Make way for the high ability students at Dartmouth. Lower ability students are realizing they are just not good enough to apply. At least this is how Dean of Admissions Karl Furstenberg spins this year's drop in applications to Dartmouth, one of the only peer institutions to experience such a decline.
I have never heard an admissions officer telling a prospective student that given one score on a test, she shouldn't bother applying. Also, how can Dean Furstenberg, or anyone for that matter, know that the students who choose not to apply to Dartmouth this year did not have similarly high scores? In the interests of overall diversity, it works in the College's best interest to have the largest applicant pool possible, giving more leeway for the admissions committee to discover students who might lower the aggregate SAT score but would bring diverse talents and backgrounds to the community. What concerns me more than the drop in applicants to Dartmouth is the encouragement Dean Karl Furstenberg draws from the applicant pool's test scores in his defense of lower applicant numbers. Does a small increase in a composite SAT score mean that next year's incoming class will be quantifiably "better" than previous classes? Dean Furstenberg seems to think so, justifying a significant drop in applicants with a seven-point SAT score increase.
Recently the President of the University of California, Richard C. Attkinson, announced plans to rethink the use of the SAT in admissions within the UC system. In his speech to the American Council on Education in Washington, Dr. Attkinson remarked plainly, "America's overemphasis on the SAT is compromising our educational system." Given increasing concerns with admissions testing, Dean Furstenberg's justification for lower applicant numbers is questionable. The last time administrators cited SAT scores as a motivating factor for their policies occurred with the recommendations for the Student Life Initiative in January 2000, stating their desire to attract more "high ability" students. The report defines higher ability applicants as those with higher SAT scores. Rather than honestly imagining a more diverse and stronger community, the administration seemed intent on creating their own utopia through achieving better numbers and tweaking with perceptions. In addition, the intimidating politics and surprise tactics the administration used to introduce this vision two years ago created an edgy dialogue between students and administrators that remains today. Students remain suspicious that the administration will again commit to drastic changes in student life without student input, a fear no small rise in test scores will repair.
Through attracting prospective students with higher scores, Dartmouth may look smarter and stronger. Yet, if anything, Dartmouth has taught me that the strength of a community or a class is far more complex than numbers. It involves differing perspectives and experiences that cannot be quantified by any numerical value, whether it be an SAT score, or the percentage of students from a certain state.
Two years after the Initiative was prescribed, side effects seem more prevalent than results. The kickin' Poison Ivy dance club in the basement of Collis, and the warm beast fraternity goers drink in the absence of tap systems, exist as tangible reminders of the Initiative's progress. The strong-arming involved in the Trustee's introduction of their master plan may have led to another unintended side effect, fewer applications and less interest in Dartmouth. There are a record number of applicants to Ivy quality schools. A seven-point increase in SAT scores does not mask Dartmouth's diminishing popularity respective of its peer institutions. The fact that the politics and uncertainty surrounding the SLI may have prevented viable applicants from looking at Dartmouth is an issue the administration should examine before they again commit to changing the College without student input.
