<p>Well, there are countries that do a strict meritocracy. In China there's an entrance exam. And it's linear. Best score chooses where they want to go first of everyone in the country and on down the line. Only gaming is that you have to choose your first pick BEFORE you take the exam, so if you underestimate or overestimate your scores you may wind up either unable to be prioritized for any of your top choices OR getting your first choice that wasn't your real first choice but just what you thought was achievable.</p>
<p>And look at China. Now working hard to get their kids not to focus on test taking and memorization only. Working hard to understand and adopt the American spirit of creativity and resourcefulness. Hmm.</p>
<p>Perhaps we need a brainwave test. Or a blood test. Measures IQ and IQ only and then those kids with the top score get three seconds over the course of a week in priority order to push the button and choose their school. I image a huge web form, and merit aid offers as drop down menus:).</p>
<p>I think I'd prefer to stick with the holistic approach to admissions. I like variety. It does sound like some people support diversity, as long as it doesn't include the wealthy.</p>
<p>Ben G. Those are some big damn words for a little bitty humanities major like me:). So tell me how you can get something purely merit-based without a monofactorial system in place? Also, we as a nation are committed to making up for the sins of our past by giving preference to those we previously colonized or enslaved. Isn't that a good thing, better for humanity overall than purity in admissions at elite universities?</p>
<p>Let it be said I am not in favor of selling seats to the wealthy - although geez if they did that I guess I could guarantee an elite university for my son without having to go through the exasperating dialogue around why Magic Cards are not per se a productive activity and how it is that a high IQ and $1.00 is good for a candy bar.</p>
<p>But the theory of anything in the world is only as good as the possible methods of implementation.</p>
<p>My point exactly, Alumother. What some people don't understand is that the "extra" factors are absolutely merit factors. People who don't understand this either (1) are living with a very old admissions model (early '70's, when "affect on the community" or "contribution to the community," very, very loosely & suspiciously defined REPLACED academic achievement for admissions purposes -- certainly for some publics, & probably some privates; or (2) have no regard for any achievement outside the "strictly" intellectual realm. Like marite, I don't want to live in such an environment, nor would either of my daughters ever want to. </p>
<p>I love the Brave New World comments, btw.</p>
<p>And even more loved your comment, Dross, re Dick Cheney. And I'll throw this random thought out there, serving no purpose but to add to this last political angle: I learned yesterday that Karl Rove never graduated from college. Perhaps no surprise to some. Just thought I'd throw that out.:)</p>
<p>Ah. It shows that going to college--any college--is not necessary for success. Take that, Dale & Krueger. Psst. please don't tell any of the development prospects. They might decide to keep their millions to themselves. If only someone would donate $25 millions toward a student center, maybe Harvard students would stop complaining about the social scene.</p>
<p>...but back to Dross' comment. What is that great saying about the law in its ultimate sense of equality forbidding the sleeping under bridges to both the rich and poor alike?</p>
<p>"The law, in its majestic equality..." (etc.)</p>
<p>The competitive privates have discovered that:
(1) They can have it all -- sometimes within one candidate capable of upper-level intellectual analysis PLUS artistic performance, PLUS proven, consistent leadership within a community (as an example of one configuration within one applicant).
(2) Engineers profit from communicating with performing & visual artists, historians & scientists have a lot in common, and musicians & mathematicians compliment each other in learning modes. (Note that Carnegie Mellon especially appreciates the latter.)</p>
<p>The either/or cognitive model is inadequate, and so Yesterday. Both research & experience confirm that.</p>
<p>Thus, e.c.'s are directly linked to merit on the one hand, and to cognition on the other.</p>
<p>People who apply to HYP understand that, & that is why many of them, despite qualifying for & being accepted at CalTech & similar niche schools, choose a non-niche school. They choose the former for expanded intellectual opportunities, not reduced intellectual opportunities (necessarily).</p>
<p>But yeah, I'm all for people opening up their own schools with their own priorities. Sounds more constructive than trashing the admissions practices of well-performing schools which have different priorities & philosophies.</p>
<p>Time to drag out the old New Yorker cartoon of two "monopoly-like" old time tycoons in the billiards room of a New York exclusive men's club. Both have brandy snifters and cigars.</p>
<p>"What I'd like to know is, if we're so rich..........why aren't we smart? "</p>
<p>** Review of The Price of Admission in NYT**</p>
<p>
[quote]
While Golden mounts a fire-breathing, righteous attack on the culture of super-privilege, this is also a rather conventionally-minded view of education. He subscribes to the central assumptions about the Ivy League in America. The Ivies, he says, pave your way "into leadership positions in business and government" and "serve as the gateway to affluence and influence in America."
If this is true, it explains why the Ivy League would turn into a market place. How could it not, being of such value and limited supply? But the obvious solution, to make more colleges more equal, is not the case he is arguing. Golden wants some people--people like himself--to have access to elite universities.
This is his other central and unquestioned assumption: If you do well in high school and on your SAT's, then you are the best and the brightest and deserve to be among the elite.
The possibility that such performance might mean that you too are gaming the system doesn't get in the way of this book's indignation about the rich. that a top high school student may also be among the market's extreme and grotesque creations--i.e., an adolescent who accepts authority, willingly does absurd amounts of homework, is respectful of his or her college guidance counselor and is a dedicated standardized test-taker to boot--doesn't seem to occur to Golden. He's on the side of the upper-middle class grind and suck-up.