Admissions Education Knowledge University Academic Concept

After yet another spring in which millions of American kids endured the anxiety of discovering whether their chosen colleges had accepted them, pundits are yet again lamenting the absurdity and social ills of the process. Why should a cabal of admissions officers hold so much sway over high-school students’ self-esteem and access to the elite?

Allow me to offer a radical solution: Fire the functionaries and use random selection instead.

I’m not the first to suggest this. The progressive foundation New America has even made the idea — specifically, adopting lottery admissions at highly selective universities — part of its plan to achieve greater diversity in higher education. There could be a weak notion of who is “qualified” — say, a high school degree and a minimum grade-point average. Beyond that, selection would be publicly and provably random. Never mind optional standardized tests. If you show interest, your name goes in a big hat.

One downside is that applications to the most selective colleges would soar, causing acceptance rates to plunge and leaving the “strongest” candidates with little chance of getting into their chosen schools. The kids who struggled to get perfect grades, who spent their high school years getting really good at obscure yet in-demand sports, the legacies and the offspring of big donors, would lose their advantages.

That said, the positives would be immense. Preferences for legacies, for sports admissions, for kids whose parents can afford tutoring to boost grades and test scores — all contribute mightily to inequality. The simple qualification standard would take the pressure off students to conform to the prevailing definition of the ideal candidate. They’d be free to be kids again, smoking pot and getting laid in between reading Dostoyevsky and writing bad poetry. Or pursuing the sports and disciplines that actually interest them.

But what if the kids who got in couldn’t afford to attend? What if the colleges couldn’t bring in enough money to pay all their administrators and maintain all their cafeterias and rock-climbing walls? Some economizing might be in order. For one, leaving admissions to the luck of the draw would obviate the need for the bloated departments that currently run the process.

Best of all, random selection would immediately boost the diversity that colleges say they’ve been seeking to achieve. Colleges wouldn’t have to worry about fighting claims of racial discrimination in the Supreme Court because by construction the admissions process would be nondiscriminatory. No more “soft” criteria. No more biased tests. Just blind chance.

If some schools went for it and others didn’t, the result could be a vast, nationwide experiment to test the idea that — as recent research suggests — diversity adds value. The gold standard for testing things is to randomly sample two groups, with one subjected to the treatment or policy being studied and the other serving as a control. I’m sure some private schools would be happy to take the latter role, insisting on sticking to the old admissions system.

If the experiment demonstrated that diversity is better, and that random selection delivers it, institutions of higher education would be left with a choice: Dump the old system, or admit that they’re really in the business of perpetuating the privileges of wealth, and that all their admissions officers’ talk about inclusion is merely ornamental.

Sign up for our Daily Headlines newsletter

Cathy O’Neil is a Bloomberg columnist. She is a mathematician who has worked as a professor, hedge-fund analyst and data scientist. She founded ORCAA, an algorithmic auditing company, and is the author of “Weapons of Math Destruction.”

(2) comments

hot wheels 69

I fear the day society degrades itself as to even consider this option.

“who spent their high school years getting really good at obscure yet in-demand sports” This quote was my first red flag. These aren’t obscure sports, to some these are the glory days which we will never get back. I think this is just an attempt to subvert readers opinion over the impact and need for these so-called obscure sports.

“Preferences for legacies, for sports admissions, for kids whose parents can afford tutoring to boost grades and test scores – all contribute mightily to inequality” How can you sit here and lie about the impact that these extremely specific groups of college admissions have on the total scale of college admissions. You’re missing the biggest and most important group of students: those who worked hard for what they have, regardless of privilege, to make a life for themselves. Having a blind lottery is just going to create an entitled generation of kids who do the bare minimum and expect things to workout all in their favor.

You say this process would be nondiscriminatory, and on the most basic level it is, but if you just consider a few things then this whole idea is a contradiction of itself. Is higher education not an elite gathering of intelligent and motivated individuals? Or would we rather change it to a public bathroom that anyone can use?

I believe the effort of diversity and inclusion will be the catalyst which leads to the downfall of society.

fishfry

Cathy, I always enjoy your work. You are right that if merit is just a codeword for privilege, then we might as well do it by lot. On the other hand the whole point of merit is that a bright but underprivileged kid can break through. You'd condemn then all. Because in the end, the privileged will find a way to game the system one way or the other.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.