<p>Variety is the spice of life! Colleges being multicultural are valuable places for these young adults to learn. Everyone on this planet has something positive to offer. Since colleges have so many personalities/cultures, it affords our children the luxury of interacting with many different people that they may otherwise have never have been in contact with. Readies them for the world, which is not all ONE gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.</p>
<p>@T26E4
With you all the way on post #10, still don’t get post #16 after about a hundred observed variations, although most of those from another frequent poster. This particular argument interests me because it is repeated so frequently, and makes so little sense to me, not because I want Cornell or some peer school to change its policy.</p>
<p>Why should complete agreement with admissions policy be a perquisite for a student to want to attend a given school?</p>
<p>I just don’t see this grand contradiction that you and others seem to find so self evident. In fact, to me, it seems to be an obvious false dichotomy to suggest that one should agree with an admission policy OR attend a different school. </p>
<p>Where is the connection between disagreeing with an admission policy and wanting to attend a school? A lot of golf fans disagree with the admission policy of Chicago Golf, yet they sure still would like to play the course (maybe Augusta National is a better example). The disagreement stems from not being allowed in (not from some inherent dislike of those who are let in)!</p>
<p>Why should someone who wants to study physics at Harvard care about the bottom 25% of his/her class? If it IS so relevant, then surely the bottom 25% of the class at a flagship should concern him/her, no? Surely he/she should be even more concerned about getting into prestigious school XYZ if the bottom portion, academically, of the class is so relevant, right?</p>
<p>Or better yet, why should he/she care what a sub-2000 SAT football player is doing in his major with virtually zero crossover with physics? Should he/she really run to the state flagship to study physics to avoid such a person? This is farcically illogical, and what results from setting up such false dichotomies.</p>
<p>Why do ambitious and accomplished HS kids want to attend these super selective schools? I say that in most cases, despite the expected and observed protestations of many parents and kids on CC, the answer is ‘to be associated with the brand’ of the college in question, and all the perceived direct and indirect benefits that go along with such.</p>
<p>These perceived benefits exist, observably, independent of admissions policy (else the brand wouldn’t be what it is and the school wouldn’t be CC complaint bait).</p>
<p>The faculty exists, observably, independent of admissions policy.</p>
<p>The facilities exist, observably, independent of admission policy.</p>
<p>And perhaps most importantly, the endowment, and what it represents (perpetuity of brand value), exists, observably, independent of admission policy.</p>
<p>Finally, again, while academic standouts can indeed be found anywhere, they will always be thickest at the high prestigiosity schools, if not independent of admissions policies, then at least despite them.</p>
<p>Since no reasonable person is still reading I will add a third conclusion without too much guilt. Admission is binary. Kids really only care about getting accepted. The more slots set aside for kids like themselves, the higher their chance of acceptance. They don’t mind being in class, on the quad, or in the club with <insert group="" here="">; they just don’t like their chances being reduced in any way. Is this wrong? I dunno, maybe, but it certainly isn’t illogical. In fact, if your primary goal is getting accepted (for whatever your personal reason), it is almost perfectly logical.</insert></p>
<p>Now, maybe we don’t think the primary goal of so many students should be just to be accepted. If so, I don’t see how we have any more right to judge the goals of these students than they themselves have the right to judge the admissions policies of these schools.</p>
<p>@YZamyatin You make some good points – esp about the binary nature of each individual’s sole concern for her/his own admit chances. My post #16 (I had to re-read it-- this is an old thread) speaks more to my idea that the group of “top schools” includes not only faculty, facilities and endowment, but a dynamic and diverse student body. Of these four, the last one is supremely affected by colleges’ admissions practices. I’d say faculty quality may also be affected by a school’s ability to bring in a certain, vibrant undergrad class – much tougher to quantify, I fully concede.</p>
<p>I assert that given the choice of two so-called “elite” colleges with perceived equality in faculty, facilities and endowment/resources – the sole differential being the ethnic, geographic, socio-economic and national mix of students, many students would choose the one that is more diverse. Certainly not all – but I’d say statistically significant. Personally, I would much rather attend UMich than UCB or Yale versus Stanford.</p>
<p>Ultimately you’re correct that the logical flow of my argument is not to just throw up one’s hands and say “apply elsewhere”. I will not be so strident arguing that point henceforth. However, I still stand by my point that intrinsic to the perceived “greatness” of many (not all) selective schools is the tremendous diversity (gained by conscious recruiting & admissions philosophies) – in the many ways “diversity” can be defined.</p>