This very long thread seems to argue for GPA and test scores being the sole factors in college admissions, even if few say so literally or others say that they do not believe that at all (note: I am speaking about those who decry the consideration of one’s background in admissions). For instance, jzducol (2017) says that this is not true and posits that ECs could be considered but with racial information redacted (p. 52), but this is not practical. Moreover, the focus on race is oddly singular. Why just racial information? Why not redact all personal information that might give someone an edge in the application process? Pointing to the thread’s title is an evasion, not an answer, to the question, why just race?
The only way to bring about the perfect meritocracy that jzducol and others desire is to make GPA and test scores the sole determiners in college admissions, as these are only two elements that, arguably, do not reveal one’s personal background. I do not want this. Hardly anyone wants this.
If not, then the current holistic admissions process would have to become entirely “blind." Students’ names would have to be replaced with numbers (because one could glean not only gender, but perhaps cultural background, from a last name or even a first name). Gender would have to be eliminated (no men or women, just “people” as applicants). Letters of recommendation? Nope, not unless the recommender is given strict instructions to use gender-neutral pronouns and not reveal any details that could hint at race, culture, gender, religion, age, disability, marital status, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, and so on. Extracurriculars and community involvement? Nope. Same reason. Again, jzducol would say to let all this be submitted but redact any and all information that reveals race (why just race, again, puzzles me), but doing so would A) be a headache, B) please very few people except those like jzducol (who can send his child to Hillsdale if he so wishes), and C) produce a folder of admissions documents for each student that looks like an NSA file!
Oh: be careful what you wish for. Colleges want true diversity, but for some, diversity is mistakenly read as a liberal euphemism for “race” or “gender” or “sexual orientation." Colleges want truly diverse student bodies. Race is certainly part of that, but so is geographic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, cultural diversity, and diversity in terms of one’s family’s college-attending background. I know. All of this has already been raised, and, yes, I am aware in advance that I am not offering any new content and that I won’t convince a single conservative soul! But as an example, if an applicant is a straight white male from Wyoming, he’ll already be attractive as a candidate to a selective school based on geography alone. Add more hooks, such as that student being a first-generation college enrollee, or someone who writes an amazing essay about working on a ranch, and guess what? That applicant, even if his GPA is a “sub-par” 3.8, or his SAT scores are an “average” 2300, or has a “mediocre” ACT composite of 34, will become drool-worthy to admissions committees at many elite colleges. I doubt those who complain about unfair advantages given to URMs would complain about this hypothetical student, though I do not at all doubt that some—to save face and to double-down—would disingenuously suggest that, no, not even this student, even if it were his own son, should receive this “special” consideration. Uh-huh.
Some will say that I am folding in other issues (this thread is about race in college admissions, after all) that they have no problem with, such as giving some consideration to first-generation college students, or taking into account geographic diversity, or considering one’s holistic profile…but only if racial information is redacted! But why just racial information? Yes, the thread is titled “Race in College Admissions,” but that’s not an answer. Why should a first-gen receive “special” treatment? Why should a student from Idaho receive “special” treatment because she/he lives in one great American state over another? Isn’t that biased against those living in states more often represented on college campuses? I mean, what did the fine U.S. residents of NY, or MA, or CA do wrong to have the admissions process so work against them? Is it fair for their children to be penalized? Shouldn’t those who subscribe to the conservative ideal of equality for all reject all biases equally? Their obsession with just one bias–race–is disturbingly revealing. Pointing to the thread’s title, again, is an evasion, not an answer.
Thus, the only way to eliminate all special consideration—for URMs, women applying to STEM programs/schools, LGTBQ members, straight white men from Wyoming who can rope cattle, first-timers in the family who are going off to college, those clever and special-privilege-wanting residents of the Gem State!—is to reduce all to GPA and test scores. No one wants that. No one believes in that. Not even the meritocracy crowd. But there you have it. Sigh.