A few admissions officials have said privately that they were troubled by the documents tone, rendering of how the process works, and characterization of todays applicants. "Its a crusade to attack the ills of humanity," said one admissions dean, "and this dastardly idea that students would be self-focused."The report offers some good ideas, but also "untenable" recommendations, said Richard H. Shaw, dean of undergraduate admission and financial aid at Stanford University. "This manifesto is too broad, too general, and frankly too critical and in a way [that] assumes the worst about young people," he wrote in an email. "This is also true about the intent of the college-selection process." After reviewing the document, a committee of faculty members and students that advises the admissions office at Stanford unanimously decided not to endorse it.In principle, the message is fine, said Gregory W. Roberts, dean of admissions at the University of Virginia: Character is important, and too much stress is bad. Thats why he signed on. But like several other deans interviewed for this article, he shared a more optimistic view of applicants. "Frankly, the students I see are accepting of others," he said, "interested in making the world a better place."The suggestion that colleges dont care much about ethical development also bothered some admissions officials, even a few who endorsed the campaign. Admissions officers often try to glean insights into a students character, they say, from letters of recommendations, essays, and interviews. Many selective institutions conduct "holistic" reviews of applicants that take their unique backgrounds and circumstances into account.Beyond that, how far could or should any admissions office peer into the hearts of 17-year-olds, who are as-yet-unfinished products, still growing, perhaps fumbling for their own moral compass? Does the reports recipe for "more generous and humane" youth, for assessments of "whether students are kind, generous, honest, fair, and attuned to those who are struggling in their daily lives," exceed the purview of admissions officers? Those who answer one way might find the report illuminating and uplifting or another way, unrealistic and heavy-handed.Given how the "business" of higher education has shaped enrollment practices, the campaign offers colleges an opportunity to examine what they do, said Michael Beseda, vice president for enrollment and university communications at Willamette University. "Is it wildly or mildly idealistic yes," he wrote in an email to The Chronicle. "Is it social engineering gone awry heavens, the college-admission process is by nature political, and any choice we make reinforces, supports, or reflects a political scheme of some type, is social engineering from some perspective."Mr. Beseda signed on, too. The university had already planned to add a new question to its application next fall. "At Willamette, our motto Non nobis solum nati sumus: Not unto ourselves alone are we born animates our campus and inspires our graduates. With the benefits of a rigorous liberal-arts education, Willamette Bearcats seek to apply what they have learned for the well-being of others. Can we count you with us? How do you hope to do good in the world?"Extreme Self-ConsciousnessWhether changes in an application can make