Thread: I understand the idea of an admissions lottery has been raised once again at #CERPP. So a few thoughts about that.
I'm not there this year. A few of the Program's faculty/leads took exception to me making a simple suggestion:
I'm not there this year. A few of the Program's faculty/leads took exception to me making a simple suggestion:
That when they run a conference sponsored by SAT and ACT, they should disclose it publicly when they write articles supporting standardized testing in the admissions process. And they should correct factual mistakes, neither of which has happened. insidehighered.com/admissions/vie…
So I only know what I hear. But this topic has been around for a while. I personally think it's an interesting idea, but I have no dog in the fight; I don't work for a university that needs to make fine distinctions in order to turn down extraordinarily-well qualified applicants
A lot of people have some ideas that suggest lotteries are bad. Here's an article by two of them, but I have a hard time finding an argument here. chronicle.com/article/Some-P…
And here: forbes.com/sites/willardd…
I agree about some of the problems mentioned: Diversity, musicians, athletes, etc. but those might be solved by some minor variations of the concept when put into practice.
But here's the flaw with the pro-lottery and con-lottery views: They're binary choices.
But here's the flaw with the pro-lottery and con-lottery views: They're binary choices.
Let's not bifurcate here. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition.
Here's what I'd propose. Year 1 and all odd-numbered years: Draw a circle around the admissible pool. Take the first 15% via lottery. The last 85% via the regular admissions process.
Year 2 and even-numbered years? Do the opposite. Lotto comes at the end.
Year 2 and even-numbered years? Do the opposite. Lotto comes at the end.
Only a few people on campus know who is a lotto pick and who is regularly admitted. Do the research. Is there a difference in performance or graduation rates?
More important, does your traditional admissions process work?
More important, does your traditional admissions process work?
The potential for discovering that in fact, the admissions office at highly selective places might be suffering from confirmation bias is a real fear.
What if we learn everything we believe is wrong?
I, for one, think that's an exciting proposition in admissions. Or anything.
What if we learn everything we believe is wrong?
I, for one, think that's an exciting proposition in admissions. Or anything.
You would know within six or eight years (a few seconds in university time) what's what. And what's not.
Who's going to be brave enough to go first? I'm going to suggest the Cal System, if it eliminates standardized tests, might be a good place to start.
Who's going to be brave enough to go first? I'm going to suggest the Cal System, if it eliminates standardized tests, might be a good place to start.
The Cal System is always a shining beacon of access and quality. This might help keep it that way. There is no gaming the lotto: You can only apply once.
Feedback? Good idea or bad?
I dunno. I'd love to hear substantial, insurmountable problems in this approach. If you don't like the lotto idea, this would give you the opportunity to prove it's a bad idea.
I dunno. I'd love to hear substantial, insurmountable problems in this approach. If you don't like the lotto idea, this would give you the opportunity to prove it's a bad idea.
What I see is a lot of objection from people who have an interest in the wealthy getting the best chance for admission. If this works, it could be a blow to them, but a boon to others.
Let me know.
Let me know.
Oh, and #EMTalk
