Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Getting In, Malcolm Gladwell
Reposting the link here.
1) Compare the Ontario college admissions process of Gladwell's youth (about 25 years ago) to the college admissions process today. What are the advantages of each system? Which, in your estimation, is more "fair"?
2) What have been the primary goals of the Harvard admissions process over the years? What do you think of Harvard's goals? Why do you think they have them? Bigotry was almost certainly one reason Harvard wanted to keep the Jewish portion of the student body down--are there other reasons?
3) It is widely thought that student-athletes, because they are often granted admission with grades and/or test scores that would not have allowed them admission otherwise, are granted a share of a scarce resource they don't 'deserve.' Gladwell suggests there is evidence that this account is wholly incomplete. What is this evidence? How do we evaluate whether people "deserve" their share of a scarce resource?
4) Do you think college is a "treatment-effect institution" or a "selection-effect institution"? Should this distinction have any impact on admissions policies?
5) Admission to Harvard is, quite clearly, a scarce resource. There are many people who would like it, and would probably do just fine with it, than can ever hope to have it. But Gladwell concludes that this particular scarce resource to be not a particularly big deal. His conclusion--Harvard's admissions policies, while often odd, quaint, and based on stereotypes, are no big deal. Non-admission to Harvard doesn't constitute a harm so society shouldn't care how this resource is distributed. Do you agree with Gladwell? Why/not?
6) A broader question associated with #5: There are lots of scarce resources out there. For some of them, society is rightfully very concerned with how we allocate them. Take, for example, the job of President of the United States. Lots of people want it, but only one person can have it. It's a very scarce resource. But we as a society make a pretty big deal about how we distribute this resource. If, for example, Bob Dole had somehow managed to replace George W. Bush after the 2004 election, despite not even running that year, many of us (including those of us who think Bob Dole would probably be better at the job) would be pretty concerned.
Another scarce resource is access to high quality, freshly roasted, properly prepared coffee. We in Seattle are huge beneficiaries of this scarce resource--most people in the country are looking to Starbucks as their best option, while we have half a dozen micro roasters of exceptional quality to choose from. Now, I think this is too bad for those people, and I don't envy them, but I also don't think society should worry about this too much. Maybe this resource will spread around a bit more and maybe it won't, but it doesn't matter much one way or the other.
Lots of important stuff, including Harvard admissions, intuitively falls somewhere in the middle. So, my question is this: How should we decide whether the distributional patterns of a particular scarce resource are something society as a whole ought to be conerned about or not?
Of course, your own topics and questions are welcome.
1) Compare the Ontario college admissions process of Gladwell's youth (about 25 years ago) to the college admissions process today. What are the advantages of each system? Which, in your estimation, is more "fair"?
2) What have been the primary goals of the Harvard admissions process over the years? What do you think of Harvard's goals? Why do you think they have them? Bigotry was almost certainly one reason Harvard wanted to keep the Jewish portion of the student body down--are there other reasons?
3) It is widely thought that student-athletes, because they are often granted admission with grades and/or test scores that would not have allowed them admission otherwise, are granted a share of a scarce resource they don't 'deserve.' Gladwell suggests there is evidence that this account is wholly incomplete. What is this evidence? How do we evaluate whether people "deserve" their share of a scarce resource?
4) Do you think college is a "treatment-effect institution" or a "selection-effect institution"? Should this distinction have any impact on admissions policies?
5) Admission to Harvard is, quite clearly, a scarce resource. There are many people who would like it, and would probably do just fine with it, than can ever hope to have it. But Gladwell concludes that this particular scarce resource to be not a particularly big deal. His conclusion--Harvard's admissions policies, while often odd, quaint, and based on stereotypes, are no big deal. Non-admission to Harvard doesn't constitute a harm so society shouldn't care how this resource is distributed. Do you agree with Gladwell? Why/not?
6) A broader question associated with #5: There are lots of scarce resources out there. For some of them, society is rightfully very concerned with how we allocate them. Take, for example, the job of President of the United States. Lots of people want it, but only one person can have it. It's a very scarce resource. But we as a society make a pretty big deal about how we distribute this resource. If, for example, Bob Dole had somehow managed to replace George W. Bush after the 2004 election, despite not even running that year, many of us (including those of us who think Bob Dole would probably be better at the job) would be pretty concerned.
Another scarce resource is access to high quality, freshly roasted, properly prepared coffee. We in Seattle are huge beneficiaries of this scarce resource--most people in the country are looking to Starbucks as their best option, while we have half a dozen micro roasters of exceptional quality to choose from. Now, I think this is too bad for those people, and I don't envy them, but I also don't think society should worry about this too much. Maybe this resource will spread around a bit more and maybe it won't, but it doesn't matter much one way or the other.
Lots of important stuff, including Harvard admissions, intuitively falls somewhere in the middle. So, my question is this: How should we decide whether the distributional patterns of a particular scarce resource are something society as a whole ought to be conerned about or not?
Of course, your own topics and questions are welcome.
# posted by David Watkins @ 5:06 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Gladwell's account of his college admission application describes a process that gave almost everyone who had achieved some success in high school a “shot” at college. Most students were able to meet the minimum grade requirements, could afford the tuition, and didn’t have to come highly recommended to gain entrance to most public schools. As he suggests it was important to attend college, and that “there wasn’t a sense that anything great was at stake in the choice.”
Today’s students face strict and complicated application processes, with the looming fear that the wrong choice of a university will affect their careers and lives forever. The application process reminds each applicant along the way that the competition to get into a good school is fierce and standards are high.
It seems that the process of 25 years ago gave more opportunity for young people to find themselves along the way, and possibly have more success in college than they had in high school. It could have also lowered the standards of a higher education by accommodating students who weren’t ready or equipped for the process. College graduates know they will face fierce competition in the job market, and need their degree from a prestigious university as a weapon in their arsenal.
I don’t think that being fair has much to do with the process, but that the admission policies today reflect the more competitive nature of society in general. Gladwell’s article stresses that Harvard has always been selective and difficult to get into, and has always been one of the “luxury brands.” It seems that many public universities have adjusted their admission policies toward these more selective methods, and the students who are aware of this in high school and strive to meet the more stringent qualifications have an edge on the students who don’t.
Today’s students face strict and complicated application processes, with the looming fear that the wrong choice of a university will affect their careers and lives forever. The application process reminds each applicant along the way that the competition to get into a good school is fierce and standards are high.
It seems that the process of 25 years ago gave more opportunity for young people to find themselves along the way, and possibly have more success in college than they had in high school. It could have also lowered the standards of a higher education by accommodating students who weren’t ready or equipped for the process. College graduates know they will face fierce competition in the job market, and need their degree from a prestigious university as a weapon in their arsenal.
I don’t think that being fair has much to do with the process, but that the admission policies today reflect the more competitive nature of society in general. Gladwell’s article stresses that Harvard has always been selective and difficult to get into, and has always been one of the “luxury brands.” It seems that many public universities have adjusted their admission policies toward these more selective methods, and the students who are aware of this in high school and strive to meet the more stringent qualifications have an edge on the students who don’t.
# posted by 
: 8:27 AM
: 8:27 AM
Gladwell's account of his college admission application describes a process that gave almost everyone who had achieved some success in high school a “shot” at college. Most students were able to meet the minimum grade requirements, could afford the tuition, and didn’t have to come highly recommended to gain entrance to most public schools. As he suggests it was important to attend college, and that “there wasn’t a sense that anything great was at stake in the choice.”
Today’s students face strict and complicated application processes, with the looming fear that the wrong choice of a university will affect their careers and lives forever. The application process reminds each applicant along the way that the competition to get into a good school is fierce and standards are high.
It seems that the process of 25 years ago gave more opportunity for young people to find themselves along the way, and possibly have more success in college than they had in high school. It could have also lowered the standards of a higher education by accommodating students who weren’t ready or equipped for the process. College graduates know they will face fierce competition in the job market, and need their degree from a prestigious university as a weapon in their arsenal.
I don’t think that being fair has much to do with the process, but that the admission policies today reflect the more competitive nature of society in general. Gladwell’s article stresses that Harvard has always been selective and difficult to get into, and has always been one of the “luxury brands.” It seems that many public universities have adjusted their admission policies toward these more selective methods, and the students who are aware of this in high school and strive to meet the more stringent qualifications have an edge on the students who don’t.
Post a Comment
Today’s students face strict and complicated application processes, with the looming fear that the wrong choice of a university will affect their careers and lives forever. The application process reminds each applicant along the way that the competition to get into a good school is fierce and standards are high.
It seems that the process of 25 years ago gave more opportunity for young people to find themselves along the way, and possibly have more success in college than they had in high school. It could have also lowered the standards of a higher education by accommodating students who weren’t ready or equipped for the process. College graduates know they will face fierce competition in the job market, and need their degree from a prestigious university as a weapon in their arsenal.
I don’t think that being fair has much to do with the process, but that the admission policies today reflect the more competitive nature of society in general. Gladwell’s article stresses that Harvard has always been selective and difficult to get into, and has always been one of the “luxury brands.” It seems that many public universities have adjusted their admission policies toward these more selective methods, and the students who are aware of this in high school and strive to meet the more stringent qualifications have an edge on the students who don’t.
# posted by : 8:30 AM
: 8:30 AM << Home
