"25 Years of the AO Admissions System" | Ken Kawasoe (Dean, Faculty of Policy Management)

2015.06.08

Last year at Open Research Forum 2014, I had the pleasure of having former Keio University President Yūichirō Anzai (President, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) participate in a session to discuss the future of Keio University and the ideals of a university. I heard his passionate thoughts on educational reform, and his words, "SFC's advantage will soon be gone," have stuck with me. Later, in December, the Central Council for Education released a report titled "On the Integrated Reform of High School Education, University Education, and University Entrance Examinations to Realize Articulation Between High School and University Appropriate for a New Era." As the subtitle suggests, it is an educational reform aimed at enabling all young people to cultivate their dreams and goals. It is a wonderful report, and it aligns with the educational philosophy that SFC has pursued for 25 years. In that sense, the loss of SFC's advantage should be a cause for great celebration. However, in the six months since then, I have become slightly concerned that the conversation has been dominated by admissions reform, such as the abolition of the National Center Test for University Admissions and the introduction of the "Common Test for University Admissions (tentative name)" and the so-called AO admissions, while discussions on the articulation between high school and university and the qualitative transformation of university education seem to have taken a backseat.

Since the report was released, I have had many opportunities to be interviewed about SFC's AO admissions. While I cannot speak in detail about the admissions process, I always emphasize the following point. Each university creates its curriculum based on its educational philosophy and selects students to be nurtured there. At SFC, our philosophy is problem-finding and problem-solving education, and we have created a curriculum centered on diverse and interdisciplinary active learning. In our AO admissions, we select individuals who understand this system, possess a strong sense of the issues, and have taken even one more step toward solving them. Therefore, the evaluation is a comprehensive assessment of each individual. When I explain this, the most common first question is, "How do you ensure fairness in the admissions process?" My answer is, "Rather than fairness based on scores, the important criterion is whether each faculty member would want the applicant as a student in their research seminar (zemi). After evaluating 5,000 applicants over 25 years, this standard remains firm." Questions inevitably tend to focus on the selection method, but I sometimes worry whether the true nature of AO admissions is understood. At SFC, we accept just under 25% of our students through AO admissions and have a curriculum and scholarship system in place to nurture their individuality. Above all, all faculty and staff share in the academic pursuits of our highly motivated students, including those admitted through AO, which creates diversity on campus. Without this kind of dynamic campus design, AO admissions would be meaningless. Simply changing a part of the existing admissions system to accept a small number of students through AO admissions is unlikely to produce the desired effect.

The situation where "SFC's advantage will soon be gone" still feels like a distant future. However, as a campus that leads educational reform and the world of education, we must constantly create new advantages. Everyone, let us aim to become a global campus that leads education worldwide.