Pro: Should US colleges get rid of holistic admissions?

The college admissions system is integral to the growth of generations in a country, heavily impacting the labor market and the futures of the applicants. The question of what the best admissions system entails has led to vigorous debates between policymakers, students and parents alike. Two main systems drive the debate: traditional vs. holistic. A traditional system is where applicants are primarily judged based on their performance on an exam, while a holistic system looks at the numerical information, such as a student’s grades, and the nonnumerical information, such as essays and extracurricular activities. The holistic system sounds like the obvious victor; however, this viewpoint is superficial. Probing deeper, such a system is often discriminatory and may not provide each applicant with equitable access and chances to be admitted into college. It is also often based on murky, opinionated information from the college admission officers. Colleges in the United States should consider an alternative to the holistic admissions system to enable a more pragmatic and overall beneficial system.

The implementation of the holistic system varies tremendously from school to school, but the general consensus is that all of them are immensely different from the traditional application system used by almost every other country in the world. That’s right—the U.S., aside from some countries such as Denmark and Israel (for certain non-selective schools), is one of the only countries that uses the holistic system. There are many driving factors that led the U.S. to embrace this system, including student creativity, anxiety, stratification and informal private tutoring, also known as shadow education. However, the holistic approach that colleges use to combat these issues is often unclear and nontransparent. This has led to complications such as antisemitism, most notably shown in landmark studies on Ivy League admissions in the 1980s. One such study by Oliver B. Pollack, as part of the Indiana University Press, has shown prejudice against Jewish people in the college admissions process.

Another question comes up when comparing the U.S. to other countries: If the holistic system is good, why hasn’t any other country implemented it? The simple answer is that many countries don’t see the fairness in this ambiguous system. Let’s take a few examples. The most famous counterexample is the system that China and India utilize. Chinese students take a national exam known as the gaokao, are sorted into categories and are ranked every summer. Indian students also take standardized tests such as the IELTS, TOEFL, GRE and JEE, just to name a few. Societal and racial inequities are accounted for by providing extra points for students in less developed areas. South Korea has the same system using the CSAT. Overall, these systems are all quite clear in giving information on what students must prepare for.

A common argument supporting the holistic system is that it judges the student as a whole, rather than as a set of numerical values. However, this just seems like a way for schools to not have to explain the decisions that are made, as a few essays, questions and activities do not begin to display the student “as a whole.” The truth is—even admitted by most admissions facilities—students are going to be judged on the basis of some indefinable quality that transcends the materials provided, with each school weighing distinct aspects differently.

Overall, a more transparent admissions system should be implemented to give applicants a clearer goal to aim toward while eliminating factors such as personal bias. Social and racial equity should also be incorporated into this system, not unlike the structures in many other developed countries. A non- holistic admissions system is the key to making higher education truly more equitable in the United States.