|
The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elitereviewed by Fred Jacobs - 2004 ![]() Author(s): Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks & Richard Zeckhauser Publisher: Harvard University Press, Cambridge ISBN: 0674010558, Pages: 377, Year: 2003 Search for book at Amazon.com Recently, the state of Maryland increased the minimum age for
obtaining a driver's license from sixteen to eighteen. This was
advocated as a matter of public safety since a disproportional
number of auto accidents and fatalities involved sixteen to twenty
year olds. While the overall effect of this change has been
positive, with a decline in the number of accidents and deaths,
some teens have lamented the lost opportunity to get behind the
wheel-and take off. They argue that the change in minimum age adds
to the general emotional and psychological pressures they face, and
delays their transition to adulthood. Certainly, teenagers face varied pressures as they move toward
independent lives, including uncertainties about professional
choices, economic prospects, education beyond secondary school, and
rapid social change. For most high school students, the age change
from sixteen to eighteen moves the angst associated with that rite
of passage (Will I pass the test? Will I have my own car? Will I be
able to afford its upkeep and insurance?) from an eleventh to a
twelfth grade preoccupation. This is not insignificant because evidence reveals that high
school seniors already deal with enormous stress and anxiety
resulting from the pressures of applying to, being accepted at, and
choosing to attend, a particular college or university. The recent
book, The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite, by
Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks, and Richard Zeckhauser
examines the early admissions process and "details the advantages
and pitfalls [which can] lead students toward hasty oR misinformed
decisions" (Introduction). Indeed, the authors present a compelling case that the extensive
use of the early decision process creates anxiety and tension for
many college applicants. Approximately 1700 colleges and
universities have early decision/early action programs, and
collectively process a million applications each year. Early
decision refers to a process in which applicants receive early
notification, and commit themselves to enroll, if accepted; early
action informs applicants of decisions quickly, but does not
obligate them to attend the institution. The authors undertook extensive research to prepare the book,
utilizing statistical analyses of the admissions process and
interviews with high school counselors, admissions officers, high
school students, and nearly 350 recent graduates of elite colleges.
Their findings are well documented, with more than eighty pages of
appendices, tables, and figures. Their basic contention is that the
early college admissions process gives a significant advantage to
those who can manage and manipulate the "game" played by
institutions and applicants. Those who "know the rules" can find it
"tremendously valuable" to apply early. The data provided appear to document the authors' assertions
about the benefits of early applications. Significant as this point
is, however, it is restated far too often, with far too many
paraphrases. By book's end, constant repetition makes the idea seem
trite and simplistic. In the Introduction, for example, they refer
to the early application process as "doubling or tripling the
chances of admission"; four pages later, they describe the
advantage as the equivalent of "a jump of 100 points or more in SAT
score. The point is made in the first statement, and little is
gained by its paraphrase. Avery et al. describe the early
application process as a "giant game" and use that metaphor
throughout the book. At times, the metaphor becomes so elaborate as
to distract the reader from the basic point being made, as in the
following: Martian Blackjack is a metaphor for the Early Admissions Game.
The players (applicants) do not know the rules (that is, the
standards for admission), and the casinos (college admissions
offices) do not describe them, at least not fully or accurately.
The players' perceptions depend on their own experiences, and
perhaps the experiences of others at their high school. And each
player participates just once (p. 71). Rather than enlightening the reader, the constant use of such
metaphors obscures meaning for readers. The Early Admissions Game is, in reality, two separate
documents, each with its own distinctive purpose, but merged into a
single work. These separate stories are loosely connected to one
another, but are intended for different audiences. The first
consists of an impressive history, analysis, and interpretation of
a critical sorting function in the admissions process. Two of the
authors, Professors Avery and Zeckhauser, are faculty members at
the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The third
author, Andrew Fairbanks, is former Associate Dean of Admissions at
Wesleyan University. Their research is thorough and clear, with
detailed explanations of methodology; their analysis is well argued
and illustrated. Three chapters contain their salient research findings. Chapter
4, for example, is a case study tracking two cohorts of college
applicants from different high schools as they undertake the
admissions process. In Chapter 5, the authors provide an excellent
synthesis of their own research and the available data from
institutions. And then, in Chapter 6 they present a cogent analysis
of the institutional benefits of maintaining early admissions
policies, followed by an assessment of its benefits to applicants.
The second "story" contained in The Early Admissions Game
is a "how to" guide, describing ten strategies the authors believe
can help students to play-and win-the high stakes game of getting
into the "best" college. Chapter 7, for example, is called "Advice
to Applicants" and contains guidelines to help applicants play the
game "wisely." It includes what has become a formula for "how to"
books: be serious, plan your time, be realistic, etc. The authors'
efforts to make their research findings accessible and useful to
college applicants are commendable but do not work in a book
premised on sound research and analysis. Two problems are evident. First, some of the language and
emphasis used in the text appear to "tilt" the reader the point of
view that the game can be mastered if the advice proffered is
followed by applicants. Second, and more serious, the "how to" and
"research analysis" purposes of the book are sometimes
intermingled, to the detriment of both. Guideline 4, for example,
is: "Be honest with yourself and your qualifications and learn as
much as possible about your chances of admission at various
colleges." Good advice? Certainly. That guideline is followed by
several paragraphs urging readers not to generalize from a single
example, and to try to get "honest assessments" from the
institutions. So far, so good! Then, in discussing how to find
reliable sources of data about college admissions, the authors
devote six pages (including two tables) to a discussion of median
SAT scores, percentiles, and projected admission rates. The
following is an excerpt from the text following Guideline
4: For example, Claremont McKenna College has a median SAT-1 score
of 1390, while Wake Forest University has a median SAT-1 score of
1300. Although Table 7.2 groups these colleges in the 1300-1399
category, Claremont McKenna is probably more selective than Wake
Forest (p.235). Applicants interested in the application process probably want
advice, not details. Combining the two purposes, as occurs in Chapter 7, limits the
effectiveness of each. This is unfortunate because the research is
excellent, and the advice is sound. The book's final chapter offers
recommendations to improve existing early application processes,
and identifies where reforms are needed. The authors' suggestions
should be taken seriously because so many students submit early
applications, and, especially, because the present system creates
advantages for some over others. Undoubtedly, the college
admissions process would be more equitable if all applicants had
the same knowledge about how the system works, or as the authors
say, how the game is played. By providing an analysis of how the present system works, and
then recommending reforms, Avery, Fairbanks, and Zeckhauser have
contributed to improving the process students use when applying to
college.
|
|
|