Les,
At first glance, the Lego Experiment looks crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "Lego kids" perform well, at least if the schools are serious about the other factors cited in the process, such as public speaking, leadership skills in groups, etc.
I was involved in an admissions committee at an extremely selective liberal arts college in the East. 10% of each incoming class was selected out of a pool of applicants who did NOT qualify for admissions by the school's usual criteria. Examples of deficiencies: low scores on one or both parts of the SAT test; lack of stated prerequisites in high school work; GPA below the norm; attendance at a less than stellar high school. Those ten percent were chosen because they proved to be outstanding in SOMETHING. Students were encouraged to submit art projects, essays, videotapes, etc.
Year after year, those 10% achieved higher success rates (as measured by graduation rates and GPA) at the university than the "qualified" 90%.
Not clear what the conclusion is. Perhaps any student who is superb at any one thing is capable of being outstanding at more than one thing. Perhaps the passion necessary to care deeply about one thing makes the student capable of transferring the passion to others. Unclear.
But one thing was clear. The two elements in the admission process that had the most direct correlation to success at that university? Grade point average in high school and a subjective evaluation of the applicant's essay. The 1600 SAT scorers often bombed out in college, particularly ones who had erratic grades in high school. Like some stocks, nonperforming students tend to remain nonperforming students.
I was shocked at how successful subjective rankings of students (based on autobiographical essays, handed-in projects, etc.) were, and any subjective ranking of students is open to abuse and discrimination. Admissions is a fascinating process and a serious one -- admissions committees in prestigious universities are gatekeepers to access and privilege. |
