College admissions can be a costly, panic-inducing process, made worse by the efforts of selective colleges to hide the details of how they decide whom to accept. Earlier this year, though, spurred by the revelations that emerged from the Harvard University affirmative action case that’s currently headed to the Supreme Court, business executives Michael Goldstein and William Gentner, and statistician Gregory Frank, launched a new venture, Transparency in Admissions, intended to help address that state of affairs.
In court, Harvard’s admissions department was compelled to reveal piles of data on how they assessed applicants (as well as troubling details about how avidly the institution sells access to the rich and connected). This data dump, and the statistical model that expert witnesses produced with it, enabled Transparency in Admissions to develop an algorithm that can offer new insights regarding admissions chances at Harvard and, by extrapolation, other highly selective private universities.
In court, Harvard’s admissions department was compelled to reveal piles of data on how they assessed ... [+]
Of course, since colleges hide the particulars of their admissions process, translating the Harvard algorithm to other colleges required some educated guesswork. For example, since Harvard’s legacy admissions rate differed by four percent from that of another institution, the model was adjusted accordingly.
To use the site, students provide their demographic and academic information – including ethnicity, socioeconomic status, test scores, and so forth. Students also indicate whether they are applying for financial aid or fee waivers, are a recruited athlete, or have legacy status. The algorithm then calculates their probability of admission to the colleges in the Ivy League as well as Cal Tech, the University of Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, and Stanford.
Co-founder Michael Goldstein observes one takeaway is that applicants get a huge boost from being the child of a big donor or a recruited athlete. Another is that legacy status and being black or Latino confer similar-sized bumps to an applicant. Meanwhile, he explains that the data makes clear that whole categories of applicants have essentially no chance of being admitted to these universities.
Indeed, Goldstein says that the only populations with non-trivial odds of admission at these colleges are athletes, legacies, children of faculty or donors, certain racial minorities, first generation college students, students from upscale private schools, and those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of applicants. About half of all admitted students belong to one of those preferred groups.
Most everyone else (for whom the acceptance rate is about 2%) might be better off saving their admissions fees.
Yet these selective colleges, and many private college counseling organizations, lead students and their families to believe that admission is within reach (largely because rankings are fueled by “acceptance rates,” meaning that colleges benefit mightily by suckering lots of no-chance applicants into applying). And counseling organizations have incentive to keep hope alive, since that’s how they convince families to fork over their hefty fees.
Goldstein explains that Transparency in Admissions was formed to shed some light on deceptive admissions practices in order to mitigate some of the harm they can cause. He notes that many students and families spend money, invite anxiety, and undergo extraordinary pressure in pursuit of an oft-unrealistic outcome. That’s aside, he says, from the emotional deflation produced by a raft of rejections.
Goldstein says the goal is to ensure that students and families have a realistic picture of the likelihood of admissions, allowing them to make informed decisions. Asked about the cost of the service, he says that it costs students $15 but that schools can subscribe at a discounted rate for their whole student body.
With a more accurate picture of selective admissions, families can better weigh the costs and benefits of enrolling students in numerous AP courses, long lists of extracurricular activities, SAT or ACT prep courses, college application tutoring, or paying fees to apply to lots of selective colleges, and taking trips to visit campuses. Indeed, students equipped with the real story might stop fetishizing colleges that have no intention of accepting them and focus on more fulfilling or useful pursuits.
While it’s good that Transparency in Admissions has taken up this challenge, they really shouldn’t have to. Just imagine if colleges freely provided the information on their admissions process, rather than only under duress. It might be a blow to the rankings of these cosseted colleges, and would surely make being an Ivy League admissions official less fun, but it might just be a terrific thing for the students victimized by what’s grown into a costly, exhausting, and out-of-control admissions gauntlet.
