This week's Chronicle of Higher Education offers a special section examining college admissions. One essay is rather peculiar. In it, the author, a Swarthmore psychology professor, suggests that elite colleges should randomly select "qualified" applicants to fill their classes. Here's an excerpt:

There is a simple step that selective institutions can take that will sharply reduce competition and thus change the distorted adolescence that many of our most talented students now experience. All that is required is this: When Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Swarthmore get their applications, they can scrutinize them---using the same high standards they currently use---and identify students good enough to be admitted. Let's assume that would cut the pool by half or two-thirds. Then the names of all the "good enough" applicants could be placed in a metaphorical hat, and the "winners" drawn at random. While high-school students might have to distort their lives to be the "best" to gain admission to Harvard, they won't have to distort their lives nearly so much to be "good enough." The only reason that would remain for participating in all those enrichment programs and attending high-powered pre-schools would be interest, not competitive advantage.Crazy? Maybe. Remotely possible? No way. As the author concedes, this would work only if all (or most) selective institutions agreed to adopt the system. But colleges don't seem to concur on much when it comes to admissions; witness the early decision (or early action) variances. Critics also cite the troubling message this approach would send to students: Just be "good enough" and let luck be your angel.

While I applaud efforts to reduce admissions angst and to quell the obsession with getting into the "right" colleges, we shouldn't let the luck of the draw determine where students go. To be certain, most admissions decisions hinge on good fortune to some extent, but we're far from pulling names out of a hat.

Then again, maybe colleges should choose professors that way.