<p>
</p>
<p>Well, retention rates are slightly more modest a measure than what I was thinking. Obviously within a school like Princeton, there will be those at the top and those less so, and that is fine. It is hard to predict exactly what people would do in college once they get there, but I like the idea of judging them almost exclusively based on accomplishment, and would be completely happy with our process if all the “soft” factors were aimed only at measuring this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you basically get what I mean by talent. If you’re an athlete, it means performance indicative of potential. If you’re into math and science, it means evidence from teachers and your essays, along with what you’ve done over 4 years that you’re truly passionate about these, very accomplished, and best poised to take advantage of the university you’re considering attending. </p>
<p>It is a reality that not all people have it equal in the admissions process. That an Asian family raised its daughter to study hard from an early age is certainly a cultural advantage. That a white parent had the money to send its kids to a very top class private high school is also an advantage today – realistically, a school like MIT actually takes many students from certain very good schools. It is clear to an applicant without these privileges that (s)he needs to go out of his/her way to impress schools. If such an applicant were very motivated – for instance, self-studied for 13 AP exams using cheap books and got 5’s across the board, despite coming from a very ordinary school, which, say, didn’t offer any AP classes, I would take another look at this individual, find out from the essays what (s)he wants to accomplish in school, and go from there. I happen to know someone with very little going for him financially who made it through college and into a top grad school, and he is very sharp and talented. And here we’re talking grad schools, which consider almost no personal circumstances! He worked to support himself, went to community college first, all sorts of things. </p>
<p>There will be some diversity even with a completely talent-based admissions process. And as for personal factors, I really don’t think many of us honestly believe a 500 word essay can tell enough about your personality – people are usually more complex than that. In the end, the burden is on the applicants to develop their talents and make them heard. It simply is not logical to reject someone who demonstrates tons of interest in something and achieves a lot at it in high school, and plans to pursue this something in college, in favor of those who give a favorable response to some personal essay question. As I’ve said, I know of examples where people are exceptionally bright or talented at something, and their abilities shone despite their having not the greatest circumstances to work with, and these I am very open to considering carefully. I think it’s very dangerous to attempt to achieve diversity forcefully, though, without exceptional-talent-identification as the ultimate guiding parameter.</p>
<p>Further, who said the class would be homogeneous? I think you are underestimating how different people actually are. Just because two people are white doesn’t mean they’re anything alike. Just because two people write about literature in their essays, say both about James Joyce, doesn’t mean they’re alike – that’s a 500 word snapshot only. What we can control is that we get a class with several diverse essay responses – what people are like on the inside only comes out if you talk to them and find out more about them. I imagine your intent is good, but the idea that a class full of people talented in various things and admitted solely for their talents would be homogeneous seems crazy! Homogeneous in a slight sense maybe, but I think you’d get lots of very different people with different personalities and likings anyway – just, that wouldn’t be the actual basis of admitting them.</p>