Alternative college assessment

I was initially excited to read about an alternative college assessment system, but after reading the Adam Grant NYT article, I was disappointed. I disagree with many of the assumptions that this article makes. First and foremost, what would make one think that the assessments used to evaluate an individual in a corporate setting (or for spies working for the US government) would be the same as assessing college applicants? They are completely different domains, and it seems obvious that standards for college admittance would be different from those from corporate employers. Not everyone who attends college is looking to enter the corporate world or become a US spy, so the standards for assessment should differ.

For example, the author points to team-building tasks as a common example of an evaluation in the corporate setting. However, strong teamwork skills shouldn’t necessarily be a requirement for entering college. This would put some, say those with social anxiety disorders, at a disadvantage to college admittance. Beyond that, it’s unclear why a student would need to have strong social skills to begin with. It’s especially unclear why “strong interpersonal and emotional skills” should be a standard for admission.

Also, the author himself admits that his proposed idea of assessment would increase the cost of the college application. Increasing college expenses in this day-and-age isn’t going to encourage nontraditional/marginal applicants to apply (which is the goal of these assessment centers to begin with).

And though assessment centers sound like a wholesome way to really get to know a college applicant, a big concern is that it adds the facet of subjectivity, inconsistency, and even inaccuracy from evaluators. How could institutions ensure that their evaluators are not biased against a student’s personality/history/appearance?

As a POSSE scholar, I completely understand (and am grateful for) these unstandardized assessment practices. POSSE utilizes their “Dynamic Assessment Process” to admit their scholars — a 4-part, 3-month long process that puts leadership skills, ability to work in a team, character, personal history, and promise at the top of their list. However, SAT scores and high school transcripts were also standards for admission. I think the DAP evaluation is a good example of combining standardized and unstandardized criteria for a more wholesome assessment. However, it’s still a bit too subjective to be used universally.

I agree with the author that there is a need for a more thorough application process. So many promising students just don’t have the high school academic marks or SAT scores to prove it. This especially applies to marginalized students, who may have certain barriers to their academic success or ability to even take the SAT exams. A more comprehensive approach to admissions could help lessen the enrollment gap for low-income and racial minorities. Many of the articles we have read focused on this enrollment gap, and many point to financial assistance as a solution. Though that would be a very effective change, a change in admission standards could also help more marginalized students (like those who can’t afford SAT prep!) be noticed by schools. Also, the move away from standardized testing could allow for a more diverse student body. It would eliminate the notion of “one-size-fits-all” colleges, like Rosenbaum points to in his article. Instead of telling potential students to look elsewhere for career preparation, it would make college an option for those who its currently not.

Though I do agree with a more dynamic, wholesome, and personal assessment system for college admission, one that allows an applicant to display their talents and qualifications, I don’t think this article does any justice.