Schwartz, Barry

English

Works

Swarthmore College Works Psychology Faculty Works Psychology 9-1-1997 Is "Good Enough" Good Enough For Swarthmore? Barry Schwartz Swarthmore College, bschwar1@swarthmore.edu This work is brought to you for free and open access by . It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore.edu. Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology  Part of the Psychology Commons Let us know how access to these works benefits you  Recommended Citation Barry Schwartz. (1997). "Is "Good Enough" Good Enough For Swarthmore?". Swarthmore College Bulletin. Volume 95, Issue 2. 16-17. https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/775 Jane is preparing for an elegant dinner party. Fordessert she intends to make a Grand Marnier souffle.She’s wondering whether all of the elaborate andinvolved steps in the recipe are really necessary.She’d like to experiment, to see if the work can besimplified. But she won’t experiment today. Todayshe’ll follow the recipe as she has before, becauseshe wants a souffle that works.Jack is a subsistence farmer. He wonders whethera different method of cultivation might produce alarger yield. He’d like to experiment too. The prob-lem is that his crops feed his family, and if his experi-ment fails, his family may starve. So he won’t risk it.The point of these examples is twofold. First,there is no substitute for experimentation for unlock-ing the world’s secrets. But second, experimentationcarries risks. If we actually care about results—alight souffle or an abundant crop—we can’t alwaysafford to experiment.Yet the commitment to experimentation hasenabled science to transform our understanding ofthe world. To cope with risk, science invented adomain for experimentation that is essentially riskfree: the laboratory, a place in which the pure questfor knowledge can be separated from its applied con-sequences. Engineers can’t do experiments with thebridges they build. But they can do experiments inlaboratories that lead to new techniques of bridgedesign.Schools are—or should be—laboratories too. Stu-dents striving to achieve mastery should experimentwith the materials they study, exploring new ways tothink and talk and write about them. Even if thesenew ways prove unproductive, much will have beenlearned from the effort. Real mastery in the class-room demands risk taking; it demands experimenta-tion. And when, on occasion, experiments inlearning lead to new ways of thinking that are areal improvement on the old ways, everybodybenefits.Yet in many high school classrooms todayexperimentation is discouraged because so muchis riding on the results. Among today’s high-achieving high school students, the future seemsto depend on getting into selective colleges oruniversities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford—orSwarthmore. Despite the fact that these institu-tions now cost almost $30,000 a year, every oneof them has been experiencing an all-time recordnumber of applicants, to the point that applica-tions now outnumber places by more than 10 toone. (This year Swarthmore received more than4,000 applications for fewer than 400 places. Har-vard sifted through more than 18,000 to find 1,600new students.)Why such intense competition? It is probably areflection of a widespread belief that the UnitedStates has become, in economist Robert Frank’swords, a “winner-take-all society.” For the fewwho make it to the very top, untold glories andunimaginable salaries await. For everyone elseit’s going to be a life of perpetual struggle anduncertainty. With the perceived stakes this high,any rational person will do whatever is necessaryto get a leg up on the competition. And of coursethis concern with being the “winner” doesn’t stopwhen the admissions letter arrives; it surely con-tinues all the way through college, if not all theway through life.Though a good deal is now being written aboutthe unfortunate consequences of living in a “winner-take-all society,” the focus is characteristically on thelosers. I’m focusing here on the winners. Those whoapply to elite colleges and universities are hardly arandom sample of our national high school seniorclass. They are the best students at their respectivehigh schools. Almost every one of them is goodenough to succeed at Harvard or Swarthmore, butonly one in 10 will be given the chance.What does such intense competition do to thekids who win? I believe it turns the high school class-16 SWARTHMORE COLLEGE BULLETINBarry Schwartz: Whyselective colleges shouldbecome less selective—and get better students.Is“good enough”good enoughfor Swarthmore?Two views of the college admissions “rat race”1SEPTEMBER 1997 17room into the equivalent of a subsistence farm, wherethe stakes are so high that students can’t afford to takerisks. Everything they do is calculated to produce bet-ter credentials—high grades, great SAT scores, impres-sive extracurricular activities. Such intense competi-tion sacrifices risk taking, intellectual curiosity, and thedesire for mastery on the altar of demonstrable suc-cess—a light souffle. As a result, even though on paperthese applicants look better than ever before, theymay actually be learning less.Thus by making themselves so competitive, ourelite colleges and universities are subverting their ownaims. They are admitting students who have done thewrong things for the wrong reasons in high school andwho are likely to be disappointing students in college.Is there anything, other than hand-wringing, to bedone? After all, these top schools can only admit somany students, and if 10 times that many want tocome, competition seems inevitable.Not so. There is a simple step that elite institutionscould take that would dramatically reduce competitionand thus change the distorted adolescence that manyof our most talented students now experience. All thatis required is this: When Swarthmore gets its 4,000applications (or Harvard its 18,000), these schoolsshould screen the applications only to decide which ofthe applicants is good enough to be admitted. In thecase of Swarthmore, this might reduce the pool to, say,2,000. Then, these 2,000 names could be placed in ametaphorical hat, and the “winners” drawn at randomfor admission. While a bright high school studentmight have to distort her life substantially be seen asthe “best” (if that is what admission to a place likeSwarthmore requires), she won’t have to distort herlife nearly so much if all that is required is that she be“good enough.”This modest proposal may seem preposterous atfirst, but it isn’t. There is little doubt that a randomfifth of the 2,000 applicants that survived an initialscreening would make a fine first-year class at Swarth-more. While admissions professionals like to believethat they have the discernment and diagnostic abilityto look at 2,000 wonderful applicants and pick 375 ofthe superwonderful from them, there is a large litera-ture on human decision-making that makes clear thatpeople in such positions are much more confident oftheir abilities than the data warrant. In other words,picking one-fifth of the qualified applicants at randommight be just as good a way of producing a great classas the hair-splitting scrutiny of folders that is the pres-ent practice.With a procedure like this, the desperate efforts byhigh school students to climb to the top on the backsof their classmates could stop. Schools could onceagain be places for experimentation. Learning couldonce again be driven by curiosity rather than competi-tion. Adolescents could once again devote at leastsome of their time to figuring out what kind of peoplethey are and want to be. The result, I’m convinced,would not be worse students but better ones.!Roll the dice ... “In many high school classroomstoday, experimentation is discouraged because somuch is riding on the results,” says Barry Schwartz. Heproposes that colleges like Swarthmore reduce thepressure on high school students by setting some basicqualifications for admission and then choosing theentering class at random. Schwartz is the Dorwin P.Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Actionand associate provost of the College. His most recentbook is The Costs of Living: How Market FreedomErodes the Best Things in Life (W.W. Norton). Theviews expressed in this article are his and do notreflect Swarthmore admissions policy.ELEFTHERIOSKOSTANS

Is  Good Enough  Good Enough For Swarthmore?

Swarthmore College 
Works 
Psychology Faculty Works Psychology 
9-1-1997 
Is "Good Enough" Good Enough For Swarthmore? 
Barry Schwartz 
Swarthmore College, bschwar1@swarthmore.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology 
 Part of the Psychology Commons 
Let us know how access to these works benefits you 
 
Recommended Citation 
Barry Schwartz. (1997). "Is "Good Enough" Good Enough For Swarthmore?". Swarthmore College Bulletin. 
Volume 95, Issue 2. 16-17. 
https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/775 
This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in 
Psychology Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact 
myworks@swarthmore.edu. 
Jane is preparing for an elegant dinner party. For
dessert she intends to make a Grand Marnier souffle.
She’s wondering whether all of the elaborate and
involved steps in the recipe are really necessary.
She’d like to experiment, to see if the work can be
simplified. But she won’t experiment today. Today
she’ll follow the recipe as she has before, because
she wants a souffle that works.
Jack is a subsistence farmer. He wonders whether
a different method of cultivation might produce a
larger yield. He’d like to experiment too. The prob-
lem is that his crops feed his family, and if his experi-
ment fails, his family may starve. So he won’t risk it.
The point of these examples is twofold. First,
there is no substitute for experimentation for unlock-
ing the world’s secrets. But second, experimentation
carries risks. If we actually care about results—a
light souffle or an abundant crop—we can’t always
afford to experiment.
Yet the commitment to experimentation has
enabled science to transform our understanding of
the world. To cope with risk, science invented a
domain for experimentation that is essentially risk
free: the laboratory, a place in which the pure quest
for knowledge can be separated from its applied con-
sequences. Engineers can’t do experiments with the
bridges they build. But they can do experiments in
laboratories that lead to new techniques of bridge
design.
Schools are—or should be—laboratories too. Stu-
dents striving to achieve mastery should experiment
with the materials they study, exploring new ways to
think and talk and write about them. Even if these
new ways prove unproductive, much will have been
learned from the effort. Real mastery in the class-
room demands risk taking; it demands experimenta-
tion. And when, on occasion, experiments in
learning lead to new ways of thinking that are a
real improvement on the old ways, everybody
benefits.
Yet in many high school classrooms today
experimentation is discouraged because so much
is riding on the results. Among today’s high-
achieving high school students, the future seems
to depend on getting into selective colleges or
universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford—or
Swarthmore. Despite the fact that these institu-
tions now cost almost $30,000 a year, every one
of them has been experiencing an all-time record
number of applicants, to the point that applica-
tions now outnumber places by more than 10 to
one. (This year Swarthmore received more than
4,000 applications for fewer than 400 places. Har-
vard sifted through more than 18,000 to find 1,600
new students.)
Why such intense competition? It is probably a
reflection of a widespread belief that the United
States has become, in economist Robert Frank’s
words, a “winner-take-all society.” For the few
who make it to the very top, untold glories and
unimaginable salaries await. For everyone else
it’s going to be a life of perpetual struggle and
uncertainty. With the perceived stakes this high,
any rational person will do whatever is necessary
to get a leg up on the competition. And of course
this concern with being the “winner” doesn’t stop
when the admissions letter arrives; it surely con-
tinues all the way through college, if not all the
way through life.
Though a good deal is now being written about
the unfortunate consequences of living in a “winner-
take-all society,” the focus is characteristically on the
losers. I’m focusing here on the winners. Those who
apply to elite colleges and universities are hardly a
random sample of our national high school senior
class. They are the best students at their respective
high schools. Almost every one of them is good
enough to succeed at Harvard or Swarthmore, but
only one in 10 will be given the chance.
What does such intense competition do to the
kids who win? I believe it turns the high school class-
16 SWARTHMORE COLLEGE BULLETIN
Barry Schwartz: Why
selective colleges should
become less selective—
and get better students.
Is“good enough”
good enough
for Swarthmore?
Two views of the college admissions “rat race”
1
SEPTEMBER 1997 17
room into the equivalent of a subsistence farm, where
the stakes are so high that students can’t afford to take
risks. Everything they do is calculated to produce bet-
ter credentials—high grades, great SAT scores, impres-
sive extracurricular activities. Such intense competi-
tion sacrifices risk taking, intellectual curiosity, and the
desire for mastery on the altar of demonstrable suc-
cess—a light souffle. As a result, even though on paper
these applicants look better than ever before, they
may actually be learning less.
Thus by making themselves so competitive, our
elite colleges and universities are subverting their own
aims. They are admitting students who have done the
wrong things for the wrong reasons in high school and
who are likely to be disappointing students in college.
Is there anything, other than hand-wringing, to be
done? After all, these top schools can only admit so
many students, and if 10 times that many want to
come, competition seems inevitable.
Not so. There is a simple step that elite institutions
could take that would dramatically reduce competition
and thus change the distorted adolescence that many
of our most talented students now experience. All that
is required is this: When Swarthmore gets its 4,000
applications (or Harvard its 18,000), these schools
should screen the applications only to decide which of
the applicants is good enough to be admitted. In the
case of Swarthmore, this might reduce the pool to, say,
2,000. Then, these 2,000 names could be placed in a
metaphorical hat, and the “winners” drawn at random
for admission. While a bright high school student
might have to distort her life substantially be seen as
the “best” (if that is what admission to a place like
Swarthmore requires), she won’t have to distort her
life nearly so much if all that is required is that she be
“good enough.”
This modest proposal may seem preposterous at
first, but it isn’t. There is little doubt that a random
fifth of the 2,000 applicants that survived an initial
screening would make a fine first-year class at Swarth-
more. While admissions professionals like to believe
that they have the discernment and diagnostic ability
to look at 2,000 wonderful applicants and pick 375 of
the superwonderful from them, there is a large litera-
ture on human decision-making that makes clear that
people in such positions are much more confident of
their abilities than the data warrant. In other words,
picking one-fifth of the qualified applicants at random
might be just as good a way of producing a great class
as the hair-splitting scrutiny of folders that is the pres-
ent practice.
With a procedure like this, the desperate efforts by
high school students to climb to the top on the backs
of their classmates could stop. Schools could once
again be places for experimentation. Learning could
once again be driven by curiosity rather than competi-
tion. Adolescents could once again devote at least
some of their time to figuring out what kind of people
they are and want to be. The result, I’m convinced,
would not be worse students but better ones. !
Roll the dice ... “In many high school classrooms
today, experimentation is discouraged because so
much is riding on the results,” says Barry Schwartz. He
proposes that colleges like Swarthmore reduce the
pressure on high school students by setting some basic
qualifications for admission and then choosing the
entering class at random. Schwartz is the Dorwin P.
Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action
and associate provost of the College. His most recent
book is The Costs of Living: How Market Freedom
Erodes the Best Things in Life (W.W. Norton). The
views expressed in this article are his and do not
reflect Swarthmore admissions policy.
E
LE
FT
H
E
R
IO
S
K
O
S
TA
N
S


https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1774&amp;context=fac-psychology

Is Good Enough Good Enough For Swarthmore?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Works

Works