Running head: TURNING THE TIDE 1

Turning the Tide:

A Critique on Higher Education and Admissions Reform

Yesenia Navarro

Loyola University Chicago

TURNING THE TIDE 2

With over 80 endorsers, including all eight Ivy League institutions, Turning the Tide:

Inspiring Concern for Others and the Common Good through College Admission, has certainly

gained much attention in the higher education arena and media (Making Caring Common, 2016).

The report was written by the Making Caring Common (MCC) Project of the Harvard Graduate

School of Education, whose central mission is to assist educators, parents, and communities

raise children who are caring, responsible to their communities, and committed to justice

(About: Our Mission section, para. 1). The report discussed admissions process reforms, which

has sparked a growing debate in terms of feasibility and benefits of these types of reform in

various online blogs and social media. This paper will provide a pro/con analysis of each set of

recommendations presented in the Turning the Tide report and discuss potential implications

for higher education and the admissions process.

Report Overview & Analysis

Konrath, OBrien, and Hsing (2011) conducted a cross-temporal meta-analysis study on

72 United States colleges to measure empathetic concern, personal distress, fantasy, and

perspective-taking using the Davis (1980) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). By gathering IRI

scores from college students in the late 1970s and early 1980s and again from the 1990s and

2000s, the authors were able to compare the differences between student responses to

sociocultural norms. The authors found that there were significant decrease in empathic concern

and perspective-taking between the data from 1979 and 2009particularly within the last decade

implying that todays college students are less caring, more ambitious, narcissistic, and self-

absorbed.

This finding was troubling to Konrath et al. (2011), as well as, to MCC (2016). This

unhealthy marked shift in student attitudes that emphasize personal success rather than concern
TURNING THE TIDE 3

for others and the common good is the basis for Turning the Tide, (MCC, 2016, p. 1). Like

Konrath et al., MCC speculated as to what factors contributed to this phenomenon. MCC

believes that the first part of the problem is that the college admissions process reinforces and

enables these attitudes by sending students the wrong message about what values should be

maintained and what is truly important. Students have become excessively pressured to the point

that they have internalized these detrimental sociocultural standards of success and achievement.

The authors of the report also argued that collectively the admissions process, which involves a

number of key figuresincluding admissions offices, high school guidance counselors, and

parents, among other stakeholdersthat all play a role in this issue.

MCC recognized that there are two types of communities that are particularly affected by

the pressures of these negative cultural messages. The first type of community eluded to in the

report is the community of students that lack academic resources and opportunitiespresumably

less affluent students of color, though the report is not explicit in stating this initially. In other

communities, students are expected to perform at high academic levels and enroll in selective

postsecondary institutions, often leaving students drained and taking away from their ability to

engage socially. Again, it is presumed that the report is indicating generally White affluent

students. In order to address these specific communities, the report offers three overarching

recommendations with respective subsets detailing how the reforms in the admissions process

could benefit students mental health, as well as, help them become more ethically engaged and

socially conscious. As a reader, however, one concern comes to mind: can strategies for two

distinct populations of students with two distinct sets of issues be remedied with catch-all

strategies? In fact, it would almost seem appropriate to have two sets of reports to address each

student population.
TURNING THE TIDE 4

Community Service and Engagement

The first of the three recommendations offered to admissions officers in the report

touched on the topic of community service and engagement. Within that subset of

recommendations, MCC suggested that admissions officers change the application to reflect

purposeful contributions to the community. They also suggested broadening and challenging the

definition of suitable forms of service to include contributions to ones own family (e.g., working

a job to supplement family income or caring for a sick loved one). Taking economic diversity

into account, MCC relayed that the admissions process needs to clearly deliver the message that

high-profile or exotic forms of community service are not required (MCC, 2016, p. 10).

However, in the event that students can afford to have these types of experiences, they must be

able to detail the value and transformative effect the experience had on them. For students, who

face challenges obtaining a meaningful sustained community service or engagement, it is

important that the application allow for students to be able to detail why, so that it can be taken

into consideration.

It was also recommended that students find opportunities (i.e., community engagement)

to work with others on community problems, providing them with group and problem-solving

skills. Another issue that was emphasized in the report is that students too often engage in

service experiences that are patronizing to recipients and dont spark in those providing service

a deeper understanding of social structures and inequalities. Rather than students doing for

students from different backgrounds, for example, we encourage students to do with (p. 3).

Lastly, they recommend service be reflected on, in order to contemplate how the contributions of

generations before them have impacted their ability to contribute. According to the authors this
TURNING THE TIDE 5

allows students to develop gratitude and make connections as to how their contributions may

impact future generations.

MCC (2016) cited several studies that suggested that meaningful and prolonged

community service can lead to the development of empathy, altruism, among other ethical

competencies in adolescents. These findings contribute towards tackling the central issue of the

report. The recommended changes to application all seem valid and certainly an improvement to

the questions currently being asked on the Common Application. Further, broadening the

definition of service and or providing the opportunity to justify a lack of service history is

more inclusive of students who may not have the means to fund these experiences or turn their

backs on familial responsibility in order to build on their application.

One issue, however, is just how nuanced the dynamic between power and privilege and

systems of oppression are in this reportespecially in this section. The authors mentioned how

there is often a disconnect for students in their experiences with diversity. Because student

experiences in service are often short-lived, meaningful connections cannot be made, leaving

students detached from their experiences. As mentioned previously, students may develop a do

for versus a doing with mentality. The authors suggested that changes to the application

process should encourage students to explore diversity in new ways where they might be able to

connect with their experiences. For example, a personal essay question they posed asked:

Explore what you learned about yourself about the functioning of your community and/or

about the working of society based on an experience you have had working with or

interacting with others who are different from you in terms of race, class, culture,

political orientation, or other characteristics. (p. 13)

TURNING THE TIDE 6

Again, a very seemingly valid questionone that certainly eludes to topics of power, privilege,

and oppression. However, if students are unable to make sense of their experiences or are

unaware of the fact that they should reflect on these topics during their experiences then the

connection might be missed. I also question whether or not some students have developed

enough to make substantial connections on their own. While some students are likely to have

help to unpack their experiences, there are others who may not have the same types of resources,

which highlights issues of access.

However, these issues go beyond class. Seider, Huguley, and Novick (2013) found that

when taking race into consideration in community service learning, that it can look different for

White students and students of color. It is often assumed that students who engage in community

service are uniformly privileged and have vast social distance between themselves that and the

community members at the service placement (p. 22). The question above, while a great

question, is flawed and does not take into account how someone with various marginalized

identities might perceive experiences. For instance, if a student identifies as a student of color

and lives in low-SES neighborhood decides to volunteer in their own community, how might

they report interactions with others who actually more similar than different from them? I

most certainly believe that they stand to learn something about themselves and their community,

however, the question was formed based on the assumption that a dichotomous relationship

exists between the student volunteer and the recipient.

Assessing Ethical Engagement and Contributions to Others Across Race, Culture and Class

The second set of overarching recommendations were aimed at assessing ethical

engagement and contributions while taking racial, cultural, and class identities into account. In

this section of the report, the contributions that students can make to their families was
TURNING THE TIDE 7

highlighted. MCC (2016) addressed how students in low- and modest-income and working-

class communities are often contributing vitally to others in ways that are not measured by

traditional forms of community service (p. 16). These contributions can include caring for a

younger sibling or working after school to contribute to the household income, for example.

These non-traditional contributions are usually overlooked entirely, or when they are

encouraged, students are often confused as to when it would be appropriate to address them in

their application. The report encouraged admissions officers to send clear messages about the

value of these family contributions and include a space where students might be able to discuss

them.

Additionally, the authors recommended that students evaluate how they give back to

others dailynot just through formal acts of servitude. While there has been a focus on

academics in the student recommendation, it was suggested that there be a shift from academics

to the students general character and how they interact with and treat others. It was also

suggested that admissions offices pilot and evaluate various strategies for assessing and

weighting ethical engagement [] (p.17). Granted, with the exception of test scores and

transcripts many aspects of the admissions process can be subjective and greatly influenced by a

students ability to persuade and move the admissions officer. I found it difficult to process the

idea behind the request for creating strategies to quantify a qualitative characteristic (i.e., ethical

engagement). Until research can back up these measures of ethical engagement, the process

would be subjective, at best, and likely controversial.

Reducing Undue Achievement Pressure, Redefining Achievement, and Leveling the Playing

Field for Economically Diverse Students

TURNING THE TIDE 8

The third and final set of recommendations in Turning the Tide offered several

suggestions. Whereas students from less affluent backgrounds lack access to academic

resources, such as advanced placement (AP) and international baccalaureate (IB) courses,

students from more affluent backgrounds undergo different academic challenges and an

emotional toll, as a result of their access to AP/IB courses. Students with access to these

resources are often pressured into taking on heavy AP/IB course loads, while engaging in

extracurricular activities. As a result, there is an expectation from their high schools, parents,

and others, that they attend a selective college. Luthar and Becker (2002) found that affluent

youth, while privileged are extremely pressured. They found that students from this same

population have significantly higher incidence of clinical depression, substance abuse,

internalization of symptoms, and are encouraged by peers to engage in deleterious behaviors.

They also found that they often internalize achievement pressures from parents, yet do not barter

the benefits of academic success. To this end, MCC (2016) recommended that the admissions

offices emphasize quality, over quantity, of experience and do away with infamous brag sheets

by noting that students should not feel pressured to provide more than two or three meaningful

extracurricular activities on their application. Additionally, they recommend that admissions

offices deemphasize overloading on AP, IB, honors, and college courses and only take courses

that they are academically prepared for. Instead, admissions offices should encourage students to

decompress by devoting more time for scholarly work that allows unstructured reflection and

encourages the development of intellectual curiosity (p. 19).

While these shifts from quality over quantity in extracurricular activities and a reduction

on rigorous course loads would send a message to students that their wellbeing is supported by

the admissions process, other stakeholders would also need to be involved in affirming this
TURNING THE TIDE 9

message. For instance, high schools that use class ranks and grade point average (GPA) systems

above a 4.0 may reward students for taking advanced courses and penalize students for taking

extra unweighted courses. For students whose secondary institutions utilize these types of

formulas, they may feel compelled to continue their AP/IB overload and forego unweighted

electives to reduce the risk of negatively impacting their GPA and class rank. Luthar and Becker

(2002) also indicated that parents, particularly mothers, contributed to achievement pressures and

strived for unrealistic measures of perfection. For this subset recommendation to have any

success, parents would also need to be on board in relaying this message.

On the other hand, general logic on the AP/IB overloading issue as it relates to GPA,

would suggest that emphasis placed on academics is warranted. While I believe that the report

aimed at addressing this message at students with more affluent backgrounds, it did not consider

students who still might have access to AP/IB courses and are from less affluent backgrounds.

Suppose less affluent students have access to these resources but not much else, in terms of

meaningful community service and engagement. AP/IB courses, GPA, and class ranks may be

their primary or only way of shining in the admissions process. Some students, especially those

who come from low-SES backgrounds, may be relying on these measures to grant them access

not only to college but merit-based aid opportunities, which is a big topic that was omitted from

the report (i.e., funding education).

The report also discouraged students and families from outsourcing for assistance on their

applications, particularly portions that should reflect the students own voice. Admissions

officers were asked to consider questioning students and their families to reflect on some of the

ethical obstacles they might have encountered during the application process. While I agree that

students should honestly present themselves in their applications and not risk having their
TURNING THE TIDE 10

integrity questioned, I do not think that the question on ethics is feasible. I have a difficult time

believing that students who did not honestly answer other questions in their application or

outsourced information would honestly answer that particular question.

Next, the report offers recommendations for reducing pressures associated with college

entrance exams (i.e., SAT and ACT). It was suggested that admissions offices consider going

test-optional and work in collaboration with testing agencies to emphasize that taking the SAT or

ACT more than twice generally does not improve scores. In support of test-optional policies,

Hiss and Franks (2014) found that there are no significant differences in either cumulative GPA

or graduation rates between [test-score] submitters and non-submitters (p. 3). Hiss and Franks

also found that there is a greater relationship between cumulative college GPAs and high school

GPAs as it relates to college success, than test scores as they relate to college success. Students

with higher high school GPAs tended to perform better in college, regardless of poor test scores.

Thus, high school GPAs are a better indicator for college success than test scores. Although test-

optional policies are increasingly being implemented, selective schools are least likely to adopt

this policy and risk losing national rankingespecially the Ivy Leagues. Until the Ivies lead by

example, various other higher education institutions are likely to be just as reluctant.

Currently, testing agencies and ACT/SAT tutoring services advertise to college applicants

that many colleges will accept their best score or superscore (the best scores in each individual

section), which sends the message to students that they should take the test until they are

satisfied with their collective scores. This adds to the test pressure that MCC was referring to in

their report. Although the report called for a collaboration between colleges and testing

companies to change their message, I am not confident that these privately-owned agencies

would be willing to participate in new advertising that would essentially discourage their
TURNING THE TIDE 11

services. This is especially true for test prep companies that largely profit from student

insecurities in their testing ability.

Lastly, MCC recommended that students expand their college search. Parents, guidance

counselors, and admissions officers were challenged to dismantle the misconception that there

are only a few top colleges and that only these colleges can provide invaluable networking

opportunities. Additionally, the authors emphasized that there are many roads to Rome, and

students and parents should be far more concerned with whether a college is an appropriate

match for students than how high its status is (MCC, 2016, p. 19). I think that this message is

especially important. Many students have become fixated on prestige and do not realize that

they can receive a comparable education at alternate institutions. Further, the latter statement

regarding college fit as it relates to college choice is a particularly relevant topic that can impact

all students but particularly marginalized students. According Hahn and Price (2008), first-

generation, low-income, students of color often do not attend college but when they do they

often lack vital information and resources to make the best choice. Adding to this predicament,

Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson (2009) found that underrepresented student populations are

less likely to attend a college that fits their needs and interests, which can lead to persistence and

completion issues. However, students who attend an institution that appropriately meets their

social, financial, and academic needs, are more likely to graduate.

Addressing Core Issues

Overall, the scope of the Turing the Tide report centered on the underlying issue that

students have become fixated on personal success over concern for others. The report pinpointed
TURNING THE TIDE 12

parents, guidance counselors, teachers, parents, among other stakeholders as key contributors to

this problem. In many ways, by publishing this report higher education, as a collective

institution, is contributing to the issue in larger ways then the report takes credit for. Before

taking a look at students shortcomings, we need to address those of the higher education system.

For one, are we expecting too much of students before they even enroll in college? At

this point most students have not reached their technical adult statuses and are at various stages

of development. The report sent a message of great disillusionment with the fact that youth are

narcissistic, self-involved, and uncaring to others, prior to enrolling. Sure, students should have

already begun to develop in the various areas mentioned in the report, but to imply that they

should have arrived at end-stage development is removing responsibility from the higher

education institution that should continue to help facilitate this process. Once enrolled, their

higher education institution (especially for the traditional student) should play a large role in

their moral, intellectual, social, and cognitiveamong other formsof development. If after

graduating they have not discovered their own positionality and the contributions they can make

to society, then I would argue that higher education should be held liable.

Another way higher education intermittently scapegoats students is by urging authenticity

from them, yet the overall admissions process lacks transparency. Admitted student

demographic information is often disclosed but never explained or justified. For example, when

confronted with questions of why certain student populations are underrepresented, namely

students of color and other marginalized groups, very rarely is the admissions process held

accountable. Strategies, such as holistic admissions and affirmative action, have been

implemented at some institutions with the intent to diversify the student body, but the truth

remains that these marginal groups are still inadequately represented. While reading a blog from
TURNING THE TIDE 13

The Huffington Post regarding the transparency in the admissions process, there was a powerful

statement that read: It is time to rebuild the playing field of college admissions. It should not

only be a level playing field, it should be hallowed to the ground. To do that, colleges need to

come clean about who really gets admitted before students believe that being authentic is more

valued than being privileged (Harberson, 2016).

I also believe that the report contributed to the issue in broader ways that go beyond the

context of this report. There are larger forces at play that have done an even greater disservice to

our student population. In fact, these metamessages were tip-toed around throughout the entire

piece but were never expressly discussed. These include concepts of access, economic diversity,

systems of oppression, and power and privilege dynamics. I found it odd that the authors

consistently discussed topics of race, class, and socioeconomic status but only deliberately

named SES statuses a total of two times in the entirety of the report.

Because this report is written and endorsed by big-name institutions, I believe it had the

potential to instill change. Yet, the tone is conservative, passive, and does not evoke an

immediate response. Perhaps there are too many politics involved and one report simply cannot

protect and support the agendas of so many institutions. Within the first pages of the report there

was a disclaimer that read: Endorsing this report signifies general agreement with the report and

its recommendations, not necessarily agreement with every specific point and recommendation

(MCC, 2016, p. III). Further, the authors stated that the report is not suggesting that admissions

offices should promote a particular moral or political ideology (p. 9). There is an inherent

contradiction between the disclaimer and entirety of the reportit hides behind political

correctness, yet seeks to stir up change. Needless to say, in order to elicit greater change
TURNING THE TIDE 14

enough to impact a whole generation of studentsthere is a need for bolder, intentional and

explicit statements. A call to action is what is needed to actually turn the tide.

Concluding Remarks

Turning the Tide certainly provided a platform for discussion, and there are many worthy

suggestions that can impact reform in the admissions process to provide a more accessible

experience to diverse applicants. However, there is much need for improvement and the report

reads more as a prelude to something bigger, and is certainly not groundbreaking. The authors

mentioned that Turning the Tide is the first in a series of reports. Additionally, Harvard

University has already announced that they will be making changes to the Common Application

next year. It will be interesting to see how the series progresses given the feedback and debates

online. It will also be interesting to see how higher education institutions will respond to these

recommendations.

Resources
TURNING THE TIDE 15

Baum, Ma, & Payea. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for

individuals and society [PDF document]. Retrieved from College Board:

http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays-2010-full-report.pdf

Bowen, W., Chingos M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college

at Americas public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harberson, S. (2016, January 25). All hype and no substance: How Turning the tide passes the

buck [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-shapiro-

harberson/all-hype-and-no-substance_b_9059222.html

Hiss, W. C., & Franks, V. W. (2014) Defining promise: Optional standardized testing policies in

American college and university admissions [PDF document]. Retrieved from

http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/nacac-

research/Documents/DefiningPromise.pdf

Hahn, R. & Price, D. (2008). Promise Lost: College Qualified Students Who Dont Enroll in

College [PDF document]. Retrieved from Institute for Higher Education Policy:

http://www.mass.edu/vpconference/documents/PromiseLostCollegeQualrpt.pdf

Konrath, S. H., OBrien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in

American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 15, 180-198.

Luthar, S. S., & Becker, B. E. (2002). Privileged but pressured? A study of affluent youth. Child

development, 73(5), 1593-1610.

Making Caring Common, Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2014). About: Our mission.

Retrieved from Making Caring Common website: http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/about

TURNING THE TIDE 16

Making Caring Common, Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2016). Turning the tide:

Inspiring concern for others and the common good through college admission [PDF

document]. Retrieved from http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-

mcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_report_interactive.pdf?m=1453303517.html

Seider, S., Huguley, J. P., & Novick, S. (2013). College students, diversity, and community

service learning. Teachers College Record 115(3), 1-44.