While what follows may seem to put some blame on the girls (or boys) who are raped, this is not the case. I don't think that they should be blamed (in the vast, vast majority of cases [if you go to a place that has a reputation as a place where you are likely to get mugged and then you do get mugged and complain about it, I think you should've known better, perhaps tried to avoid that area; the same goes for rape {if there isn't an alternate route or some other solution, fine, not your fault}, so if you go to a neighborhood or a bar with a reputation of being an area where people get raped, you might want to reconsider where you were before you say it wasn't your fault]) for being raped, but if they don't do anything (many statistics say that a large portion of rapes go unreported) they should be blamed for the fact that the cries they make fall on deaf ears. The next paragraph is why I believe that this is the case:
Cynthia Wolken, the City Councilor of Missoula, Montana says that the response by the mostly male authorities is lacking and that that "makes women less likely to come forward and report sexual assault". She says that people wont report a rape because they don't believe that their report will be believe, investigated, and result in a conviction or some sort of punishment for their attacker. Reported
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg #4
The rest of The Gatekeepers was also filled with miscellanea:
As the admissions season came to a close the book follows the students and officers to the end of the journey. As Wesleyan continued to look for strong minority applicants (with the goal of about 10% each of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians) it will make an offer to fly out a 'hot prospect' minority student in the hopes that such a gesture, and their experience on campus, will make them more likely to attend the following year. This isn't the case with strong white applicants because "If a white applicant spurned Wesleyan, there was usually someone of equal talent and ability to take [their] place" (171). In all the hustle and bustle, colleges can make mistakes too. When just such a 'hot prospect' tried to get an interview with a Wesleyan alum, there was a communications mix-up. Ralph knew that the incident was a huge PR fail.
In March, spread out over several weeks, were the last 5 days of committee meetings. All of the 400 applications to be discussed had been read/considered by 3 people who were unable to reach a consensus. Not only did the committee have the 400 apps, but there were still at least 2500 that had been read by only one person, or none at all, some of which would no doubt be added to the committee's pile. In such a high pressure environment, with so little time left, admissions officers were reading applications late into the night. One officer actually fell asleep during a committee meeting, but this occasioned no comment because either it wasn't too surprising, or it didn't merit stopping the meeting.
Because competition is so intense for selective schools, slight missteps can ruin your chances of getting into such a college. Harvard (and I would assume other Ivy League and high tier schools do this also) turned away 1/4 of applicants who got a perfect 1600 on their SAT. While this might seem discouraging, I think the opposite is true. Since these schools have the ability to fill their entire class with people who got a 1600 on their SAT or a 36 on their ACT, but don't, it means that those test scores aren't everything. However, The Gatekeepers also has some cautionary tales. One applicant was rejected by the committee despite having a 1400 on her SAT, strong grades, and a letter of recommendation from another school's president (Wesleyan's president doesn't require the admissions committee to automatically accept such applicants based on the belief that the admissions system is sound) because her senior course load was weak. Another student was rejected* because she wrote about a drug experience. Her essay told a story about how she saw someone distributing a pot brownie, how she had consumed in innocence (she hadn't known at the time that the brownie had pot in it), and eventually ended up being the only person to turn themselves in. Despite later going on to becoming class president and having strong academics the Wesleyan admissions staff couldn't get past the brownie incident. I disagree with the committee's decision here because many college students do drugs, but they weren't comfortable with one who had admitted a mistake and grown from it.
I'm not really sure how I feel about these tales. On one hand, these kids should've known that such a misstep could ruin their chances of getting into X college (although the brownie was consumed in innocence), but on the other, I don't think that a single mistake should have such an impact. As I discussed in my post 'why homework is (usually) lame' I discussed the negative results of too much homework. I think that the rigors of the college application process are similarly detrimental, although the only solution to such an issue seems to be a move away from such a selective process (a process that does have many merits).
*Ralph would later make a case to the dean of admissions that the student should get another chance. The student was wait-listed and eventually offered a chance to be in the class of 2005, but she ended up going to Cornell instead.
As the admissions season came to a close the book follows the students and officers to the end of the journey. As Wesleyan continued to look for strong minority applicants (with the goal of about 10% each of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians) it will make an offer to fly out a 'hot prospect' minority student in the hopes that such a gesture, and their experience on campus, will make them more likely to attend the following year. This isn't the case with strong white applicants because "If a white applicant spurned Wesleyan, there was usually someone of equal talent and ability to take [their] place" (171). In all the hustle and bustle, colleges can make mistakes too. When just such a 'hot prospect' tried to get an interview with a Wesleyan alum, there was a communications mix-up. Ralph knew that the incident was a huge PR fail.
In March, spread out over several weeks, were the last 5 days of committee meetings. All of the 400 applications to be discussed had been read/considered by 3 people who were unable to reach a consensus. Not only did the committee have the 400 apps, but there were still at least 2500 that had been read by only one person, or none at all, some of which would no doubt be added to the committee's pile. In such a high pressure environment, with so little time left, admissions officers were reading applications late into the night. One officer actually fell asleep during a committee meeting, but this occasioned no comment because either it wasn't too surprising, or it didn't merit stopping the meeting.
Because competition is so intense for selective schools, slight missteps can ruin your chances of getting into such a college. Harvard (and I would assume other Ivy League and high tier schools do this also) turned away 1/4 of applicants who got a perfect 1600 on their SAT. While this might seem discouraging, I think the opposite is true. Since these schools have the ability to fill their entire class with people who got a 1600 on their SAT or a 36 on their ACT, but don't, it means that those test scores aren't everything. However, The Gatekeepers also has some cautionary tales. One applicant was rejected by the committee despite having a 1400 on her SAT, strong grades, and a letter of recommendation from another school's president (Wesleyan's president doesn't require the admissions committee to automatically accept such applicants based on the belief that the admissions system is sound) because her senior course load was weak. Another student was rejected* because she wrote about a drug experience. Her essay told a story about how she saw someone distributing a pot brownie, how she had consumed in innocence (she hadn't known at the time that the brownie had pot in it), and eventually ended up being the only person to turn themselves in. Despite later going on to becoming class president and having strong academics the Wesleyan admissions staff couldn't get past the brownie incident. I disagree with the committee's decision here because many college students do drugs, but they weren't comfortable with one who had admitted a mistake and grown from it.
I'm not really sure how I feel about these tales. On one hand, these kids should've known that such a misstep could ruin their chances of getting into X college (although the brownie was consumed in innocence), but on the other, I don't think that a single mistake should have such an impact. As I discussed in my post 'why homework is (usually) lame' I discussed the negative results of too much homework. I think that the rigors of the college application process are similarly detrimental, although the only solution to such an issue seems to be a move away from such a selective process (a process that does have many merits).
*Ralph would later make a case to the dean of admissions that the student should get another chance. The student was wait-listed and eventually offered a chance to be in the class of 2005, but she ended up going to Cornell instead.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg #3
Miscellaneous thoughts from the next section of The Gatekeepers:
As I read more and I see how the admissions officers consider the quality of the high school; either high, low, or unknown, I find myself wondering if I'll read about DHS sometime in the future.
The Gatekeepers not only follows the admissions officers, but the stories of several students. One of them, a strong academic and non-academic received a 9 for 'personal' and 8's in many other categories was marked as 'admit' by Ralph and then Ralph crossed out the lines for the second reader, signaling that he thought the student was a shoo-in. After going to the Dean of Admissions' desk the application was marked with an 'A' so that a student recruit would know to contact that student. Although colleges long ago agreed never to tell a student from the main round of applications that they're accepted before the regular notification date, but the 'A' on the application is a note so that the admissions office student recruit to give little hints to that student that the school (in this case Wesleyan) wants the student to come to their school.
Since many people look at statistics as a decision of where to apply, and potentially where to accept, getting a good review by U.S. News can have a huge impact on who (and how many who's) apply to that college (as well as also potentially impacting a school's ability to get donations from alumni), some schools are now rejecting top applicants who look like they wouldn't attend if accepted because that way the school can increase its yield (the percent of accepted students who attend).
Another story that caught my eye was one of a girl from a high end school called Harvard-Westlake (no connection to the University) who had missed her alum interview. Since this girl was good friends with her counselor and her counselor was good friends with Ralph this girl was able to get on the phone with Ralph and explain that a miscommunication had caused the mix-up. Ralph assured the girl that it was of no great concern which seems interesting to me since many schools that I've heard of place high importance on their interviews. This again makes me wonder how DHS compares with other high schools from across the country since I doubt a DHS counselor would be able to make this happen (not that I doubt the quality of the DHS college counselors).
As I read more and I see how the admissions officers consider the quality of the high school; either high, low, or unknown, I find myself wondering if I'll read about DHS sometime in the future.
The Gatekeepers not only follows the admissions officers, but the stories of several students. One of them, a strong academic and non-academic received a 9 for 'personal' and 8's in many other categories was marked as 'admit' by Ralph and then Ralph crossed out the lines for the second reader, signaling that he thought the student was a shoo-in. After going to the Dean of Admissions' desk the application was marked with an 'A' so that a student recruit would know to contact that student. Although colleges long ago agreed never to tell a student from the main round of applications that they're accepted before the regular notification date, but the 'A' on the application is a note so that the admissions office student recruit to give little hints to that student that the school (in this case Wesleyan) wants the student to come to their school.
Since many people look at statistics as a decision of where to apply, and potentially where to accept, getting a good review by U.S. News can have a huge impact on who (and how many who's) apply to that college (as well as also potentially impacting a school's ability to get donations from alumni), some schools are now rejecting top applicants who look like they wouldn't attend if accepted because that way the school can increase its yield (the percent of accepted students who attend).
Another story that caught my eye was one of a girl from a high end school called Harvard-Westlake (no connection to the University) who had missed her alum interview. Since this girl was good friends with her counselor and her counselor was good friends with Ralph this girl was able to get on the phone with Ralph and explain that a miscommunication had caused the mix-up. Ralph assured the girl that it was of no great concern which seems interesting to me since many schools that I've heard of place high importance on their interviews. This again makes me wonder how DHS compares with other high schools from across the country since I doubt a DHS counselor would be able to make this happen (not that I doubt the quality of the DHS college counselors).
The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg #2
The next section of the book is about the actual process that the admissions officers go through when not in a committee.
The Wesleyan admissions office received 6862 applications for the class of 2004 (a 7% increase from the year before) and while Wesleyan is glad to have a broader pool of applicant from which to choose, it doesn't make the admissions officer's jobs any easier. Each application must be read twice and sometime discussed by the committee (if a decision is unclear). Ralph's personal goal is 30 applications per day although this rarely happens since many decisions are hard to make and there are a wide variety of things to consider for each application.
Diversity is something that Ralph and the other admissions officers are told to consider highly. Wesleyan, and other selective colleges, want very diverse campuses so that their students can benefit from the diversity of the campus. While the argument is made that minority students get a benefit simply because they are a minority and that they can get in to X college or university with grades that aren't quite as good as those of a non-minority student and that this is unfair, there is a rationalization, a reason why colleges do this. The Gatekeepers explains that bringing something different to college (like the experiences of being a minority) confer a benefit to the university that they are willing to exchange for grades (although several colleges and states are removing race as a factor considered in an application). While I don't necessarily agree with this policy, I do see its merits and understand why it is in place. An example of this policy is this story: Ralph went to a school specifically for Native Americans in the southwest; two students from that school applied and even though one of them had C's, D's, and F's on his transcript from a previous high school, he was still under serious consideration by Ralph because Wesleyan didn't have any Native Americans.
Wesleyan is a small school and so the desire for diversity has a significant impact on their decisions, but I wonder how different it is at a large state school like UofI.
Ralph (and the other admissions officers of Wesleyan) have a 'cheat sheet' that they use to grade applications. Applicants are rated on a 1-9 scale in 3 academic categories and 2 more 'nonacademic' categories. The three academic categories are 'academic achievement', 'intellectual curiosity' and 'commitment'; the 'nonacademic' categories are 'personal' and 'extracurricular'. After averaging the 3 academic ratings and the 2 'nonacademic' ratings, the admissions officer must then average those two numbers. All those numbers and certain keywords like 'discuss' are used by the second admissions officer to read the file and the committee if the application needs to be discussed by the group. Finally there is one more rating that reflects the admissions officer's opinion of the application: admit, the officer is confident that the student should be admitted; admit minus, the officer thinks the student should be admitted but they have some doubt; deny plus, the officer thinks the student should be denied but the application has some merit; and deny, the officer is sure that the student should be rejected by Wesleyan.
The book suggests that these rating systems, or something similar, are used throughout other selective colleges, but like my previous question about diversity, I'm curious as to what the admissions process is like for a larger school.
The Wesleyan admissions office received 6862 applications for the class of 2004 (a 7% increase from the year before) and while Wesleyan is glad to have a broader pool of applicant from which to choose, it doesn't make the admissions officer's jobs any easier. Each application must be read twice and sometime discussed by the committee (if a decision is unclear). Ralph's personal goal is 30 applications per day although this rarely happens since many decisions are hard to make and there are a wide variety of things to consider for each application.
Diversity is something that Ralph and the other admissions officers are told to consider highly. Wesleyan, and other selective colleges, want very diverse campuses so that their students can benefit from the diversity of the campus. While the argument is made that minority students get a benefit simply because they are a minority and that they can get in to X college or university with grades that aren't quite as good as those of a non-minority student and that this is unfair, there is a rationalization, a reason why colleges do this. The Gatekeepers explains that bringing something different to college (like the experiences of being a minority) confer a benefit to the university that they are willing to exchange for grades (although several colleges and states are removing race as a factor considered in an application). While I don't necessarily agree with this policy, I do see its merits and understand why it is in place. An example of this policy is this story: Ralph went to a school specifically for Native Americans in the southwest; two students from that school applied and even though one of them had C's, D's, and F's on his transcript from a previous high school, he was still under serious consideration by Ralph because Wesleyan didn't have any Native Americans.
Wesleyan is a small school and so the desire for diversity has a significant impact on their decisions, but I wonder how different it is at a large state school like UofI.
Ralph (and the other admissions officers of Wesleyan) have a 'cheat sheet' that they use to grade applications. Applicants are rated on a 1-9 scale in 3 academic categories and 2 more 'nonacademic' categories. The three academic categories are 'academic achievement', 'intellectual curiosity' and 'commitment'; the 'nonacademic' categories are 'personal' and 'extracurricular'. After averaging the 3 academic ratings and the 2 'nonacademic' ratings, the admissions officer must then average those two numbers. All those numbers and certain keywords like 'discuss' are used by the second admissions officer to read the file and the committee if the application needs to be discussed by the group. Finally there is one more rating that reflects the admissions officer's opinion of the application: admit, the officer is confident that the student should be admitted; admit minus, the officer thinks the student should be admitted but they have some doubt; deny plus, the officer thinks the student should be denied but the application has some merit; and deny, the officer is sure that the student should be rejected by Wesleyan.
The book suggests that these rating systems, or something similar, are used throughout other selective colleges, but like my previous question about diversity, I'm curious as to what the admissions process is like for a larger school.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg #1
The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg is a book about the admissions process from the point of view of an admissions officer. When I picked out this book, I picked it because I figured it would be somewhat interesting, but like most books read for school, that it would also be relatively boring. When I finally starting reading, I was blown out of the water. The Gatekeepers reads like many of the fantasy/sci-fi books I usually. Jacques Steinberg writes about the admissions process by following admissions officer for Wesleyan, Ralph Figueroa. Steinberg prefaces the book by saying that it is in no way a formula for how to get into a selective school like Wesleyan, and he follows through. The book doesn't read like a formula or an instruction manual; I blasted through over 100 pages without noticing. At this point Steinberg is describing the early action (binding) admissions process.
While it is interesting to learn about what shorthand is used and how the admissions officers admit, defer, or reject a student, one thing stuck out for me. There were two students, one with a slightly better academic record than the other; the weaker student had a previous connection to Wesleyan and so he was admitted. While the rationalization was given (Wesleyan wants to keep its alumni happy so that they might be encouraged to donate) I still find this practice very unfair. While it might be argued that the weaker student provided a different benefit to the school than did the stronger student, it still nags at me that the reason a student was admitted was because of his connections.
Now that I've given my two cents on that I will return the the admissions process itself. Wesleyan has a small admissions staff of 9, two of whom will read each application (one selected at random and the other from the region of the applying student); in most cases, the student's file will then proceed to the full committee where a majority will decide if the student is admitted. If five officers vote to either accept or reject the student then that is what will happen, otherwise the student is deferred and reconsidered later. During a committee voting session each student is given about a minute or two of limelight; the admissions officers who read the application will summarize the application to the committee and then there will be a vote to decide the student's fate. The process is quick, and it needs to be since Wesleyan must go through thousands of applications in only a couple months.
I'm sure The Gatekeepers will continue to present interesting information about the college application process as I read more.
While it is interesting to learn about what shorthand is used and how the admissions officers admit, defer, or reject a student, one thing stuck out for me. There were two students, one with a slightly better academic record than the other; the weaker student had a previous connection to Wesleyan and so he was admitted. While the rationalization was given (Wesleyan wants to keep its alumni happy so that they might be encouraged to donate) I still find this practice very unfair. While it might be argued that the weaker student provided a different benefit to the school than did the stronger student, it still nags at me that the reason a student was admitted was because of his connections.
Now that I've given my two cents on that I will return the the admissions process itself. Wesleyan has a small admissions staff of 9, two of whom will read each application (one selected at random and the other from the region of the applying student); in most cases, the student's file will then proceed to the full committee where a majority will decide if the student is admitted. If five officers vote to either accept or reject the student then that is what will happen, otherwise the student is deferred and reconsidered later. During a committee voting session each student is given about a minute or two of limelight; the admissions officers who read the application will summarize the application to the committee and then there will be a vote to decide the student's fate. The process is quick, and it needs to be since Wesleyan must go through thousands of applications in only a couple months.
I'm sure The Gatekeepers will continue to present interesting information about the college application process as I read more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)