Publicizing the reactions of over-stressed young people and their families to early admission represents everything that is wrong with elite university admissions systems
Thanks for saying this. When I saw this video on the socials I sent it to my wife and freshman-in-college daughter with a “look at this bs my alma mater is up to”. So completely tone deaf. Glad my kiddo is getting an education at one of California’s many world class public universities instead of following in my footsteps. (Which isn’t to say they don’t have their own versions of this — parents/society have blown “elite education” expectations somewhere entirely unhealthy.)
Fantastic, and well said. None of my kids applied to Duke, but my older daughter had (briefly) considered it. She ultimately decided not to even submit an application because she did not want to be committed to going to the school if she applied for an early decision.
Hmm. I was told, and very pleased, that Duke would not put out its own acceptance video this year. The video posted was very oriented on the Duke student experience post admittance, and. not the acceptance itself. But I am sorry to hear about this instagram issue. Can you send me a link to it?
Lots of interesting points in this response. I will give out two results of this piece. First, I’ve been told Duke would no longer promote these acceptance videos. Second, I had a nice conversation with the Dean of admissions about what kinds of students we should be seeking. Thanks for your interest.
Well, Duke is doing it again. Asked accepted students to post their videos on Instagram. I haven't yet seen a montage but I'm not looking for one. Such a slap in the face to hardworking kids who got rejected simply because they don't fit in with this year's institutional priorities.
I actually didn't understand the initial part of your essay about the videos. You almost imply that the video includes footage of the rejected students' reactions, but I only see admitted students. So am I to understand that the video of accepted students led you to visceral visions of the rejected students? That's interesting.
I agree with you, I think, but I don't have such a visceral reaction --- even though I do think our obsession with rankings (really an obsession with class, I would submit) is deeply troubling. To me, watching the video, my emotional response was, "Yeah, they're a bit behind" or "Yeah, they're out of touch." I think "behind" is the right way to think about it. Hopefully soon --- although it might take a hundred years if we're unlucky --- Americans will wake up to the overheated nature of our college admissions process and it will all relax to a better equilibrium. (This is almost inevitable considering how many talented people seem to be rejected by the good schools --- and the extent to which uncontrollable variables like race add to the arbitrariness of it all ---, but we'll see.)
(Also, to be fair to the admissions department, *of course*, the folks working in admissions at a school like Duke are behind the curve when it comes to downplaying the importance of school rankings. If anyone had a right to turn a blind eye to the downsides of our university system, it would be the people compiling this video. So, yeah, the video is out-of-touch, but it kind of has to be. Or, put differently, of course, the admissions materials themselves are a lagging indicator of our obsession with rankings/prestige/admissions --- while, for instance, graduate testimonials would be a leading indicator.)
There are two "hard parts" here. One: the overemphasis on "brand" in admissions (prestige of your school) can only abate if less people care about brand. It's a negative feedback loop --- the more people we teach to care about going to Harvard, the more important it is to *go to Harvard.* If I worked my butt off to get to X university, then when I'm sitting on a hiring committee I expect the same (or more) from the applicants. And I'm incentivized to believe that these people really are better --- because it means *I* am better. (I have been bemoaning grade inflation for the same reason --- it should be OK or relatable to get a C or two in college, but if no one gets any C's due to grade inflation, then suddenly employers and grad schools can't tolerate it, it makes you look horrible --- and then professors feel giving out a C is unconscionable, so the cycle worsens.)
Two: the obsession with "brand" is part of a broader trend, isn't it? I saw a NYTimes article about how hard it is for high school students with mental health issues to navigate college admissions --- to write about their mental health crises or not to write about them, that is the question? --- and thought, "The real problem is getting into Harvard/selective college/prestigious school is too important and too unpredictable, that's the real problem, otherwise, what you wrote wouldn't matter that much --- you would have breathing room to truly be yourself." That's a familiar story. (A few weeks later, there was a facsimile article about how hard it is to write college essays as a Asians --- to mention playing the violin or not to, for fear of appearing stereotypical? --- again, there's too much at stake to just go with the obvious answer and be true to yourself...)
Then I saw a NYTimes article about "Being a Comp Sci major in a Tech Downturn." It was basically about how comp sci majors who had been expecting a cushy job at Amazon/Google/etc. felt unmoored because now their sure thing was, well, less sure... It's the same issue --- basically, a lack of creativity and authenticity? A certain lack of maturity? Obsession with high achievement?
Think about it: it's one thing to say, "I want to work on software, that's what I really enjoy," in which case, where you work isn't that important. Plus, it's your own effort, interests, and creativity that propels you forward or downward in the industry. If you want to work at Amazon because they do cool stuff, then great, but you might prefer going out on your own as an entrepeneuer doing something "silly" like setting up people's home technology suites (think, wiring together bluetooth speakers and remotely-controlled heating-and-cooling so people can control it through an app on their phone).
But what if people come to believe that the goal is actually a lifestyle? The point of being a comp sci major at Princeton and getting a Amazon job might not be a desire for enlightenment (best education possible) and competition/challenge (rubbing shoulders with the most talented), it might be the desire for prestige/six-figure salary/social life (think, having friends who go to Burning Man, knowing people who worked on indie Hollywood films, going on Caribbean vacations, etc).
I think that's the rub: Peter Thiel has suggested that since the Baby Boomers went to college, there's a sense that all you need to do is follow a certain "track" to be afforded a wonderful upper middle-class lifestyle with a certain amount of prestige. You just need to figure out what "tracks" there are, get into one, and you are set. Think of all the people who would just want to go to (Harvard or Yale) law school back in the day --- you just go to a good law school, go to a prestigious firm, work hard, and eventually you're a partner making bank, feeling a great sense of purpose, desirable as a mate, etc. --- once law became an overcrowded field with less favorable prospects, fewer undergrads wanted to go into it. (Case in point: I probably would have gone into law, but for the fact that I became an undergrad in 2010 or so, right when it trended downward.) So you wouldn't say less people are going to law school because fewer are genuinely interested or really want to innovate in the field --- or they're not less interested because the content of the work fundamentally changed.
And that's the problem: we *want* people to think hard about *who they are going to be* and *what they might be able to change/improve/etc. in the world.* Both of those are unique to every individual --- so, for instance, the drop-off in humanities in favor of STEM is a bad sign... especially for the students themselves... since some of them *do* really like the humanities and interest in innovating.
But, OK, I think most people can find themselves with a STEM degree --- that's not so bad. What is probably worse for our society is this "track" focus likely means less innovation and risk-taking. Going the Princeton-Amazon route *isn't* a risk! That's the point of getting on a "track," it's supposed to be a sure thing. (A friend told me, "I believe that because I went to Princeton undergrad, I will make it just fine in the world," which is good for their mental health, but not good for our society's productivity because they feel they have less to prove, they can kind of "coast.") And that's why Thiel, as an entrepeneuer, is concerned about this: our economy/society benefits enormously when people take risks. I think of someone like Ken Burns, who basically decided "F*ck it, I like history, I'm willing to risk a lot of economic security to just pursue my genuine self." That's what's missing when people pursue Thiel's predetermined "tracks" --- and I think that's one of the larger drivers underlying the obsession with prestige in higher education. Where you go to school is the first step on the "track."
(Note: I am not saying practical concerns shouldn't influence career choices. Everything in life is a balance.)
I could not have said it better. The parallel of trumpeting how many wonderful, intelligent, committed, and curious young people the school rejected is profoundly crazed.
Thanks for saying this. When I saw this video on the socials I sent it to my wife and freshman-in-college daughter with a “look at this bs my alma mater is up to”. So completely tone deaf. Glad my kiddo is getting an education at one of California’s many world class public universities instead of following in my footsteps. (Which isn’t to say they don’t have their own versions of this — parents/society have blown “elite education” expectations somewhere entirely unhealthy.)
Fantastic, and well said. None of my kids applied to Duke, but my older daughter had (briefly) considered it. She ultimately decided not to even submit an application because she did not want to be committed to going to the school if she applied for an early decision.
Hmm. I was told, and very pleased, that Duke would not put out its own acceptance video this year. The video posted was very oriented on the Duke student experience post admittance, and. not the acceptance itself. But I am sorry to hear about this instagram issue. Can you send me a link to it?
Lots of interesting points in this response. I will give out two results of this piece. First, I’ve been told Duke would no longer promote these acceptance videos. Second, I had a nice conversation with the Dean of admissions about what kinds of students we should be seeking. Thanks for your interest.
Well, Duke is doing it again. Asked accepted students to post their videos on Instagram. I haven't yet seen a montage but I'm not looking for one. Such a slap in the face to hardworking kids who got rejected simply because they don't fit in with this year's institutional priorities.
I actually didn't understand the initial part of your essay about the videos. You almost imply that the video includes footage of the rejected students' reactions, but I only see admitted students. So am I to understand that the video of accepted students led you to visceral visions of the rejected students? That's interesting.
I agree with you, I think, but I don't have such a visceral reaction --- even though I do think our obsession with rankings (really an obsession with class, I would submit) is deeply troubling. To me, watching the video, my emotional response was, "Yeah, they're a bit behind" or "Yeah, they're out of touch." I think "behind" is the right way to think about it. Hopefully soon --- although it might take a hundred years if we're unlucky --- Americans will wake up to the overheated nature of our college admissions process and it will all relax to a better equilibrium. (This is almost inevitable considering how many talented people seem to be rejected by the good schools --- and the extent to which uncontrollable variables like race add to the arbitrariness of it all ---, but we'll see.)
(Also, to be fair to the admissions department, *of course*, the folks working in admissions at a school like Duke are behind the curve when it comes to downplaying the importance of school rankings. If anyone had a right to turn a blind eye to the downsides of our university system, it would be the people compiling this video. So, yeah, the video is out-of-touch, but it kind of has to be. Or, put differently, of course, the admissions materials themselves are a lagging indicator of our obsession with rankings/prestige/admissions --- while, for instance, graduate testimonials would be a leading indicator.)
There are two "hard parts" here. One: the overemphasis on "brand" in admissions (prestige of your school) can only abate if less people care about brand. It's a negative feedback loop --- the more people we teach to care about going to Harvard, the more important it is to *go to Harvard.* If I worked my butt off to get to X university, then when I'm sitting on a hiring committee I expect the same (or more) from the applicants. And I'm incentivized to believe that these people really are better --- because it means *I* am better. (I have been bemoaning grade inflation for the same reason --- it should be OK or relatable to get a C or two in college, but if no one gets any C's due to grade inflation, then suddenly employers and grad schools can't tolerate it, it makes you look horrible --- and then professors feel giving out a C is unconscionable, so the cycle worsens.)
Two: the obsession with "brand" is part of a broader trend, isn't it? I saw a NYTimes article about how hard it is for high school students with mental health issues to navigate college admissions --- to write about their mental health crises or not to write about them, that is the question? --- and thought, "The real problem is getting into Harvard/selective college/prestigious school is too important and too unpredictable, that's the real problem, otherwise, what you wrote wouldn't matter that much --- you would have breathing room to truly be yourself." That's a familiar story. (A few weeks later, there was a facsimile article about how hard it is to write college essays as a Asians --- to mention playing the violin or not to, for fear of appearing stereotypical? --- again, there's too much at stake to just go with the obvious answer and be true to yourself...)
Then I saw a NYTimes article about "Being a Comp Sci major in a Tech Downturn." It was basically about how comp sci majors who had been expecting a cushy job at Amazon/Google/etc. felt unmoored because now their sure thing was, well, less sure... It's the same issue --- basically, a lack of creativity and authenticity? A certain lack of maturity? Obsession with high achievement?
Think about it: it's one thing to say, "I want to work on software, that's what I really enjoy," in which case, where you work isn't that important. Plus, it's your own effort, interests, and creativity that propels you forward or downward in the industry. If you want to work at Amazon because they do cool stuff, then great, but you might prefer going out on your own as an entrepeneuer doing something "silly" like setting up people's home technology suites (think, wiring together bluetooth speakers and remotely-controlled heating-and-cooling so people can control it through an app on their phone).
But what if people come to believe that the goal is actually a lifestyle? The point of being a comp sci major at Princeton and getting a Amazon job might not be a desire for enlightenment (best education possible) and competition/challenge (rubbing shoulders with the most talented), it might be the desire for prestige/six-figure salary/social life (think, having friends who go to Burning Man, knowing people who worked on indie Hollywood films, going on Caribbean vacations, etc).
I think that's the rub: Peter Thiel has suggested that since the Baby Boomers went to college, there's a sense that all you need to do is follow a certain "track" to be afforded a wonderful upper middle-class lifestyle with a certain amount of prestige. You just need to figure out what "tracks" there are, get into one, and you are set. Think of all the people who would just want to go to (Harvard or Yale) law school back in the day --- you just go to a good law school, go to a prestigious firm, work hard, and eventually you're a partner making bank, feeling a great sense of purpose, desirable as a mate, etc. --- once law became an overcrowded field with less favorable prospects, fewer undergrads wanted to go into it. (Case in point: I probably would have gone into law, but for the fact that I became an undergrad in 2010 or so, right when it trended downward.) So you wouldn't say less people are going to law school because fewer are genuinely interested or really want to innovate in the field --- or they're not less interested because the content of the work fundamentally changed.
And that's the problem: we *want* people to think hard about *who they are going to be* and *what they might be able to change/improve/etc. in the world.* Both of those are unique to every individual --- so, for instance, the drop-off in humanities in favor of STEM is a bad sign... especially for the students themselves... since some of them *do* really like the humanities and interest in innovating.
But, OK, I think most people can find themselves with a STEM degree --- that's not so bad. What is probably worse for our society is this "track" focus likely means less innovation and risk-taking. Going the Princeton-Amazon route *isn't* a risk! That's the point of getting on a "track," it's supposed to be a sure thing. (A friend told me, "I believe that because I went to Princeton undergrad, I will make it just fine in the world," which is good for their mental health, but not good for our society's productivity because they feel they have less to prove, they can kind of "coast.") And that's why Thiel, as an entrepeneuer, is concerned about this: our economy/society benefits enormously when people take risks. I think of someone like Ken Burns, who basically decided "F*ck it, I like history, I'm willing to risk a lot of economic security to just pursue my genuine self." That's what's missing when people pursue Thiel's predetermined "tracks" --- and I think that's one of the larger drivers underlying the obsession with prestige in higher education. Where you go to school is the first step on the "track."
(Note: I am not saying practical concerns shouldn't influence career choices. Everything in life is a balance.)
I could not have said it better. The parallel of trumpeting how many wonderful, intelligent, committed, and curious young people the school rejected is profoundly crazed.