The New York Times recently reported on Tufts University's new admissions policy, which allows applicants to submit a short video via YouTube instead of or in addition to their optional written essays. You may already be aware of Tufts' characteristically quirky essay questions (one of the questions for 2009 to 2010, for example, asks "Kermit the Frog famously lamented 'It's not easy being green.'Do you agree?"). The Times article treated the new video essay as just another example of this tradition. What the article didn't do was explore the potentially harmful consequences of the video application.There's no immediate danger that video submissions will replace written essays as the primary medium of expression in college applications or elsewhere. The bulk of the application is still writing-based. And it is nice that Tufts is providing an alternative option for those applicants who don't consider writing their strongest means of self-expression. But I think there is a looming danger to Tufts admissions' consideration of video applications. It allows applicants to base their applications on personal charisma, and it potentially devalues academic strength and intellectual interest.

Most American universities consider a broad range of qualifications when considering an applicant. Extracurricular activities and personal essays are intended to give context to an applicant's grades and test scores-to put a face to the name. But the use of video may add too much color to an application. The facts inThe Times' article suggest that the admissions staff at Tufts is focusing on the wrong aspects of this technology. Tufts Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Lee Coffin said regarding the new video application, "You see their floppy hair and their messy bedrooms, and you get a sense of who they are."

This seems like a terrible standard of evaluation to me. Admission committees look at several areas of qualification when considering an applicant. Grades and test scores indicate whether a student is academically engaged, dedicated and able to "keep up" with peers. These are important because the university wants to maintain a certain intellectual standard in the classroom. Another consideration, which I discussed previously, is extracurricular interests. According to the Tufts Web site, "The admissions committee looks for ways a student may contribute to the community as a whole." And on its own site, Brandeis says, "When we look at your application, we do our best to understand how you will fit into the Brandeis community." Extracurriculars give admissions a sense of what kinds of activities an applicant will be involved in on campus. There is a good chance that the president of his high school's environmental action club is passionate about environmental activism and will want to continue this interest in college. Admitting passionate students significantly contributes to the environment on campus outside academics.

Though an applicant's academic and extracurricular record will likely correlate with his personality, even together they do not paint the complete picture of the applicant. Maybe I'm just missing the point here, but why should the University care about what kind of music I listen to or what my sense of humor is like? Maybe in some indirect way they might influence the campus community, but directly factoring in personality seems to be a bit much. Seeing an applicant's hair and bedroom may tell you about his attitude and mannerisms but is useless in explaining how he will contribute to the university. If anything, his "floppy hair" and "messy bedroom" tell me this applicant is irresponsible and neglectful of basic hygiene, which surely detracts from the campus environment.

Kidding aside, this kind of evaluation is at once both useless and dangerous. The admissions staff at Tufts seem to be caught up in the superficial elements of their applicants. The Times article also explained how the idea for the video application came to Coffin as he watched a video an applicant had sent in of his own volition. Coffin said, "I thought, 'If this kid applied to Tufts, I'd admit him in a minute, without anything else."' Is there any logic to this statement? I don't think so. Maybe Coffin didn't mean this literally, but it still seems like a poor attitude for a dean of admissions at a prestigious university. It is important that admission committees consider how each applicant will contribute to the atmosphere of the campus, but Tufts is first and foremost a school. Academics should be the main factor in this decision. I don't think an applicant with a sparkling personality but mediocre grades should ever outweigh an applicant with a lackluster personality and strong academic record. If admissions wanted to get a better since of who this applicant "really is," a 20 to 30 minute interview in person would be a much better indicator than a heavily edited one-minute YouTube clip. But mostly, they should care about how the applicant did in school and whether he had demonstrated passions. Hopefully the admissions staff at Brandeis is aware of this and does not adopt a similar system in the future.