How do you measure curiosity? Or kindness? Is it even possible to do such a thing? And, if so, can it be done by an admissions office that reads more than 50,000 applications for undergraduate admission each year?
It seems improbable. Yet that is the task UNC-Chapel Hill sets for itself each fall as its admissions readers compare and weigh applications from hopeful candidates from across North Carolina and the country. (A record 73,192 applications were made for the entering 2024 class.) In addition to “curiosity” and “kindness,” Carolina also seeks students who demonstrate “intellect,” “talent,” “creativity,” “leadership,” “courage,” “honesty,” “perseverance,” “perspective,” and (of course) “diversity.”
These traits, and the university’s judgment of them, are inevitably subjective.These are undoubtedly laudable traits. Of course universities want creative and talented students. But is it more courageous to go skydiving or to speak up at your local town hall meeting in front of a huge (and possibly angry) audience? Is it kinder to volunteer at a soup kitchen or to tutor struggling students? How are students expected to convey their honesty?
These traits, and the university’s judgment of them, are inevitably subjective. A 2024 public-records request revealed that there are no standard metrics used to weigh these character traits across the admissions process.
On its admissions page, the university states,
Although we expect each successful candidate to demonstrate strength in many of these areas, we do not expect every candidate to be equally strong in all of them. Just as there is no formula for admission, there is no list of qualities or characteristics that every applicant must present.
This puts potential applicants in a bind. What experiences should they include or highlight in their essays? Is it more important to have a well-rounded character or to shine in one area? There’s no way to know.
This slipperiness also makes judgment harder for UNC’s admissions readers, some of whom are part-time or seasonal employees (although the Daily Tar Heel reports that their job is made somewhat easier by AI).
The solution for this problem is to increase objectivity in the admissions process. One way to do so, which the Martin Center has covered at length, is to reinstate the standardized-testing requirement for all undergraduate students. Doing so would give admissions readers an additional objective, apples-to-apples metric by which to compare students.
Standardized tests have many advantages. They are easily accessible—much more so than expensive extracurricular activities or sports. North Carolina law makes the ACT free for all public-school juniors in North Carolina. The content of tests is well-documented, making it easy for students to prepare. And, most importantly, test results are comparable across student populations.
“Holistic admissions” sounds nice. But, to anyone trying to navigate the process from the outside, it’s a black box: opaque, unpredictable, and confusing. As applications from both in-state and out-of-state students continue to grow, it’s more important than ever to reform the admissions process at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Jenna A. Robinson is president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
This article was originally published at www.jamesgmartin.center
