I’m a professor: Here’s why my college’s new radical admissions policy makes sense — not ‘sheep’

New York Post - Apr 16th, 2025

The University of Austin is revolutionizing its admissions process by prioritizing standardized test scores over traditional personal essays and extracurriculars. This shift aims to eliminate the privilege-rewarding and authenticity-punishing aspects of current holistic admissions, which often favor wealthy applicants with access to resources. Students scoring above specific SAT, ACT, or CLT thresholds will be automatically admitted after an integrity check, while those below must highlight achievements in a concise format. The university's approach seeks to attract independent thinkers ready for a challenging curriculum, moving away from conformity and towards rewarding genuine talent and potential.

This transformative policy highlights broader issues within the college admissions landscape, where reliance on holistic evaluation has perpetuated inequality and enabled manipulation. By focusing on standardized testing, the University of Austin aims to provide a fairer playing field for students from diverse backgrounds, emphasizing capability over socio-economic status. The initiative reflects growing discontent with traditional admissions practices, which often require students to conform to ideological and societal expectations. The University of Austin's new model could inspire other institutions to reconsider their admissions criteria, potentially shifting the national landscape towards a more merit-based system.

University Of Austin College Admissions Standardized Testing Holistic Admissions Patrick Gray

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.6

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical examination of the current college admissions process, highlighting perceived flaws in holistic admissions and advocating for a return to standardized testing. While it raises important points about fairness and authenticity, the article relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and lacks empirical data to support its claims. The author's perspective is clear and assertive, but the article would benefit from a more balanced exploration of the topic, including counterarguments and diverse viewpoints. The topic is timely and of significant public interest, with the potential to influence discussions about educational access and policy. However, the lack of citations and detailed explanations for some claims limits the article's overall impact and credibility.

Accuracy

The article presents several claims regarding the college admissions process, focusing on the perceived flaws of holistic admissions and the benefits of standardized testing. It asserts that the current system favors privilege and punishes authenticity, with significant manipulation in personal statements. While these claims are plausible, they lack specific data or studies to substantiate them. For instance, the article mentions that AI tools like ChatGPT are commonly used in admissions essays, but does not provide evidence or cite studies to support this claim. Additionally, the historical context provided about Harvard's adoption of holistic admissions to limit Jewish student numbers is a well-documented fact, but the article does not cite sources for this information. The introduction of the University of Austin's new admissions policy is described in detail, yet it remains unclear how effective this policy is in practice, as no empirical data or external evaluations are referenced.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical view of holistic admissions, arguing that they are inherently unfair and prone to manipulation. This perspective is supported by anecdotal evidence and examples, such as the cases of Zach Yadegari and Kaitlyn Younger. However, it lacks a balanced exploration of the potential benefits of holistic admissions, such as the ability to consider a student's unique experiences and challenges. The article also does not address counterarguments or perspectives from admissions professionals who might defend the holistic approach. By focusing primarily on the negatives and not offering a comprehensive view of the debate, the article exhibits a degree of bias.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of ideas. The language is accessible, and the tone is assertive, making the author's points easy to follow. However, the article occasionally assumes a level of familiarity with the admissions process that some readers may not possess, potentially leading to misunderstandings. Additionally, the lack of citations or references to specific studies or data can leave readers questioning the validity of the claims made.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on the author's personal opinions and experiences, with limited references to external sources or studies. The lack of citations or data from reputable academic or industry sources weakens the credibility of the claims made. The anecdotal evidence provided, while illustrative, does not substitute for empirical research or expert testimony. The absence of diverse sources and perspectives further diminishes the article's reliability, as it does not provide a well-rounded view of the admissions landscape.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the author's position and affiliation, noting that the opinions expressed are his own and not an official statement from the University of Austin. However, it does not clearly outline the methodology behind the claims made, such as how widespread the use of AI in personal statements is or how the new admissions policy at the University of Austin was developed. The lack of detailed explanations or supporting data leaves readers without a clear understanding of the basis for the article's assertions.