Perfection Requires Imperfection

Around the world over the last few decades there has been a shift from selection for secondary and tertiary education by tests of cognitive ability or academic achievement to selection based on "holistic" methods of assessment.

American students in particular, but increasingly many others, are risking mental and physical breakdown as they compete in sports (more than one seems to be required now), volunteer, debate, find interesting part-time jobs, travel abroad, volunteer, suffer a trauma or enjoy an epiphany that has some sort of socio-cultural significance and spend hours agonising over producing an application essay that will attract the attention of an admission officer who has read thousands of such things over the years.

One of the reasons for minimising the role of standardised tests like the SAT and GRE in the admission process is that the coachability of such tests creates an unfair disadvantage for the upper and middle classes who can afford tutors, cramming courses and coaches.

An issue that does not seem to have been raised very much is the comparative cost of coaching for the SATs, for example, and preparing a profile that will impress an Ivy League admissions officer.

How much coaching will it take for someone of average intelligence to get a perfect score on the SAT or, if British, a bunch of grade As at A-level? How much would it cost to equip him or her with the background to impress an American admissions officer.

A natural experience was done with Prince Harry recently. The most expensive school in England couldn't get him any better than a B in art and a D in geography at A-levels. But, apart from his academic performance, he would have all the other requirements for university education, volunteering, leadership skills, foreign travel, sports and so. He could probably even, with guidance, produce a poignant essay about how his life had been diminished by a lack of cultural diversity.

To put it simply, you can, if you are wealthy and obsessed enough, buy perfection or something close to it in the non-academic criteria but you cannot buy anything more than a modest improvement in the SATs, GRE or A- levels (at least in traditional academic subjects).

So why is the obsession with holistic assessment and well-rounded students considered to be progressive?

Things reach the the point of absurdity when middle-class American students have become so indistinguishably perfect that they are advised to introduce a minor but detectable flaw into their university applications. A story posted on mywire recounts how:

"Steven Roy Goodman, an independent college counselor, tells clients to make a small mistake somewhere in their application — on purpose.
"Sometimes it's a typo," he says. "I don't want my students to sound like robots. It's pretty easy to fall into that trap of trying to do everything perfectly and there's no spark left."
What Goodman is going for is "authenticity" — an increasingly hot selling point in college admissions as a new year rolls around.
In an age when applicants all seem to have volunteered, played sports and traveled abroad, colleges are wary of slick packaging. They're drawn to high grades and test scores, of course, but also to humility and to students who really got something out of their experiences, not just those trying to impress colleges with their resume. "

And what happens when everybody has achieved perfection and everybody (or at least those who can afford the fees changed by the likes of Dr Goodman) has inserted that spark-revealing error? Two errors?