For the students that possess random qualities that ultimately aid them in the college admissions process, they might believe that the process is fair. However, for the vast majority, the college admissions process is extremely unfair and incredibly biased. The college admissions process has strayed from caring simply about the students’ academic eligibility and has instead begun focusing on whether or not the student is the child of an alumni, belongs to a minority group, is financially well off, or if they participate in an incredulous amount of extracurricular activities. Furthermore, colleges and universities use standardized tests as a huge deciding factor as to whether or not a student is academically capable, despite the tests simply testing whether or not the student has attended classes that teach a formula on how to correctly answer questions that are usually not actually taught in a classroom. By making all of these factors of the application hold so much weight over the admissions decision, students are then pressured to participate in activities that they do not actually feel passionate about or take higher level courses that they might not be qualified for. Sadly, despite all of the efforts students make to ensure that their application stands out from others, there will always be someone that is better or more qualified. Even the students that may seem overqualified for most universities may not receive an acceptance simply because the counselor was having a bad day. This greatly lowers students’ confidence and self-esteem and discourages them from applying to schools with extremely low acceptance rates despite their high qualifications. To solve this issue, colleges and universities can attempt to stray from their typical admittance formula and begin to admit people based more on their academic qualifications and special extra-curricular activities. Rather than focusing on standardized test scores, universities should be looking at teacher recommendations and admittance essays. By focusing on aspects that actually reflect a student’s ability to succeed at the universities that they are applying to, the applicant pools and student success rates will greatly increase while unnecessary stress will decrease. 

One of the most difficult parts of applying to college is standardized tests. However, the tests do not test how well a student does in school, but how much money they are willing to spend on preparing for a test. Students will often times take the SAT or ACT up to three times in order to ensure that the score they submit to universities is the highest that their money can buy. However, putting so much emphasis and forcing students to focus so much on tests that are irrelevant to what students are actually learning in school takes away from the time they could be spending studying for tests that are actually relevant to their education. Anne Brenoff at the Huffington Post poses the question as to why “of all the teaching-to-the-test that goes on in our Common Core world, how is it that the one test that nobody teaches to is the one that blocks the gateway to college?” Students are forced to focus on exams that increase their stress levels and decrease their ability to focus on school work and extracurricular activities.

In an article by Peter Jacobs that is titled “Why Colleges Place So Much Importance On The SAT,” the author discusses the importance of focusing on the standardized tests when making admissions decisions. The author states that “an institution's status and prestige is often tied to their selectivity, which is easy to track by creating a competitive admissions process that favors higher test scores” and suggests that colleges continue to use standardized tests as a method of determining who is equipped to attend the university. However, based on the claims that were stated in the previous paragraph, standardized tests are merely a scam that tests students’ willingness to spend money on test preparation and the time that they dedicate to it. Johnathon R. Cole from The Atlantic mentions that “although these tests try to measure one form of intelligence, even in that role they turn out not to be very good predictors. They measure the speed at which a person can get what the examiner defines as the “correct” answer” rather than allowing students to use their critical thinking skills and the knowledge they have gained from the multitude of years spent in school. Allowing a student’s ability to work under pressure dictate their ability to attend and be successful at a university is ludicrous and does not really make any sense. In order to better determine whether or not a student fits the credentials of the university in which they are applying, their grade point average and course load should be taken into consideration over a test score that does not actually determine their ability to succeed.

Furthermore, standardized tests can be a huge reflection on a student’s financial status and their ability to afford and attend classes that prepare them for such exams. Many scholarships are given to the recipient of the highest score by a member of a minority group, singling out the students that “defied the odds”. While this may seem very effective and most definitely helps students afford college, it still gives an unfair advantage to the students that represent minority groups in very wealthy areas and have access to test preparation and better school systems. Typically, minority groups are represented in practically all types of living situations throughout the United States. For the students that belong to more impoverished areas and already struggle balancing their school work with supporting their family, adding unnecessary stress about a test that they may not be able to afford preparation for or be able to provide the time to prepare for can seriously hinder a student’s desire to attend an institute of higher education.  That being said, it would be extremely beneficial for universities and their applicant pools if they emphasized the importance of academic transcripts over standardized tests. 

Not only does emphasizing standardized tests negatively affect students’ confidence and ability to focus on actual school work, but it also affects students’ ability to excel socially and participate in extracurricular activities that may be beneficial to their health and happiness. A fatal flaw of the college admissions process is the overwhelming emphasis that colleges and universities place on all aspects of the application. Rather than focusing mainly on a student’s academic transcript, colleges and universities tend to rely more heavily on the amount of extracurricular activities a student participates in and how high their standardized test scores were. However, devoting so much time to standardized test preparation can take away from the time that students could spend participating in athletics, clubs, or jobs because they have to focus on studying for their tests at school as well as their standardized tests. Causing students to overload their agendas leaves little space for social activities or activities that are merely for pleasure and takes the fun out of being a youthful member of society. Instead, students have a full agenda every day of the week and are getting significantly less sleep and are participating in a significantly less amount of healthy social activities such as family bonding and hanging out with friends. Steve Cohen at the New York Times criticizes elite universities for their suggestion to “de-emphasize academics” and instead “add a community service proponent” to the already stressful college admissions process. Clearly this defeats the purpose of applying to schools that students will be successful in academically. Placing more emphasis on things that occur outside the classroom and focusing on extracurricular activities and community service opportunities that students are highly unlikely to continue in college is not a measure of success or eligibility, but an even greater shift towards bias and favoritism. If a student completed an extensive and enriching service trip but received poor grades in many of their classes and is still admitted into an academically challenging university, their success rate will be exponentially lower than it would be at a university that they are academically qualified for. Therefore, universities should focus more on academics and less on extracurricular activities in order to ensure that students can be academically successful and happy at the universities that they are admitted into and attend. By increasing the success rates of the students, it ultimately benefits the university’s prestige and likability. 

Another fatal flaw of the college admissions process is the favoritism that admissions officers and universities play towards people of a higher socioeconomic status. By admitting students based on their likelihood of donating money to the university and being able to pay tuition without the help of scholarships or financial aid over students that are very qualified but are not from a good socioeconomic class, universities are essentially discouraging lower income students from applying and attending college. In extremely impoverished areas in which the school systems are terrible and the average student belongs to a very low income family, it is highly unlikely for students to decide to further their education when they have the opportunity to work at a minimum wage job and help support their families. When two college candidates of very similar credentials and presented to the admissions board, it is likely that they will choose either the student that belongs to a minority group, is the child of an alumni, or belongs to a higher socioeconomic class. For students that belong to impoverished families, they are already discouraged by the high cost of colleges and universities and the overwhelming amount of money that standardized test preparation and even the application itself may cost. Choosing not to admit students based on their family’s income increases the students’ likelihood to decide not to further their education and attend a college or university. In the article titled Family Incomes Fall While Admission Requirements Rise: Implications for Community Colleges, the authors discuss the relationship between low income rates and low college attendance rates. Even community colleges have begun to toughen their admittance process in order to keep out people that are from lower income families. The authors of the article discuss the fact that “community colleges in particular have a strong tradition of serving low-income and academically underprepared students” but now “community colleges are struggling to maintain their tradition of open access in the push for academic and fiscal accountability. Some colleges are shifting to serve better prepared students” which is crucial to the attendance rates of impoverished or academically unqualified students (Torraco and Hamilton). By even making community colleges more elite and difficult to apply, be accepted, and attend, it is extremely evident that change is progressing in the wrong direction and colleges and universities are focusing on the wrong aspects of choosing with sector of the population to educate. In order to leave the part of the population that is classified as low income and socioeconomically inferior and move more towards the upper class, it is almost always crucial to receive a college education and have a job that is high paying and also elite. However, if even the admissions process for typically non-elite universities is becoming increasingly difficult and the attendance rates are declining, the lower class will only continue to grow instead of decline. 

Similar to the bias towards people of higher socioeconomic backgrounds, students that are the children of alumni to prestigious, and not as prestigious, universities are usually given an unfair advantage in the admissions process. Upholding the legacy of parents that were successful after attending the university is seen as almost crucial to ensure that the bloodline continues to want to attend the university and in turn donate money to help increase their likability. In the article by Shikha Dalmia titled “Legacy Students Are Already Advantaged And Do Not Need Additional Help,” the tendencies of universities to focus more heavily on things other than academics, more specifically students that are legacies to the university, are emphasized. The article refers to a statement by Robert Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, in which he says that “at one Ivy League school only 40 percent of the seats are open to candidates competing on pure educational merit” (Dalmia). That statistic is absurd. Ivy League schools are considered some of the most elite universities in the country and are famous for their ridiculously low acceptance rates and ridiculously qualified and elite student population. However, it is evident that the focus is shifted more heavily towards students that make the university more diverse, attribute some talent that increases the school’s popularity, or keep the family name in attendance at the university. Giving an unfair advantage to students that are legacies not only has negative effects on the very qualified applicants that are not granted admission, but also on the students that may not be entirely qualified but they have parents that were when they attended. This decreases the students’ success rate and ultimately decreases the success rate of the school as a whole. Rather than admitting students that may increase the income of the university due to the donations of the alumni, colleges and universities should seriously consider focusing on admitting students that are academically qualified for their university and the rigor of its courses. 

Arguably the most controversial issue that is brought up when discussing the flaws with the college admissions process is the emphasis that colleges and universities put on their athletic programs and the leniency they give towards the applications of their potential athletes. In an article titled “Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values,” the authors give the statistic that says “that recruited athletes at these schools are as much as four times more likely to gain admission than are other applicants with similar academic credentials” proving that the college admissions process is unfair and biased (Schulman, Campbell, Pichler, Kurzweil). In order to remain elite and prestigious, universities tend to cap their admissions decisions at a certain number. When a good portion of that number is handed out to athletes that are only athletically qualified and not academically qualified for the universities, it takes away from the students that are actually eligible and able to succeed at the university. Getting a degree from a prestigious university is a significant help when applying for a job and not gaining admittance to an elite university because they decided to admit an athlete that could throw a ball really well instead can be extremely degrading. When an athlete is put into a class at a school in which they are not academically qualified, it is likely that they will receive some sort of special treatment in order to succeed, being unfair even to the students that do have the pleasure of attending the university.

In conclusion, the college admissions process is extremely flawed and could definitely use a lot of revision. The unfair bias that is prevalent when a student that is a member of a minority, a legacy, or an athlete is extremely unfair to the students that are much more academically qualified. Focusing so much on standardized test scores creates a monopoly on the business and emphasizes the wrong aspects of a student’s education. Rather than focusing on standardized test scores, universities should focus more on a student’s academic transcript, college admissions essays, and teacher recommendations. If universities start to become more fair in their admissions criteria, it will create a more efficient and successful process for all. 
