In Hamilton's case
“In Hamilton’s case, she [Inzer] said, the college was doing a better job of attracting the kinds of applicants it wanted without merit aid…” source: Doing the Right Thing – and Thriving
Kind of begs the question: what kind of students does Hamilton want? Merit is no longer in the calculus, and in fact it seems by implication to be the wrong thing.
Anyone with exposure to Hamilton’s students gets the sense that, in the main, they are of extraordinary quality…perhaps more resistant to what many suspect is growing flaw in process. The students attending the AHI’s colliquium did not hesitate to vigorously and effectively defend Prof. Ambrose from the challenges of the Harvard students. That said, anyone with any exposure to Hamilton’s students also knows they increasingly are dealing with something most alumni never had to and would not tolerate: explicit politicization of the classrooms on the Hill.
We hope that a Command Turnover Review would accompany the ascension of a new Chairman. It’s been painfully obvious that President Stewart didn’t bother with one at inception, primarily because the board didn’t want or expect one.
This one should include a broad, confidential survey of students’ on the Hill in this regard. It’s needed.
hb
This month, Oxford University Press will publish Stanley Fish’s long anticipated new book, Save the World on Your Own Time. The title says it all — this book represents the culmination of Fish’s evolving thinking about what professors should (and should not) be doing in the classroom. Once a leader in the move to politicize humanities departments — during the 1990s Fish transformed the Duke University English department into a top-tier, cutting-edge center of politically motivated teaching and research — Fish has since recognized that many college teachers go too far. He has posted eloquently on what academic freedom is and isn’t at his New York Times blog, and now he has developed his thoughts into a book. The timing is vital: In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Fish estimates that around 5 to 10 percent of college faculty “are always imposing their loyalties on the students in an attempt…to recruit students into a political agenda.” Given that the American professoriate numbers about 1.7 million, that’s somewhere between 85,000 and 170,000 professors who are abusing their positions in unconscionable ways. If Fish is anywhere near correct, that’s a pressing problem that requires immediate attention.
Fish’s estimate tallies with figures ACTA uncovered in Politics in the Classroom, a 2004 survey of college students done by the University of Connecticut. Politics in the Classroom revealed that 46 percent of respondents said “some professors use the classroom to present their personal political views;” 49 percent said “that professors frequently comment on politics in class even when it has nothing to do with the course.” When both students and experienced faculty members are reporting the same problem, there’s reason to believe it’s real — and there’s reason for trustees to initiate institutional self-studies to identify and address problems on their campuses.
———-
Hamilton is not immune.
27 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
America's Universities Are Living a Diversity Lie
I encourage you to compare this percentage with that of Colgate.
When will the smoke and mirrors end?
http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3251&profileId=6
http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1314&profileId=6
http://www.omniaceducation.com/blog/2008/05/wake-forest-gets-the-best-of-both-worlds/
Middlebury 88%
Bowdoin 74%
Dickinson 64%
Franklin & Marshall 62%
Hamilton 59%
Bates 50%
One wonders what the average SAT scores for Hamilton would be if the 41% who did not submit because their scores were lousy had to submit them.
Video:
Journal Editorial Report on Fox News Channel, Sat 11 p.m. ET, Sun 6 a.m. ET.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid86195573/bclid212338097/bctid1620577041
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/arts/03camp.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Instead of being armchair quarterbacks from a distance I would love to see some of you join me as admissions volunteers. I've had a blast doing it and get a firsthand look at future students.
Hate to break the news, but many hcagr supporters have and do interview students. Statistically we represent more than 1/3 of alumni, at least those who bothered to vote.
Those familiar with demographics know the impact of larger pools of applicants to the most highly selective schools in respect of a static number of seats.
Reporter asks a valid question: One wonders what the average SAT scores for Hamilton would be if the 41% who did not submit because their scores were lousy had to submit them.
What's the answer?
The WSJ video expores a valid question.
The need for Command Turnover Review is self evident in light or recent history.
At reunion weekend we heard nothing about the percentage of students who don't submit their SATs. Just glowing remarks about higher SATs.
Hunter Brown has once again raised an important point that I, for one, had not realized.
It may be Hamilton is getting harder for certain categories of students and getting easier for others.
Class of ’68: Do you believe that the ACTs or results of AP exams are not “a very useful measure of potential success at elite schools"? Should students who come from areas where the SATs are not the norm (but the ACTs are) take them anyway?
I thought this discussion looked familiar. Have a look at The Kiplinger 100 Thread from March, 2008:
Two March 12, 2008 Postings of -----:
First Posting:
“While it is true that SATs are no longer required, an applicant to Hamilton must submit standardized test results of their choosing within the guidelines set by Hamilton. The choices are: SAT; ACT or choices from a list of SAT subject tests, AP and IP exams.
http://my.hamilton.edu/admission/ApplicationProcess/requirements.html
How Hamilton reports would most likely be pretty straight-forward: how US News uses the data (including results of ACTs etc.) would be more pertinent, but again points to the larger issue of the methodology used by US News and the ultimate utility to prospective students of the resultant rankings.
It is a morass created by US News to sell books to nervous parents, who want to make sure they have "all" the information possible to make an informed choice with their child. And now Kiplinger's has jumped on the bandwagon, hoping to capitalize on those same nervous parents who might feel compelled to purchase this other ranking.”
Second Posting:
“There are a number of ways to look at this, and being no expert on the subject, I can't offer much insight.
My understanding is that while the SATs are the norm in northeastern high schools, the ACTs are more the norm in the midwest-west. That might account for ACT submissions. I don't know about the west coast or south.
Also, if you've got a student who has done extremely well in the Quantitative Tests, they would likely want to submit those, if offered the option. The APs are a means of judging a student who has tackled a subject with a significantly higher degree of mastery, than the student taking the typical SAT subject test.
So, it appears that there are likely many reasons for submitting scores other than the SATs, and therefore I wouldn't necessarily conclude that it is lower score candidates who submit something other than SAT scores.”
One wonders if middle-class parents with really bright kids ultimately pay the price. Rich kids whose parents can pay the full freight have a leg up. Certain minority kids and targeted athletes, for example, will be recruited with a handsome package of financial aid.
Am I right in thinking that the SAT is still considered to be more telling and difficult than the ACT?
My sense is that admissions has become a kind of game. One no longer looks for the best and brightest, but do I have one of these and one of those.
My understanding is that while Hamilton admissions are not yet "need-blind", they are moving in that direction. Surely that would be the best way to assure that the students are the brightest.
Also, I understand that approximately 50% of the students receive financial aid from the College, and that the average package is about $22,000.
"In market economies, per capita GDP is directly proportional to the population fraction with verbal IQ equal to or greater than 106."
They deny it on the road. They deny it on private. Some of us would feel better if they at least acknowledged that Hamilton, like every other college, has the problem.
Their denials cause some alums to question their credibility.
I find the founders of the AHI much more persuasive about the extent of the problem.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080710-4.html
My congratulations to Professor Paquette