh is a College Sophomore from Atlanta, Georgia
A lot of ideas that come out of Harvard have always appeared “too idealistic.” Take the building of the Wyss Institute for instance.
Harvard built that place with a very lofty goal in mind. It wasn’t easy, but somehow they recruited the thinkers needed to make it the center of most biologically-inspired design. It happened; it just took a lofty goal and a bit of time to think on it.
In a lot of ways, I think you underestimate the value of idealistic ideas and their ability to come to fruition. This is Harvard we’re talking about. They pretty much set any academic standard. They’ll figure out a way to make most of those goals a reality, but I think it’ll take them some time — and perhaps some humility — to diminish the importance of a Harvard degree over another type of degree.