Elite universities have done the impossible. They’ve made their admissions system even worse.
Eight universities, including the University of Chicago, Columbia, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt, will begin accepting “dialogues” portfolios from applicants this fall. “Dialogues” is a program led by Sal Khan of Khan Academy fame. (RELATED: Trump Quashes Elite University’s Endless Summer Vacation)
“High-schoolers will log into a Zoom call with other students and a peer tutor, debate topics like immigration or Israel-Palestine, and rate one another on traits like empathy, curiosity or kindness,” writes Alex Bronzini-Vender for The New York Times (NYT). Bronzini-Vender is a sophomore at Harvard University.
“The more sessions you attend, and the more that your fellow participants recognize your virtues, the better you do,” he wrote.
This is basically affirmative action for boring people. https://t.co/4SxR3PpJ5e
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 17, 2025
Suspend your disbelief. Pretend this screening method will work exactly as intended. High-schoolers log on, express their earnest opinions and rate each other with total honesty.
Who passes this filter?
Charisma would help. So, too, might attractiveness. But the dominant quality that “dialogues” selects for is sensitivity to, and capitulation to, popular opinion.
The dogged pursuit of truth is often a hindrance to social ease. Take immigration policy. Even if a student communicates his support for mass deportation in an entirely respectful manner, he is likely to receive poor marks from a liberal interlocutor.
Students are well aware of this fact. That’s why, as Bronzini-Vender notes, “the emerging consensus in the application-prep industry is that it’s best to avoid politics entirely.” He cites college admissions consultant Caroline Koppelman: “We strongly advise leaning away from anything incredibly controversial that might make an admissions officer uncomfortable.”
After admonishing students inclined to write “about something like how hard it is to be a straight white guy these days,” Koppelman offers this guidance.
Elite universities are going to start using peer-scored civility ratings for admissions?!
Sorry, that’s a terrible idea. Why not just admit people based on their scores and then teach them to debate and dialogue?
You don’t need to go full CCP to solve this problem. https://t.co/nuPhtdwEMS pic.twitter.com/vBnRkCbudU
— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) July 16, 2025
“Remember,” she says, “the goal here is to be widely likeable.”
For hopeful applicants, this is sound advice. For universities, this sentiment should set off alarm bells. Wide-eyed consultants are already schlepping out tiktoks instructing students how to appear sufficiently empathetic. (RELATED: College Students Literally Can’t Read Or Write Anymore, Apparently)
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. The admissions process, as it currently stands, favors two groups of applicants. Those who uncritically adopt group consensus, and those who are decently good at faking it. Being “queer” or “latinx” seems to help, too.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC
