Yet Another Bad Admissions Idea. The College Board’s “Landscape” tool is terrible news for admissions fairness.

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | June 20, 2024 | Graham Hillard

[karpov]

Leigh made a 34 on the ACT. Bill made a 23. Which of the two do you want attending your academically selective college? According to a traditional or merit-based admissions standard, the answer is almost certainly Leigh, whose aptitude and prior learning mark her as the stronger candidate by far. Yet, following the logic of Landscape, the College Board’s quietly insidious “contextualization” resource, admissions officers may find themselves shunting Leigh aside in Bill’s favor.

Developed in 2018 and broadly available since 2020, Landscape is a free admissions dashboard that allows decisionmakers to “consider each student within the context of where they’ve learned and lived.” If Leigh’s high-school education took place at an Ivy League-feeding preparatory academy, Dashboard will convey as much, thus implicitly devaluing the young woman’s achievements. (After all, many of her classmates did just as well.) If Bill stood head and shoulders above his own peers, an academic giant by the standards of his community, Dashboard will know that, as well. All of a sudden, our hero’s 23 doesn’t look so bad.

There is, admittedly, something in this way of thinking that appeals to American readers. Bill pulled himself up by his bootstraps and made the most of the opportunities that were given to him. A country that makes no provision for talented youngsters in obscure circumstances is going nowhere fast.

The problem is that Bill really is less prepared to succeed on an elite campus than is Leigh, irrespective of our ideological preferences. Moreover, to favor Bill over Leigh is to engage in a process that brings to mind China’s social-credit scoring in reverse. That kind of social engineering ought to be well beyond the remit of campus educrats, especially given the admissions jurisprudence that emerged last summer in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

[KarlInOhio]

If Bill stood head and shoulders above his own peers, an academic giant by the standards of his community, Dashboard will know that, as well. All of a sudden, our hero’s 23 doesn’t look so bad.

So instead of sending Bill to a middle of the road state university where he might have a chance to succeed, he'll go to an "elite" school where he will be destroyed on the curve by all the Leighs already there or he will be put into a sequence of grievance studies classes and be dragged through to graduation with a worthless degree and a quarter million dollars in student loans. See any number of Thomas Sowell books for citations.

[Brian Griffin]

Private U can make its own choices as long as they are obviously not illegal.

Public U has its key choices made by an elected government (or appointed officials) as long as they are not deemed illegal by the federal government.

The Dim Bulb family votes, often after a bit of prodding by Democratic operatives.

If Dim Bulb Jr. merely takes up another seat at a large Public U lecture hall, not much damage is done, or public money wasted.

If Private U passes over a brilliant student, the brilliant student can go to college elsewhere.

[Brian Griffin]

Ronald Reagan remembered and praised the work of the dedicated teachers at Eureka College who made sure their students learned.

[Vermont Lt]

Didn’t they used to have Admissions people who actually looked at applicants?

I used to laugh with the Athletic Directors who said they would base admissions on “needs.” “We ‘need’ a quarterback , a full back, a defensive end….”

[Tell It Right]

The problem is that Bill really is less prepared to succeed on an elite campus...

IMHO that makes Bill better suited for living in the real world.

[SauronOfMordor]

The key bit is that Bill was the highest achieving of his low-achievement peer group, and thus can be groomed to go out and assume a leadership position in that peer group, to manipulate his peers for the ends of the elites.

[Alberta's Child]

A good friend of mine is going through a college admissions process with his oldest daughter. His take on the process is not the same as what the author says here.

Basically, he says these platforms that automate the application process are great for students because they enable the student to file one application and distribute it to multiple schools. But they are a nightmare for college admissions offices because the number of applicants for each school has increased exponentially.

The schools simply don’t have the staff resources to review all the applications anymore, and many of them have resorted to interesting methods of making their application review process more manageable. Schools have started to accept more and more second-tier applicants because they’re finding that the top-tier applicants aren’t accepting offers anyway. So the school basically doesn’t bother with top-tier applicants because it doesn’t want to waste its staff time dealing with applicants who are very likely to go elsewhere.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Is there no longer a fee to apply to colleges? That would weed out those who aren't really interested.

I can't remember from my son's experience three years ago because he applied for early admission to his first choice school and was accepted.

[17th Miss Regt]

...and a quarter million dollars in student loans

...which will be forgiven by the Democrat administration.

[bobcat62]

There’s also that “early decision” nonsense.

[9YearLurker]

As if ACT and SAT scores show primarily hard work and environment instead of intellect.

[9YearLurker]

Filling up your funnel with students who only applied as a safety fallback leaves you with some unattractive acceptance data. Schools are better off being a tad aspirational, but knowing their limits.