Various metrics are used to evaluate applicants. Some metrics are more relative than others; some are more susceptible to manipulation than others.
Letters of recommendation are subjective. The meaning of GPAs vary wildly from one high school to another: at one high school it’s relatively easy to earn a 3.5, while that same number represents a Herculean effort at another high school.
Standardized testing represents more reliable and more objective measurement, but such tests - e.g., SAT and ACT - do not fully capture a student’s ability to carefully examine and analyze text, or to synthesize ideas from two different philosophers.
The report also addresses the frantic effort on the part of high school students to compile a long list of extracurricular clubs and involvements. Bruni writes:
The report also suggests that colleges discourage manic résumé padding by accepting information on a sharply limited number of extracurricular activities; that they better use essays and references to figure out which students’ community-service projects are heartfelt and which are merely window dressing.
Many questions emerge. One is that the admissions process needs to reflect the purpose of higher education. Because that purpose is not monolithic - some attend college to master an academic discipline, others to gain employability - the process retains a somewhat split personality.
A second questions surrounds the manipulation by students of their ostensible academic profile. Standardized tests, while leaving much to be desired, are not nearly as malleable as letters of recommendation and high school GPAs. The methods by which students can scam a GPA, or cajole a teacher into writing a letter, are numerous.
The report which Bruni describes is nonbinding in its recommendations, but nonetheless offers a chance to reconsider the process.
