<p>quote:</p>
<p>"After spending most of the book roundly criticizing the admissions practices of many of the nation's most prestigious colleges, Golden turns to what he considers a model institution: The California Institute of Technology. Unlike other leading colleges, Caltech does not allow the prerogatives of privilege -- whether wealth, fame or legacy status -- to affect who gets in. In stark contrast to other top institutions, Caltech believes that it is possible to raise the funds necessary to maintain a great university without using admission as a bribe, and its own distinguished history supports that belief."</p>
<p>For those of us struggling to promote pure meritocracy in our own institutions, Caltech will always be a benchmark of academic integrity.</p>
<p>Every time I hear that non-academic characteristics matter (whether non-scholastic ec's or athletics) I challenge my colleagues to show me studies that those characteristics used by schools really DO pick out the successful students -- as opposed to the merely well-connected. </p>
<p>I urge them to use any criteria they wish, but ruthlessly, systematically, and without regard to social or geographical balance. I usually get a lot of mumbling and the usual adcom speak about "All of our students are well-qualified." I always ask why such considerations are so unimportant for grad school or for hiring faculty if they matter so much for the undergrads. I'm always told, "Don't rock the boat."</p>
<p>As an economist I say, If the school benefits so greatly from rich kids, we should take a few every year and just give them straight A's. After all, others benefit and the degree is debased enough as it is. [sarcasm off]</p>
<p>I'm only glad that my current school's rep has risen enough that the bottom tail is smaller and more qualified than ever.</p>