Uh, I was potty-trained at that age?
In the New York Times, there’s an article about just how competitive college admissions has gotten at the most selective institutions, thanks the fact that the number of baby boomers’ children graduating from high school is at peak levels, a higher fraction of kids go straight to college after high school, and kids apply to more places than they used to. (When I applied to college in 1985, my parents limited me to five. I don’t know what the average is now, but the article cited that two percent of kids apply to 11 or more places nowadays. In the 1960, only two percent of kids applied to 6 or more colleges—which would have put me among the upper tier then, but probably below average today.)
Of course, there’s the obligatory feeling of who knows if I’d still have gotten into Princeton if I applied today. But I sure as heck wouldn’t have gotten into Caltech:
But with more and more students filling out ever more applications, schools like the California Institute of Technology received a record number of applications this year — 3,595, or 8 percent more than last year — and admitted 576 students. Among so many talented applicants, a prospective student with perfect SAT scores was not unusual, said Jill Perry, a Caltech spokeswoman.
“The successful students have to have shown some passion for science and technology in high school or their personal life,” Ms. Perry said. “That means creating a computer system for your high school, or taking a tractor apart and putting it back together.”
Well, that would have ruled me out, as my selling points back in 1985 were my experience on the speech and debate team, very strong grades and test scores, and APs in eight subjects (plus three IBs, from the international school senior year). Never mind that the only computer my family had at the time was a Sinclair ZX81, or that I lived in the suburbs and didn’t have access to a tractor to tinker with.
There was a whole welter of socialization about what girls are expected to be interested in and what I would have been permitted to do in the house (my mother was very particular about the house; we weren’t even allowed to sit on the furniture without changing clothes if we’d been playing outside in the summer). My all-female Catholic school (which was separate and unequal to the boys’ school up the road in terms of the offerings) didn’t expect us to be interested in math, and so our participation in math meets was relatively ad hoc compared to the organized team that my brother reluctantly participated in. (How I envied his having an actual team with practices—which, of course, he didn’t appreciate—while at my school I was pretty much on my own. I never tried to drum up more interest in math team myself, having been a misfit in junior high who didn’t want to face the pain of almost certain rejection for this hopelessly nerdy pursuit.) And we didn’t do science fairs.
Maybe with girls’ tech programs like Expanding Your Horizons, the level of technical knowledge is higher now than it was some twenty years ago. (Embarrassing revelation: I didn’t even know what a diode was when I took my first electrical engineering course! Not that it’s conceptually difficult to learn, but a lot of the guys had been playing around with circuits in a way that I hadn’t.) But I’m also wondering that, with the stakes so high so early, are we starting to discourage well-roundedness? Do you really have to focus that much that soon in order to get into one of the “name” colleges these days? What about the bright girls who hadn’t been in a situation that supported them becoming extremely technical early on? Is there a chance for them to discover a technical talent without feeling like they’re behind at the starting gate? I don’t know what the gender stats on the Caltech admissions were, but I can’t help but think that it must be even more intimidating than it seemed for me at a competitive liberal arts university nearly 20 years ago.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Maybe with girls’ tech programs like Expanding Your Horizons, the level of technical knowledge is higher now than it was some twenty years ago.
One of my big worries is that students abilities aren’t better than they were twenty years ago but that people have gotten so focused on doing well on tests that the spirit of education has been eroding further. That people are going to college because it is what is done, not for the education. That getting A’s is more important than understanding.
But I’m also wondering that, with the stakes so high so early, are we starting to discourage well-roundedness?
I wonder this too, which relates to what I wrote above. Students strive for entry into these universities, but does all that effort really pay off for them in the end, in their lives after university? I wonder.
Does it really matter if you go to Harvard? I think people focus on the wrong things when selecting colleges. Being a top research university in the nation does not mean a school is a top teaching institition. The value of these schools is often in their reputation and the natural sorting of already talented students that they accept, rather than the value they actuallly give students, or so it has seemed to me for many years.
If students were to demand real value for their education dollar, they wouldn’t look to research universities, they would demand schools where teaching was the top priority and where they would be given support to learn.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
One of my big worries is that students abilities aren’t better than they were twenty years ago but that people have gotten so focused on doing well on tests that the spirit of education has been eroding further.
Many people have this concern, and I recently read an interesting proposal in response to it (I wish I could remember where I read it!): The idea is that all the high-end schools should decide who, in their applicant pool, is a suitable candidate, and then use a random lottery to select admits from that pool. This means that you don’t have to have perfect SATs AND all As AND 12 extracurricular activities AND etc in order to compete with the student who had 13 extracurriculars. The goal: students who love learning will be able to focus on learning knowing that padding their resume won’t give them a leg up, so they might as well relax.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:30 am
some article, huh. spotted this too, and am glad you’ve posted on it.
“with the stakes so high so early, are we starting to discourage well-roundedness? Do you really have to focus that much that soon in order to get into one of the “name” colleges these days?”
in college, i worked in the admissions office giving campus tours, and inevitably ended up answering questions about “what did i need to do to get in?”, rather than “what can i bring to the school?” or “how might this school engage me and support my interests?” ok, so not many people know to ask questions like that, at that age. but with these kids working toward developing such an incredibly broad, dynamic package, i fear not only 1. overextension, and 2. narrowed focus (as you alluded to), but 3. a lack of realization that their application - and all of the APs, extracurriculars, and projects summarized within - doesn’t necessitate their heart being in the decision. because of this competitiveness, so many kids seem increasingly concerned w/ how to get in, and not about their experience once they’re there.
on an aside, funny you mentioned the Expanding Your Horizons program - i was just chatting w/ someone the other day about how attending for three consecutive years influenced my understanding of what science/math opportunities were available to me. great program.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Caltech accepts about 1 in 6 candidates. That sounds less selective than back in the late 60s and early 70s. Wasn’t it about 1 in 8, or even 10, back then? They were supposed to be more selective than MIT, which took about 1 in 8, and still takes in about 1 in 8. Both schools had lots of students with lots of 800s on their SATs and other perfect scores. Harvard was about 1 in 10 back then, it’s about 1 in 11 today. That is not that big a change.
Has it really gotten all that much worse getting into a selective college?
Granted, the 70s had the big baby boom and we are now in the baby boom echo. Perhaps selective schools were easier to get into during the late 80s and early 90s?
—-
Personally, I think that well roundedness tends to work against the really bright, especially really bright girls. There is nothing like being ordered to get well rounded to keep one from focusing on getting really good at something. Girls who really want to excel in some scientific or technical area are under much more pressure than boys to get out and get some air, spend more time with friends, pay more attention to how they dress, diversify their interests and so on.
Exploring the sciences and technologies offers its own rewards to both men and women. There is no sex hormone involved in experiencing the joy of plucking a radio signal out of the air, breeding a neat hybrid mouse, getting a good look at the Crab Nebula, or booting Linux on your old point and shoot camera. It’s just that girls don’t get any encouragement or resources.