海角大神

Steven got nearly perfect SAT scores, but he didn鈥檛 get into Princeton. Suzanne has straight A鈥檚, but Brown rejected her. And Samantha 鈥� Samantha! 鈥� got into both schools, even though her scores and grades are pretty mediocre.

Can you believe it?

Welcome to an average school day in April, the cruelest month of the calendar for America鈥檚 upper-middle-class teens. If you live in a leafy American suburb, as I do, you simply can鈥檛 escape the drudgery and the drama of the College admissions sweepstakes. Everywhere you go, the conversation is the same: who got in where, and why. Kids like to talk, of course. But in the old days, it took a little while for the word to get around. Now, it鈥檚 just a mouse-click away. And that just makes things worse.

Worst of all, though, most of our children seem to think that the college admissions process is a meritocracy: The 鈥渂est鈥� students get into the 鈥渂est鈥� schools. That鈥檚 precisely why they express such surprise 鈥� and, often, outrage 鈥� when an apparently ordinary student gets into a top-rated college. She鈥檚 not that smart! No fair!

Let鈥檚 leave aside the question of what 鈥渟mart鈥� means, or whether SAT scores and grades provide a useful measure of it. Colleges don鈥檛 want classes composed solely of kids with perfect grades and scores. They also want 鈥渄iversity鈥� 鈥� of enthusiasms, experiences, and, yes, ethnicities.

The kids know all of that, too, but they still say it鈥檚 a numbers game. And for a brief moment, about a century ago, it was. Fearful that its classes were filled with mediocre young men from prep schools, Harvard College adopted the College Entrance Examination Board as the major basis for admission in 1905.

Other leading universities quickly followed suit. So for a few years anyone with a high enough score 鈥� and a big enough bank account 鈥� could get in. But the result, to the chagrin of America鈥檚 WASP gentry, was a steep spike in Jewish students.

By 1908, the fraction of Jewish students in Harvard鈥檚 freshman class had jumped from almost nil to 7 percent; a decade later, it rose to 20 percent. At Yale, meanwhile, an admissions officer complained that the roster of new students 鈥渕ight easily be mistaken for a recent roll call at the Wailing Wall.鈥�

To elite university officials, this development threatened nothing less than the destruction of the elite university itself. 鈥淭he summer hotel that is ruined by admitting Jews meets its fate because they drive away the Gentiles,鈥� Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell warned, 鈥渁nd then after the Gentiles have left, they leave also.鈥�

The solution was simple: request more information about the 鈥渃haracter鈥� of the applicants. Starting in the 1920s, Harvard applicants had to submit essays, recommendations, and lists of extracurricular activities. They also had to answer questions about 鈥淩ace and Color,鈥� 鈥淢aiden Name of Mother,鈥� and, believe it or not, 鈥淲hat change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully.)鈥�

That made it a whole lot easier to identify 鈥� and, of course, to reject 鈥� Jewish students. But you could never tell for sure. So Harvard鈥檚 admissions office devised a secret labeling system. The designation 鈥渏1鈥� meant that a student was 鈥渃onclusively Jewish;鈥� 鈥渏2鈥� indicated a 鈥減reponderance of evidence鈥� towards Jewishness; and 鈥渏3鈥� meant it was a 鈥減ossibility.鈥�

Ironically, then, our current system for determining 鈥渄iversity鈥� 鈥� essays, recommendations, and so on 鈥� was born in a bigoted attempt to prevent it. Today, it鈥檚 unheard of for someone to scour applications to figure out a kid鈥檚 religious background. But colleges still try to gauge each applicant鈥檚 鈥渃haracter,鈥� which is no easier to measure than 鈥淛ewishness鈥� was in the 1920s.

So to get in, it鈥檚 not enough to be smart. You also have to be fortunate, which is something nobody likes to talk about around here. We want to believe that the process is systematic, rational, and predictable. And, most of all, we want to believe that we have earned whatever we get.

But any honest admissions officer will tell you that isn鈥檛 so. Sure, you can do any number of things to improve your odds. At the end of the day, though, it鈥檚 still a crapshoot. A bunch of people will sit around a table and try to judge your character, as well as your smartness. And they鈥檒l make highly imperfect estimates of both.

That鈥檚 why Swarthmore psychology professor Barry Schwartz has suggested that colleges set a standard 鈥� of grades, scores, and extracurricular activities 鈥� and make a random selection among all the candidates that meet the standard. The colleges would end up accepting kids that are every bit as talented as the current ones are. And we wouldn鈥檛 have to pretend that everyone 鈥渆arned鈥� their way in.

So if you didn鈥檛 get accepted by the college of your choice, please don鈥檛 take it personally. And if you did land your top school, don鈥檛 let it go to your head. Yes, you got into a great college. But you also got lucky.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University and lives in suburban Philadelphia. He is the author of 鈥淪mall Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory.鈥�