If you’ve read the editorial this week or the news article from last week, you know that the a group of Stanford students discovered that that they have access to reader’ comments on their admissions files through the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. We as an editorial board are grappling with the question of whether we support Middlebury students going to Emma Willard to view their admissions files. The issue split our editorial board, but here is why we suggest that students think twice before taking advantage of this loophole.
1. Ask yourselves why you want to know. Is it for an ego boost? Are you just curious? Do you think seeing your file will provide helpful feedback for future applications? Students viewing their files need to be prepared for the possibility that it will be an unpleasant experience; that they will see things they didn’t want to know, such as low ratings, harsh comments, and language that could be considered tokenizing. We feel that there is relatively little to be gained from the experience and that viewing one’s file is potentially opening a Pandora’s box, with far-reaching consequences for students and admissions officers alike. Now if you don’t buy into the individual repercussions that you could face, see reasons 2 & 3 for concerns and potential consequences that could affect us all.
2. This is the busiest time of year for admissions offices across the country and we don’t think that Dean of Admissions Greg Buckles or anyone else in the committee should be taking time away from reviewing applications to explain to students in individual fifteen-minute meetings why they were admitted to Middlebury. It’s a misallocation of resources and it’s frankly not their job, even though it may now be their obligation under law.
3. We worry that admissions readers will be less candid in their commentary of applicants if students continue to opt to see their files. Our editorial encourages admissions to continue to be incisive and write as if no one were reading, but we feel that is an unrealistic suggestion. It’s human nature to edit and contort your evaluation of someone when you know that they will be reading what is said. However, we believe the censoring of these comments could be extremely detrimental to the admissions process. This is why the Common Application prompts students to waive their right to see recommendations: so that teachers and counselors can write honestly and openly about students. If we take away that venue, how will admissions continue to have incisive conversations that lead to well-informed decisions?
4. Finally, we find it a bit ridiculous that the same students who didn’t even know this loophole existed until roughly a month ago are now filled with righteous indignation over perceived threats to this “right.”
Ultimately, we write for a newspaper. It goes without saying that we advocate for transparency and freedom of press when it serves a greater good. But we remain unconvinced that this is one of those instances and we are skeptical that the potential benefits outweigh the costs. We aren’t telling you what to do; we are merely suggesting that each of you take a minute to understand the potential consequences of the choice you are making.
