Is the College Process Fair?

In the first three weeks of December, Exeter seniors received an email that has, unfortunately, become the culmination of a 21st century American student’s education. In it, they were told whether or not they were worthy of success and recognition. Four years of work, growth and pain were analyzed by an obscure, opaque committee who divided them into winners, losers and losers with a slightly better chance of admission.

It was, particularly this year, a sad day for many. But the strangest part is how arbitrary the decisions seemed. Many of us have been taught our entire lives that if we work hard and satisfy high expectations that we will get what we want. For more than a few people, that turned out to be untrue; they discovered the reality that the “meritocracy” is a false idol, a lie that they fervently worshipped for four years. Everyone has their own gripes about the university admissions system: standardized testing, recruiting or whatever other facet they believe has hurt them the most. If just these one or two things had been weighted differently, maybe, just maybe, all would’ve been well. But the admissions system doesn’t need tweaking and reform. It demands a fundamental overhaul.

In order to understand the condition we’re in now, we have to look at the privileged history of American universities. In the beginning of the 19th century, “top-tier” universities like Harvard came up with a system to revolutionize American higher education. Previously, university enrollment was reserved for the children of affluent white families. America’s “old money” nobility went from schools like Exeter to elite universities and then on to key roles in business or government. 

But a few progressive reformers, such as James Conant and Henry Chauncey, began to question rich, white Protestants’ domination of these universities. Instead, they imagined a world in which it didn’t matter that you went to Exeter or that your family had been in America for ten generations. In their world, anyone who worked hard could go to a top university and then on to a lucrative career. A new, socially conscious, merit-based elite would run America. Conant explained that he believed in “equality of opportunity, not equality of rewards." But, they had one problem. How would they define “merit”?

To answer that question, university officials developed the “standardized test.” From then on, two factors would determine admissions: grades and national exam scores. All “subjective” criteria, such as character, would take a back seat in order to prevent racial or economic bias. But that utopian dream proved to be a fantasy. The “objective” exams tended to favor white students from higher socioeconomic classes who could afford expensive tutoring. High schools adapted their teaching to prepare students for university. Students from expensive prep schools dominated the college system, and the “new elite” didn’t prove any more interested in societal problems than their “old money” forbearers. The “meritocracy” failed to achieve its intended goals. 

Not only did the college admissions system fail to make universities more diverse and equal, the changes resulted in a homogenized high school experience that turns American students into automatons while crushing self-realization and moral growth. Humans have a diversity of talents and abilities, but the modern educational system rewards only one skill: the ability to regurgitate facts. In the real world, a number of other skills, such as critical thinking, are necessary. Unfortunately, we high school students aren’t developing these skills in a productive way, because we focus too much on exams to the detriment of other forms of studying. 

High school was meant to be a time to grow up, to turn into an adult and to make mistakes. You could “mess up” one term, get a few C’s and be fine. Your teacher could assign truly difficult material. Now, one rough term can sink your chances at university. Students compensate by taking easier courses or steering clear of “tough” teachers. We have to choose between social lives, schoolwork and our own extracurricular pursuits. Our entire high school experience is focused on the materialistic pursuit of getting into a university. 

But the most egregious fallacy is that going to a “top-tier” university will ensure career success. We’re told the “prestige” and “connections” are worth sacrificing our high school experience, yet universities have become such big institutions that “connections” don’t really mean much. In the modern world, competence is more necessary than qualifications. Companies care more about work ethic and skills than about what university you went to. 

In summary, the current university system is crucially flawed. I’m not saying that Exonians shouldn’t have to work hard, take exams or study. But, we do need to reform the way high schools and universities operate in the United States. Students need to learn skills, not memorize facts. We should be able to do all our work, pursue our own interests and spend time with our friends. 

An admissions letter shouldn’t be the most meaningful moment of our high school years. We could get rid of standardized exams and replace them with essays. We could devise new exams that favor many different skills and types of student. But whatever we do, we need to reform the system fast in order to prevent American universities from turning into more of a farce than they are right now.