The thesis of Jennifer Breheny Wallace’s book “Never Enough: When Achievement Culture Becomes Toxic — and What We Can Do About It” really resonates with me.
She recognizes that today’s socioeconomic conditions, not just bumper sticker envy, drive parents’ fears about their kids’ success. However, most of the families immersed in achievement-related stress–and its severe mental health consequences–are in the top 25% of household incomes. I encourage you to read it–here’s an excerpt (with my edits for length and emphasis) from an interview Wallace did in September.
“...achievement becomes toxic when we tangle up our entire sense of self and value with our achievements. When you have to achieve in order to matter. That …pressure is felt by students today…from parents who just want what’s best for their kids; from teachers who are under their own pressures to hit certain standards; and schools both public and private that are under their own pressures to perform.
GAZETTE: What do children, particularly adolescents, need most from their parents?
BREHENY WALLACE: In my research, I sought out the “healthy strivers,” the students who were able to achieve success in healthy ways…these kids felt a deep sense of mattering. They felt deeply valued for who they were by their family, by their friends, and by their community separate from their external achievements.” This means they enhanced the lives of others.
“The kids who were struggling the most felt like their mattering was contingent on their performance; that their parents only valued or cared about them when they were performing. Or, for other kids who weren’t doing well, they heard those messages from their parents, but they were never expected to add value back to anyone other than themselves...”
For parents, I’d focus on a phrase from Suniya Luthar, the resilience researcher: “Minimize criticism. Prioritize affection.” Find ways to let your kids know that they matter, separate from their achievements.”
Now, we have a new digital, adaptive SAT. There is a great deal of information about it at this link from Compass https://www.compassprep.com/digital_sat/ and in my students' standardized testing file in the Less College Stress system. I hope that students find this new test comfortable to take, but everyone should try it out to see if they prefer using pencil and paper vs. testing on the computer. (That hadn't occurred to me, but I heard it from two students.) I can always provide free practice tests for my students; they receive diagnostic results back that show their strong areas and where they may need extra help.
The ACT is unchanged--for now. I still encourage all students to test, helping them understand that their test scores may be helpful at some colleges and not at others. We pick and choose where it's beneficial to submit them based on data and information I've gotten from admissions offices.
Fortunately, roughly 80% of colleges are officially test optional. Despite this, test scores remain a factor in admissions at most highly selective universities. Admissions officers report that there is a decrease in the importance of test scores overall and expect this trend to continue (though an excellent test score still makes a difference).
However, without standardized test scores as a metric for evaluation, highly selective colleges must focus more on an applicant’s academic accomplishment (choosing the highest rigor and earning A's), intellectual curiosity, and commitment to social good.
*A survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) noted that competitive colleges “have many applicants with similarly high grades and test scores, and therefore tend to consider a broader range of factors, including positive character traits and a commitment to improving their communities.”
Colleges are eager to admit students who engage in activities that show a commitment to the common good. Looking for ways to serve others that resonate with you? Ask me for ideas.
One of my students in California has a classmate applying to 34 colleges. A New York city girl told me about a friend with 28 schools on her list. This year, I watched a list grow from 12 to 17 colleges and another from 16 to 24. What’s going on?
Before the 2020 pandemic, I offered one Standard package for up to 12 colleges. That year’s economic downturn motivated me to add a Limited Package of up to 8 colleges; spending less and applying to fewer colleges made sense for many families.
Then the test optional admissions policies driven by the pandemic (it was impossible to test) required adding a PLUS package of up to 16 colleges. Many students began to gamble, figuring “why not try?” It is my job to help them, but to be honest as well.
College enrollment managers are gambling-averse strategists, focusing on yield. The institutions that easily fill their classes ten times with full pay students responded to the admissions deluge by issuing more deferrals each year. Students and families responded with anger and frustration. Applying became more stressful as decisions grew more unpredictable. I stopped using the term “target” (based on GPA and test score matching) because students were outraged about “targets” deferring them. “Possible” became a more precise alternative.
Some admissions deans told us to expect fewer deferrals and more outright denials this year. Students would know where they stand, rather than live in hope. It certainly simplifies the process for colleges. Let’s see.
A smart, balanced list of 5 to 12 (or 16) likely, possible, and reach colleges still makes sense. Gambling ratchets up stress because extra colleges are generally “unlikelies.” Too often, those 17th through 25th colleges simply tempt with “prestige,” and are “unlikelies” for every applicant, including valedictorians, competition winners, and published researchers.
While I wish that all my students are admitted to every college they'd be happy to attend, that’s based on my knowledge of the best fit. I wish them (and their families) the wisdom to believe that they drive their success–not the bumper sticker.