Launching Today 🥳: The IOC Writing Admissions Essay Course 🎓
From the curse of the blank-page-blinking cursor ➡️ a predictable process that will bring YOU to life on the page (+ a SCOTUS digest for my wonkier readers 👩🏻⚖️)
For those of you who are more interested in learning about a recent SCOTUS decision than the new IOC Writing admissions essay course, skip to the next section to read about Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Since the advent of selective school admissions, how many students have sat down about one week before their application deadline, opened a blank document, and stared at a blinking cursor before launching into a stream-of-consciousness outpouring of their hopes and dreams?
I bet you know the answer. Most.
Now, I’m actually all for a good stream-of-consciousness outpouring of hopes and dreams. BUT, if you’ve been following me for a while, you won’t be surprised that I see this sort of “brain dump” as step one of a substantial writing journey, not the endpoint itself.
To that point, I love this diagram of the now (rightfully!) trendy iterative design-thinking process:
In the case of writing:
Design = brain dump & outline
Plan = write a draft
Test = take a break, ask for advice, revise….
And, then, you repeat! For any significant writing project, an iterative process yields infinitely better results than a “one-and-done” writing session.
As I’ve been saying all along, not only should students write via an iterative process, but the most seasoned and successful writers do so, too. Looking no further than my own home…
I designed and revised a great many iterations of the IOC Writing admissions essay course over the past two months before today’s launch.
My statistical geneticist husband, Luke, thinks three months is the perfect amount of time to iteratively write & revise a six-page grant proposal 🤓 🧬 .
So, without giving too much of the “secret sauce” away 😉, here is a preview of the IOC Writing admissions essay course:
Course Summary:
The course centers around a widely-applicable philosophy and strategic process that can be used by applicants to secondary schools, undergraduate institutions, and graduate schools.
However, each student’s admissions-essay course will always be uniquely tailored to that student’s age, stage, skills, and goals.
Philosophy:
Be both authentic and strategic.
BTW, if you aren’t thinking of reading to the end, at least skim to the bottom to see how this principle pops back up re: the SCOTUS decision…
Envision the admissions officers’ perspectives and goals.
Tell a specific, vivid, and compelling story to convey a broader message.
Process:
The IOC Admissions Essay Course involves seven individual steps to take the student from the “stream-of-consciousness outpouring of hopes & dreams” phase to a polished essay that embodies the above philosophy. And, my seasoned followers won’t be surprised to learn that “Step Seven: Revision” includes its own seven essential sub-steps 😉.
Integral to the IOC Writing admissions essay course are:
A series of distinct writing sessions, ideally spaced out generously over several weeks, so that students can “let their ideas rest” between each step. We all can critique our own work more effectively after a break between writing and revision.
The opportunity to consult with an experienced writing teacher while completing each step. How many of us have felt our stomachs drop out after working tirelessly on a project without seeking feedback, only to have our teacher or boss send us back to the beginning when we thought we had finished? Not a good feeling.
Course parameters:
A ten-session course will allow a student to comfortably proceed through the steps of the IOC Writing admissions essay curriculum with ample opportunity for 1:1 feedback.
Ideally, this course would be spaced over five to ten weeks such that the student can repeatedly approach their work with fresh eyes.
Ready to learn more?
Head to iocwriting.com to learn more about the IOC Writing admissions essay course, or fill out this inquiry form in order to request a free video consultation. I can’t wait to help you or your loved one transform hopes and dreams into an authentic, strategic, and persuasive admissions essay.
Isabel’s brief + basic adventure into the historical context of SCOTUS’s recent decision re: Affirmative Action
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
(Not to be pedantic, but for the sake of clarity: affirmative action is the colloquial term for the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions, in particular referring to policies that seek to increase admission of students who identify as members of traditionally under-represented racial groups.)
A brief synopsis of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
The legal advocacy group, “Students for Fair Admissions,” contended that both Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s race-based admissions policies violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In particular, SFFA argued that these (and, implicitly, other) highly selective colleges unfairly discriminate against students of Asian descent by rejecting many of these highly-qualified students while admitting students of other racial identities who have less impressive qualifications.
Havard and UNC argued that their policies followed decades of legal precedent in how race may be legally used in admissions decisions.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled on the side of SFFA.
For those of you who are interested in reading (or…ahem…skimming…) the full opinion, here is the PDF.
For those who are looking for more detailed analyses of this case, here are a few resources:
NYT SCOTUS correspondent Adam Liptak’s original report on the decision
An interview with Liptak on the NYT podcast, “The Daily” (27 minutes)
A collection of NYT opinion articles entitled, “How to Fix College Admissions Now”
Isabel’s Brief and Basic Legal History of Affirmative Action
For those who are interested in my observations about the historical context of the case, here you go…
Now, in case you are wondering why I think I can write anything about SCOTUS decisions, my favorite graduate school course (for my M.Ed. in Educational Leadership at Boston College) was “Education Law and Public Policy,” a law-school course for which I cross-registered.
One unit of the course focused on the legal history of race in American education, covering the path to Brown v. Board of Education and the series of SCOTUS decisions about affirmative action between 1978 and 2016.
In reading the affirmative action case history, what I found most interesting was that, from the beginning, these SCOTUS cases asserted that the use of race in admissions decisions could NOT be justified through a desire to right historical wrongs (i.e. the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow) but instead could only be justified as a means of admitting students with diverse perspectives and past experiences, as such diversity would enhance the educational experience of all students. Here are the two key cases that established this doctrine:
University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) struck down a racial quota system; however, in the majority opinion, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., stated that efforts toward “the attainment of a diverse student body […] clearly [are…] constitutionally permissible.”
Grutter v. Bollinger, et. all (2003) built on the court’s holding in Bakke, continuing to assert that affirmative action was only permissible if its goal was to create diversity on campus.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that: “[T]o be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot [use a quota system]. Instead, it may consider race or ethnicity only as a “plus” in a particular applicant's file.”
More famously, O’Connor also wrote: “[R]ace-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. […] The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” In other words, O’Connor’s opinion was that there would be no need to use affirmative action in order to achieve diversity on campus by 2028. (And I’ll leave it to my readers to reflect on whether she was correct or not…)
Between Grutter and today, one other affirmative action case has reached the Supreme Court, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al. Edward Blum, a prominent legal activist who played a key role in the SFFA case, also led the charge in Fisher; however, Fisher did not lead to the overturning of affirmative action. Instead, the court found that UT Austin’s policies were, in fact, lawful.
So why am I going through all this legal history?
As we consider last month’s ruling, it is important to note that the overturned legal precedent was that using race as a factor in admissions decisions is often necessary to achieve diversity on campus (again, I’m going to let my readers reflect on whether you agree with that argument…)
In other words, the 6/29 SCOTUS decision says: Colleges and universities can meet their diversity goals through other means than explicitly using race as a factor in admissions decisions.
However, I think it’s interesting to realize that the recent decision does NOT say that:
Diversity on campus is unimportant
Underrepresentation of certain racial groups is unrelated to the legacy of historical wrongs
Finally, in my role as an admissions-essay mentor, I think it is MOST interesting that Chief Justice Roberts did end the majority opinion with this caveat:
“At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. […] But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. […] A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”
And so, again: “Be both authentic and strategic.”
To me, Roberts’ final caveat suggests an opportunity for ALL applicants, regardless of racial identity.
Roberts knows that colleges and universities will continue to strive to create diversity on campus, for the same reason that has justified affirmative action since 1978: the more diverse a student body, the better the educational outcomes for ALL students. And, of course, “diversity” is not limited to racial diversity alone; it encompasses diversity in ALL aspects of identity as well as diversity in perspectives, experiences, personalities, skills, and interests.
Thus, I encourage all applicants to all schools to think to themselves…what can I bring that will increase the variety in identities, perspectives, and interests on campus?
If that’s racial diversity, and you can authentically articulate how your racial experience has shaped your character and will help you contribute to your future school, by all means, say so!
And, if any other aspect of your identity, perspective, experience, personality, skills, and interests sets you apart, it will be strategic to say so, too.
Interested in continuing the conversation with Isabel?
Head to iocwriting.com to learn more about the IOC Writing admissions essay course, or fill out our inquiry form in order to request a free video consultation. I can’t wait to help you or your loved one transform their hopes and dreams into an authentic, strategic, and persuasive admissions essay.