The numbers are in for the admitted Class of 2005 and they are not encouraging. Average SAT scores are down slightly. The number of applicants is down significantly from 10,165 to 9,700. The Admissions Office uses these statistics -- average SAT scores and number of applications received -- to justify Dartmouth's excellence. When both worsen we should conversely question why Dartmouth has fallen in popularity and what we can do to fix the problem.
Dean Furstenberg attempted to spin any disappointment with the Class of 2005 by noting that, "[there is] a sense among high school students that it is impossible to get into Ivy-quality schools." He noted, "less competitive applicants are taking themselves out, while the most talented students continue to apply." At first glance this seems a plausible explanation for the drop in applicants. But if Furstenberg's justification is true then wouldn't the number of applications received at all the Ivies decrease as well? They didn't. In fact, six of the other seven Ivies saw an increase in applications while only Dartmouth and Brown received fewer applicants than last year.
Additionally, if only the more talented students continued to apply while weaker applicants chose not to, shouldn't that increase average SATs or at the very least leave them unchanged? They fell.
When the general trend is for greater selectivity amongst our peer institutions, and we buck the trend, we must question what has happened. I believe the SLI is at least partially to blame due to both the uncertainty that it has created and the benefits it has falsely promised.
The SLI created tremendous uncertainty about the future social life of the College. This, even to those creative loners the Admissions Office covets, is important. Would prospective students rather go to a school where they felt comfortable in the existing system or they seek out a school in flux where they might become unhappy with changes? Prospective students like to know what they're getting into before they sign on the bottom line. The SLI denied them that certainty.
One implicit argument in favor of the SLI was that if the Greek system were ended, some "high ability" students who are currently apprehensive about Dartmouth's social scene would then feel comfortable to apply. If this claim were true I might be more accepting of the Initiative. But the evidence does not support the claim. A reduction in the number of students interested in Greek life does not cause an improvement in selectivity. After the SLI had time to sink in, Dartmouth became less selective, not more selective. This change warrants concern.
So what should we do to keep up with the other six Ivies who improved? I suggest some of the approximately $100 million that has been allocated to the SLI instead be spent on increased financial aid. There's a reason why Harvard and Princeton continue to improve: they spent much more on financial aid than we do.
To use a baseball analogy, Harvard and Princeton are the Yankees and Braves respectively of the Ivies: they spend a lot but they get results. We are the Orioles: we spend just as much, but on the wrong things, and so we cannot compete. The money that will be spent on the SLI is indicative of our misplaced priorities. When the Financial Aid Office credibly says it cannot keep pace with other Ivies because there's not enough money in the budget, while money is wasted on excessive flat-screen TVs in Collis and the never-packed Poison Ivy dance club, it is clear that our priorities are not where they should be. Are increased social options, such as these, worth the price of a less capable student body? I don't think so.
Dean Furstenberg has said that improved financial aid packages, combined with aggressive recruiting, can lead to increased selectivity. An increase in aid, paid for with money diverted from the SLI, would help Dartmouth become competitive with the other Ivies where we are weak -- in financial aid -- while not wasting money on areas in which we already excel. The only thing holding us back from the rest of the Ivy pack is our order of priorities. We can choose to do better.
