<p>Very informative article on elite admissions with some interesting proposals:
The</a> Myth of American Meritocracy | The American Conservative</p>
<p>(Not sure if this has been posted before.)</p>
<p>It is pretty long, and perhaps many people may TL;DR after reading a few pages about how Unz believes that Asian students are underrepresented and Jewish students are overrepresented at elite colleges compared to their representation among National Merit Semifinalists. Later, he suggests that the opaque holistic admissions processes conceal considerable corruption and other undesirable practices that serve neither meritocracy nor diversity. Although (as a conservative) he favors meritocracy over diversity, he does recognize that pure meritocracy may induce more over-the-top tiger parenting.</p>
<p>What he wants to see in elite college admissions process is an inner and outer ring. For example, in a class of 1,600, admit an inner ring of 300 purely on academic merit (of course, people may still disagree on what this means), but admit an outer ring of 1,300 on random selection after setting a minimum bar based on ability to handle the academic rigor at the school. He says that the outer ring would serve diversity without the types of corruption he sees in current opaque holistic admissions processes, and allow non-tiger-child applicants a more reasonable chance at admission. He does say that schools may not all choose the same proportion of inner ring and outer ring admissions.</p>
<p>Of course, it is unlikely that any elite schools would do that, since what he sees as corruption is likely done in the self-interest of the schools (e.g. preferentially admitting legacies, big donors, etc. in hopes of attracting more donations).</p>