Is admissions a meritocracy

<p>monstor344 wrote: </p>

<p>“That’s all fine and dandy except that those with the highest merit qualifications should be subjected to the highest education. Just because a brilliant student isn’t involved with years of community service and a gajillion clubs doesn’t mean that they should receive an inferior education.”</p>

<p>You miss the point of my post. What I’m saying is that the few colleges that examine holistic features — they didn’t crown themselves the “elites” or the “most prestigious”. They decided long ago to craft their colleges how they saw fit (i.e. holistic and not completely merit-based admissions). </p>

<p>How did society (the general population, hiring managers, federal grant offers) reply? They said AHA! They’ve got it right! And single digit USNWR rankings ensued. Fictional characters have HYP degrees to confer them an aura of greatness and tons of teen television shows have kids attending or chasing after these “elites”.</p>

<p>Who is to blame for that? The very reason you WANT to attend one of those “top” schools is, according to my theory, DUE in large measure their admissions policies.</p>

<p>You can’t then, in the same breath, turn around and assail them for “denying” the “most qualified (metrically)” slots in their colleges.</p>

<p>That’s what I mean by: “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”</p>

<p>This post is terrible and only proves you have no idea what you are talking about.</p>

<p>

They were the first colleges founded in the United States. The reason that they have remained prestigious and powerful is that the children of the upper class and most powerful people in America went to these colleges. And I assure you, they were not exactly meritocratic then . Why do you think the same families continued to be accepted?

Nonsensical. They were already considered the best colleges. The reason they went to a more “holistic” review process was to limit the number of Jews they admitted. Jews back then were much like Asians today- over performing and the Anti Semitic WASP culture was even less harder on model minority groups. </p>

<p>

Your theory is based on ignorance.</p>

<p>

Really? How is it that colleges in Asian employ a meritocratic system and remain prestigious? Can you epxlain it to me?</p>

<p>lol didn’t realize someone else posted the same thing while i was writing mine ^^ =p</p>

<p>I don’t think that the high ranking and perception associated with ivies has much to do with their holistic admissions, rather their age and wealth. As some of the first universities in the U.S, the ivies + some other “elite” colleges were the only options for the educated. These educated then have families which then carried on a tradition of legacy and wealth. If anything these universities happened to be at the right place at the right time and have become a self-fulfilled prophecy: since people associate prestige with age and wealth, these universities get the best and accordingly become the best.</p>

<p>On another note, USNWR doesn’t care about holistic admissions policies; if you look at their criteria, it’s based on pure numbers, not diversity of interests or students.</p>

<p>What about trends, are the colleges in this nation becoming more meritrocatic
than they used to be?</p>

<p>Does a single non-merit admittance in a single year imply a lack of
meritrocracy, is it a cumulative % over the last 3 years …?</p>

<p>I am constantly humbled by my peers at college when it comes to their
athletic standing or immersion in social activism and service. Are these
individuals less meritorious than me? I do not believe so! </p>

<p>The basis of what might constitutes a higher "merit standing " seems
quite debatable?</p>

<p>^^^ Perhaps, but there are many flaws in the current system. Is it really meritocratic for a rich black kid who went to some amazing high school to get into HYP with a low sat score when a poor white with the same numbers would be laughed at? Is it fair that Asians have to do better than any other group because they are over represented? No, of course not. The system needs to be fixed.</p>

<p>Who ever said it was a meritocracy?</p>

<p>Show me one admissions web site that says applicants are considered strictly on their academic merits.</p>

<p>No college or university in the world will make that statement. If they did they’d then have to list their exact criteria and would be constrained by it for fear that an applicant would sue them for not faithfully adhering to that criteria, (no matter how socially inept or morally bankrupt that applicant might otherwise be). Without subjective input - community service, ECs - there would be no point in having admissions departments. As in the UK your future would be decided by your “A”-levels (here our SATs) and we’d be done with the college search problem as well. Hardly the American Dream.</p>

<p>Colleges and Universities are businesses, non-profit ones, but still businesses. As a result they have every reason to want to continue to control who becomes a member of their particular “company”. I have no problem with legacies, star quarterbacks or celebrity kids or any other criteria they want to impose. Legacies, athletes and celebrities bring attention and cash; put another way, it’s good business. </p>

<p>Meritocracy? Sure it is! If you apply and they accept you, you merit attendance.</p>

<p>

i disagree with you. I think that the best and those ho worked the hardest winning out is the definition of the American dream. You seem to think a system in which the elite upper class and their token URM dominate the system is the best way for things to be run. Personally, I think that a system which is more fair is superior because peoples lives turn on which schools they are admitted to. I also disagree that a university should be run as a business.</p>

<p>Maybe the UK is too strict , but our system is too lax. I will say this, if universities are businesses I don’t think they have to worry about hurting themselves by going to a more merit based system. It doesn’t seem to have hurt Oxbridge.</p>

<p>kilbilly, some may argue that merit is about placement within a category not
about being fair across categories? </p>

<p>Merit should be about rising to the top within a framework. There
were possibly better applicants within the frameworks you
mentioned (white/asian/etc) and possibly no better applicants
in the URM category you mentioned.</p>

<p>:) I can see galactic-CC posters arguing about this
300 years from now…

</p>

<p>Added: I though Prince Charles was on par with the zingers as much as our
own big W :D? Two meritrocrats, hmmm…</p>

<p>

Sometimes the way we divide people into categories is itself unfair. The example I gave of the poor white kid is a good example of this. I went to a terrible high school in a rural part of the United States, and the only reason I attend a decent college is that I am something of auto didactic. My county school system did not teach grammar in either grade school or high school…If that gives you any indication of how bad it was. People who went to those high schools should not be compared to some prep from the upper east side, and they certainly should not be at a disadvantage when competing against a rich black or hispanic kid with the same test scores and grades. </p>

<p>

So what?I can’t see why this is important.</p>

<p>Well, any evidence I could bring you in favor of or against the point of view that “top” colleges provide a better education would be anecdotal or based on a series of subreasons you might not agree with (i.e. top colleges are better because students there have higher SAT scores, not applicable if you don’t believe the SAT is an intelligence test). I could also give you an interesting anecdote, I’ve sat in at classes at two private universities and watched lots of lectures from MIT at ocw.mit.edu, all of them I’d say had professors who actually TAUGHT their students, and the teaching appeared to be at a higher caliber at the two higher ranked schools. My APES teacher from last year went to Rutgers University, he said on the first day of one class the professor handed out textbooks and said “See you for the final.”</p>

<p>Of course, all of this proves nothing, as long as one can point out some top college that has ****ty professors or some public one that has excellent professors. But I would like to answer the question about college admissions being a meritocracy.</p>

<p>Clearly, merit is a factor in college admissions. But the fact is there are other factors which may or may not play a larger role. Imagine yourself in the shoes of a college admissions officer at a place like Cornell or Rensselaer or Dartmouth or Princeton. The fact is, your college represents perhaps as much as a third of the local community, it’s hard to argue that it’s a good idea to make decisions SOLELY based on academic merit to build a town. And clearly, there are people who have stakes in this game besides you. The football team wants people who can pass a football, the research centers want undergraduates to do their computations, the alumni want to see you win games, the music department needs a new chello-player, whatever.</p>

<p>The root cause of a big part of this problem is the fact that there are more qualified applicants than spots. This is why we have early decision, there’s really no objective test of how many students are going to matriculate out of this year’s admitted class except for looking at the previous year. This is one of the chief reasons why students who apply ED or write in their essay that this school is their top choice and clearly know a lot about the place are more likely to be admitted. As nice as it is for a college to admit tons of valedictorians and super-smart people, a lot of colleges just know they’ll enroll elsewhere anyway. So here it’s clearly not a meritocracy at least on the small scale, lots of students will be admitted at the high end the college just doesn’t expect to enroll, but when it comes down to say two applicants, one of whom is slightly more qualified but probably doesn’t want to go to the college anyway, they go with the other kid.</p>

<p>"Is it really meritocratic for a rich black kid who went to some amazing high school to get into HYP with a low sat score "</p>

<p>Does anybody have an “n” for this group ( Black kids with a less than 2100 SAT/ and 4.0 GPA at a top 100 High School, making more than $100k, and attending a top 25 colllege ? I’m guessing 1000/year or way less. IF there are 1000 kids like this, the SAME ones get courted at the same schools). Why do “we” spend so much time deriding this group? How much of a negative impact do they have, in the big picture?</p>

<p>I agree, it’s the same with the issue that Ivy league colleges are populated by the children of US Senators and other super-wealthy people. You’d be surprised how few multi-billionaires and government officials there are who have enough sway to get someone admitted to college.</p>

<p>Quote:
Senior Member</p>

<p>Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,721</p>

<p>

Amen.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you really arguing that a student at a public state school will be presented with all of the same job offers and business internships as a student from Wharton, given that they both perform at a similar level academically?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The holistic admissions process is a mixed bag, even in my book. It certainly has its merits, as it offers benefits to those who are disadvantaged. But extracurricular activities performed outside of the academic scope reflect little of a person’s capacity or capabilities.</p>

<p>I would not be arguing the holistic process if there was a wider range of elite institutions in the US with very similar opportunities across the board. I also would probably be less inclined to argue against the holistic process if there didn’t exist the hierarchical belief that Ivy League institutions are superior, academically, to public schools and other private institutions. Top universities have shifted to holistic admissions for the fine purpose of diversifying their student bodies and igniting their communities, but until the SOCIAL imbalance between the very top and the semi-top colleges disappear (the main culprits range from USNews rankings to the media and to employers), some elements of the holistic process should not exist.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>These rich black kids that go to a top school and get into HYP with low SAT scores are largely imagined.</p>

<p>Before SAT stopped posting scores by race, the records showed that roughly 700 black students per year that scored a 1400/1600 or higher a year. About 300 black students enroll at HYP each year. No doubt many of the top students find themselves at HYP. The admissions gap is LOWEST at HYP, hence the nearly identical graduation rates across ethnicities. Affirmative Action is practiced most heavily outside of the top 10 universities, top 5 liberal arts college.</p>

<p>No, but you need to start with the definitions. What is merit? </p>

<p>Several people have commented on the obvious: Filling perhaps half the class with athletes, legacies, a subset of minorities, celebrity kids, and the kids of the extremely wealthy is hard to square with the definition of meritocracy, though maybe there is some definition that gets you there. I have friends whose kids were pretty good but not great students at good private schools with good but not great SAT scores who have gotten in to HYP because their fathers were alumni/professors/celebrities. I can tell a story about why accepting disadvantaged kids with lower scores but obvious potential is meritocratic but I have a much harder time with the decent but non-spectacularly performing kid of the super-wealthy father.</p>

<p>The competition for the other spots is vicious. Even in this group, it would be hard to describe the selection mechanism as purely meritocratic. We’ve got geographic distribution requirements, which were originally designed to prevent all of the urban Jews from filling HYP’s classes because they had higher grades and board scores (i.e., inherently anti-meritocratic), unless you can define being from Montana as an element of merit. We’ve got ECs of various kinds (which may be correlated with merit, but who knows exactly how). </p>

<p>With that all said, the intense competition for the unanointed half is pretty close to meritocratic. The world is sending fabulous applicants to the top schools and they are using some peculiar mechanisms like geographic distribution requirements to choose almost randomly among basically superb kids.</p>

<p>My suspicion is that if schools were choosing solely on ability to excel academically, the composition of the class would be somewhat different (more Asians, more Jews, fewer kids from certain states, fewer kids of the ultra-wealthy, fewer celebrity kids, many fewer athletes, etc.)</p>

<p>Private schools admit those they want the most, and have somewhat differing criteria determining whom they want. So it’s not a meritocracy, thought there will be strong correlation to test scores and GPA.</p>

<p>Public schools admitting by formulas come closer to meritocracy.</p>

<p>Legacies, minorities, wealth admits, celebrity kids, faculty kids, athletes, and kids from feeder schools make up quite a bit more of HYP than 50%. </p>

<p>The elite schools aren’t meritocratic. And haven’t been for a very long time. Once we acknowledge that reality we an get over the unfairness of it all.</p>

<p>Institutions in our society, such as private universities, have to pay lip service to “merit” and maintain a figleaf or illusion of egalitarianism. If the mass of the population realized how much the deck is stacked against them, there would be widespread social unreast and disorder.</p>

<p>In defense of our system, it has provided a high level of prosperity for most of our population for much of our history. This is changeing as the socioeconomic classes become more stratified. Why are workers’ wages and benefits moving toward third world levels while CEO and top executive compensation is much, much higher than in other industrialized nations?</p>

<p>When one actually spends time on Ivy League campuses, and in a variety of subsets of populations within those campuses, and compares notes with others who have done the same, you begin to get a much more accurate picture of just how talented & meritocratic (overall) these student bodies are, and how exaggerated are the assumptions of special-but-nonmeritorious admits. More often than not, the typical student there could have been admitted on any stand-alone element of merit. (Thus, the legacy who is also musically talented & a gifted intellect; the sports recruit who is also an accomplished studio artist & who won departmental academic honors at graduation; the minority who earned a strictly meritorious University-wide honor at graduation against unquestionably difficult to beat competition.)</p>

<p>Reports of mediocrity in the Ivy League are greatly exaggerated.</p>

<p>Is it “pure”? Depends on your definition of pure, but if by pure you mean 100% meritorious, then no, it’s not 100%. But it’s damn close. I agree with oldfort that they choose whom they want, but boy, what choices they have.</p>