Wanted: High-Character Students

Dozens of colleges endorse plan to promote — and reward — ‘ethical engagement’ in admissions

By Eric Hoover JANUARY 20, 2016

Tom Kates

Richard Weissbourd, the report’s author, doesn't play down the importance of being a good student. The issue, says Mr. Weissbourd, who's a psychologist and a senior lecturer at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, "is getting over yourself."

Each year colleges invite applicants to sing their own praises, by listing achievements and proclaiming passions. Now some admissions offices are emphasizing students’ concern for others and the world beyond their test-prep manuals.

For the last few months, some admissions leaders have quietly discussed strategies for encouraging good citizenship, not just résumé-polishing, among high-school students. Although many colleges already consider applicants’ extracurriculars — volunteering, music, sports — some deans say the institutions should do more to promote and reward altruistic pursuits. To that end, several selective colleges have changed their applications to signal the importance of community service, and more plan to follow suit this year.

The impetus is, in part, a new campaign called "Turning the Tide." On Wednesday its organizers plan to release amanifesto that suggests colleges have fueled a potentially harmful fixation on academic achievement, and recommends how admissions can cultivate and prize "ethical engagement." Certain changes would send a strong message to prospective students, the report says. "The admissions process can counteract a narrow focus on personal success and promote in young people a greater appreciation of others and the common good."

The document urges colleges to talk up sustained community service as opposed to, say, a do-gooding jaunt to Belize. It calls on them to clarify that students who contribute to their families, perhaps by caring for siblings, are performing valuable service that should count in admissions. And it encourages colleges to reduce "undue achievement pressure" by discouraging applicants from "overloading" on advanced courses or submitting "overcoached" applications.

So far more than 80 admissions officials, high-school counselors, and education scholars — including at Columbia University, the College of Wooster, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor — have endorsed the push, which proponents see as a much-needed wake-up call. Praise for the campaign, though, is hardly universal. Some colleges invited to sign on have declined. A few admissions officials describe the recommendations as overwrought and excessively critical of colleges and students alike.

A few admissions officials have said they are troubled by the document's tone: 'It's a crusade to attack the ills of humanity,' said one, 'and this dastardly idea that students would be self-focused.'

This comes as a hidebound profession is wrestling with its future. A group of selective colleges recently announced a controversial innovation that could change the experience of applying to college for some students. Admissions leaders themselves often say the process is cumbersome, flawed, and tilted in favor of the wealthiest students.

Although opinions of "Turning the Tide" vary, nobody seems to question the project’s intentions: to remind colleges that what they project and what they value affect hordes of anxious teenagers, whose impressions of themselves are just forming. "There’s a real developmental opportunity in this process, if it’s done right," said Rod Skinner, director of college counseling at the Milton Academy, in Massachusetts. That’s why he signed on. "How do we help our kids manage this madness, and how do we raise good kids? That’s very much on the minds of parents right now. Jumping into these questions is kind of essential. On some level, we’re fighting for the soul of this business."

‘Getting Over Yourself’

It’s a business that Richard Weissbourd, the report’s author, knew little about until recently. He’s a child and family psychologist, a self-described outsider to college admissions. As a senior lecturer at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, he co-directs Making Caring Common, a program that helps educators, parents, and communities instill respect and empathy for others in children and young adults. Mr. Weissbourd’s research, based on surveys of 10,000 middle- and high-school students, suggests that the selfie generation isn’t so selfless, valuing achievement and happiness over caring for others.

After going through the admissions process as a parent, Mr. Weissbourd turned his researcher’s gaze to the ritual. How did it shape teenagers’ attitudes and behaviors, their sense of what colleges and society hold dear? In a presentation at a national admissions conference last fall, Mr. Weissbourd said he did not wish to play down the importance of being a good student. What he preached was balance. "The issue here," he said, "is getting over yourself."

In an interview with The Chronicle on Tuesday, Mr. Weissbourd described his interest in the process the nation loves to hate. "College admissions, for many kids, is the only sort of rite of passage in adolescence where they are in conversations with adults, about what colleges value, what society values," he said. "It just seems like a potential opportunity, a leverage point."

The Education Conservancy, which for a decade now has sought to calm the admissions frenzy, is collaborating with Mr. Weissbourd. Lloyd Thacker, the group’s executive director, considers the campaign an attempt to clarify any mismatches between what colleges say they care about — like compassion and community — and what they actually do, as demonstrated by their admissions requirements.

"It’s about aligning their mission statements with the messages they send," Mr. Thacker said. "Part of their goal is to help kids become better citizens, but in terms of how they evaluate candidates, service beyond self is not promoted in balance with those mission statements."

'In some affluent communities, we have a community-service Olympics going on. ... At the same time, there are large numbers of students who don't have opportunities to do community service.'

Written in an earnest tone, the expansive document conveys big-picture worries and granular prescriptions. "Turning the Tide: Inspiring Concern for Others and the Common Good Through College Admissions" proposes dozens of general recommendations and specific changes in applications. High-school students should engage in "meaningful, sustained" community service, it says, committing for at least a year to a particular activity, which is more likely than a fleeting stint is to "generate deeper reflection" and develop "key emotional and ethical capacities." Tackling a community problem gets a strong nod, as do experiences that let students "do with" instead of "doing for" people from different backgrounds.

Mr. Weissbourd also acknowledged a stark divide: Affluent students tend to have more time than their lower-income peers do to participate in the sorts of extracurricular activities colleges look for. Yet students who look after sick relatives or work part time to help support their families care for others in meaningful ways, the report says. Colleges should clearly state that they value such contributions, it says, and invite applicants to discuss them.

"In some affluent communities, we have a community-service Olympics going on, to see who can get the most impressive community-service experience, and it’s become another accomplishment, another way of padding your résumé," Mr. Weissbourd said on Tuesday. "At the same time, there are large numbers of students who don’t have opportunities to do community service."

In a section on "reducing undue achievement pressure," the report advises admissions offices to limit the length of "brag sheets," encouraging applicants to list only two or three "substantive" extracurriculars. "Applications," it says, "should discourage students from reporting activities that have not been meaningful to them."

Drafts of those and other recommendations, which have been circulating among admissions leaders for months, have already led to changes on some campuses. Stuart Schmill, dean of admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the report had inspired a new mandatory essay prompt: "At MIT, we seek to develop in each member of our community the ability and passion to work collaboratively for the betterment of humankind. How have you improved the lives of others in your community? (This could be one person or many, at school or at home, in your neighborhood or your state, etc.)"

The University of Rochester is planning several changes in response to "Turning the Tide," Jonathan Burdick, vice provost for enrollment initiatives, said in an email to The Chronicle.Those include changing a supplemental essay question to something like: "Describe your contribution(s) to your community/ies today and the benefits you can offer to the communities here next."

Rochester also intends to develop a new metric to assess each applicant’s record of "sustained, meaningful, and team-oriented service" through essays, recommendations, and interviews. And the university will stop collecting and reviewing information for more than three extracurricular activities, encouraging applicants to describe only their most "high-quality" pursuits — and their meaning.

The University of Washington is planning to invest in student service, Philip A. Ballinger, associate vice provost for enrollment, said in an email. The institution is poised to develop — and raise money for — scholarships he said would recognize "significant engagement with and leadership in communities."

Rescuing Humanity

Even as some colleges have willingly joined the campaign, other prominent institutions have chosen not to. A few admissions officials have said privately that they were troubled by the document’s tone, rendering of how the process works, and characterization of today’s applicants. "It’s a crusade to attack the ills of humanity," said one admissions dean, "and this dastardly idea that students would be self-focused."

The report offers some good ideas, but also "untenable" recommendations, said Richard H. Shaw, dean of undergraduate admission and financial aid at Stanford University. "This manifesto is too broad, too general, and frankly too critical and in a way [that] assumes the worst about young people," he wrote in an email. "This is also true about the intent of the college-selection process." After reviewing the document, a committee of faculty members and students that advises the admissions office at Stanford unanimously decided not to endorse it.

In principle, the message is fine, said Gregory W. Roberts, dean of admissions at the University of Virginia: Character is important, and too much stress is bad. That’s why he signed on. But like several other deans interviewed for this article, he shared a more optimistic view of applicants. "Frankly, the students I see are accepting of others," he said, "interested in making the world a better place."

The suggestion that colleges don’t care much about ethical development also bothered some admissions officials, even a few who endorsed the campaign. Admissions officers often try to glean insights into a student’s character, they say, from letters of recommendations, essays, and interviews. Many selective institutions conduct "holistic" reviews of applicants that take their unique backgrounds and circumstances into account.

Beyond that, how far could or should any admissions office peer into the hearts of 17-year-olds, who are as-yet-unfinished products, still growing, perhaps fumbling for their own moral compass? Does the report’s recipe for "more generous and humane" youth, for assessments of "whether students are kind, generous, honest, fair, and attuned to those who are struggling in their daily lives," exceed the purview of admissions officers? Those who answer one way might find the report illuminating and uplifting — or another way, unrealistic and heavy-handed.

Given how the "business" of higher education has shaped enrollment practices, the campaign offers colleges an opportunity to examine what they do, said Michael Beseda, vice president for enrollment and university communications at Willamette University. "Is it wildly or mildly idealistic — yes," he wrote in an email to The Chronicle. "Is it social engineering gone awry — heavens, the college-admission process is by nature political, and any choice we make reinforces, supports, or reflects a political scheme of some type, is social engineering from some perspective."

Mr. Beseda signed on, too. The university had already planned to add a new question to its application next fall. "At Willamette, our motto — Non nobis solum nati sumus: Not unto ourselves alone are we born — animates our campus and inspires our graduates. With the benefits of a rigorous liberal-arts education, Willamette Bearcats seek to apply what they have learned for the well-being of others. Can we count you with us? How do you hope to do good in the world?"

‘Extreme Self-Consciousness’

Whether changes in an application can make a meaningful difference on a campus or beyond — or whether what they yield can influence the chances of any one applicant — will depend on other variables. Like the institutional will to embrace a broader definition of merit that may lack external validation. Alas, U.S. News & World Report’s formula doesn’t factor in "ethical engagement."

The nascent crusade for character could prompt colleges to think differently about admissions — or give them cover to lament the ill effects of achievement pressure while preserving the status quo. Essentially, the report is for a rarefied tier of selective colleges, enrolling only a small fraction of the nation’s applicants, whose challenges hardly reflect those of a majority of college students.

And let’s not forget the achievement pressure that comes from some parents. "If they don’t get over their obsession with a handful of colleges," Mr. Weissbourd said, "this process is going to be really hard to change."

Although Mr. Weissbourd hopes his recommendations will help level the playing field for disadvantaged applicants, some healthy skepticism is in order. "Smart, rich kids are always going to figure out a way to look the way colleges want them to look," said Willard M. Dix, an independent college counselor in Chicago who works with low-income and first-generation students.

And there may be no way around it: Applying to college is an egoistic endeavor. "It’s a moment of extreme self-consciousness," Mr. Dix said, "and you’re trying to put yourself in the best possible light."

Still, Mr. Weissbourd has delivered from the outside a bunch of big-hearted ideas that could ground future discussions. A similar alarm, though, has sounded before. Back in 2000, Harvard’s admissions office put out a paper describing the toll the admissions process was taking on students, who, it said, "seem like dazed survivors of some bewildering lifelong boot camp."

Of course Harvard’s admissions office cares about students’ ambition and motivation, an official told The New York Times then. "We are at the same time just as concerned about the application of those qualities imprudently, unchecked by humanity, values, reflection, relationships, all the things that make one human." All the things that, so often, don’t get you into college.

Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He’s on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.