<p>
</p>
<p>So you view that only people who are going to help others should be educated? That is a very radical sentiment. One of the foundations of America is that you can “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” While a growing economy is a tide that pushes everyone up, the pursuit of selfish aims is nonetheless very well ingrained into a consumerist capitalist economy!</p>
<p>ee33ee:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t worry about it… I love philosophy :D. However, I would appreciate it if people who want to discuss free will and the concept of deserving would BOTH do that AND respond to the actual question I asked, under the presumption that free will and deserving exist. Thanks.</p>
<p>mydixiewrecked:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I definitely understand where you’re coming from. On the other hand, as one of the people who will likely apply to a bunch of places, I want to be sure that I can go SOMEWHERE I like in the event that I don’t get into the places that I really love. It really is a predicament, because if everyone applies everywhere, the same tiny group will get in everywhere and most people will be left out in the cold.</p>
<p>The question is inherently flawed. </p>
<p>There are no universally best schools. There are best schools for each individual, but this is like saying, “who deserves to get the best wives/husbands”? What is best for one student is often not the best the other. Let’s take a brilliant student A. The most prestigious school he can get into may not be the best thing for him, especially if students end up being cutthroat, the number of places in his desired programme are limited and so forth. It may so end up that a state school has less prestige but yet is so hungry for brilliant students that it will end up appreciating A the most, showering him with opportunities. </p>
<p>You have to stop thinking of students “deserving” a certain school. It is simply a case of allocative efficiency: how best to allocate scarce academic resources to students, who can be conceived of as capital. [The relationship can also be conceived the other way round: allocating student resources (who are capital goods) to schools, but the schools (as firms) tend to be the ones in the position of power. [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/491616-wild-crazy-idea-student-admission-unions-students-world-unite.html]I”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/491616-wild-crazy-idea-student-admission-unions-students-world-unite.html]I</a> have thought of a preliminary way to change this.<a href=“Schools%20enjoying%20market%20power%20will%20of%20course%20contribute%20to%20economic%20inefficiency,%20so%20balancing%20the%20power%20on%20the%20students’%20side%20will%20counteract%20this.”>/url</a> ]</p>
<p>When the situation is analysed rationally and critically rather than with irrational emotion, perhaps the process may be seen with less ignorance.</p>
<p>From the school’s point of view, the most deserving are the ones who have the highest potential to give back to the school, whether it’s during their academic career or after.</p>
<p>agree with Ken285</p>
<p>i think sincerity is important. like if the person cares about a certain subject, EC, or thier essay is nice.
also, the best colleges dont produce the ONLY successful, prestigious, famous, smartest, whatever, people in the world
going to an ivy is GREAT but it doesnt mean that all people that go to them will be successful</p>
<p>Seems to me the op sets up a set of “either or” falacies. There is no one thing.</p>
<p>Who deserves to get into a top college? Well, me, of course. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1)yes
2)I say yes. But its hard to measure
3)impossible to measure
4)No. ECs are useless. Other countries don’t require ECs and their college students are smarter than ours. So theres your proof.
5)No, most of the stuff is done through connections and is meaningless.
6)No, unless they are trying to go for politics. But that isn’t college now is it?
7)impossible to measure. Most students at top colleges had a 3.8-4.0(UW) in HS and yet they are spread throughout the whole spectrum(2.0-4.0) in college. And at schools like MIT, they do nothing but study despite the millions of ECs that they’ve done in HS. </p>
<p>But that being said. I still say you go along with the system in order to get into the college you want. Despite how ridiculous and completely nonsensical it is. You have to learn how to build a resume at some point.</p>
<p>i agrree with student14x. most people do EC’s just for college. i wish colleges would just look at your high school record, standardized tests and follow it with a interview to see if you are right for their college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@ begoner. What we have here is a conflict between common sense and reality. Clearly you’ve never read Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom.” Because if you did you would know that the Nobel laureate posits that the best thing for society isn’t altruism but self interest. He goes on to say that time and time again, history has shown that many altruistic policies produce the exact opposite of its intentions. Take for instance the egalitarian sentiments of the former Soviet Union. The only thing their well-meaning advocates has done was to lead their nation into decadence. Then look at how China’s economy has been robust ever since the Deng reforms. The examples of communism is just to illustrate my point. We could look at businesses. Take note of fact that private businesses tends to produce more capital than non-profit ones in nearly every country. Its only when individuals “selfishly” do what benefits them-selfs that society can truely benefit. </p>
<p>Which is why I think its nonsensical for colleges to “de-fractoly” require their applicants to do community service.</p>
<p>No one “deserves” to get into any college…</p>
<p>Simple answer: there is just no way atm to measure a person’s usefulness in society right now. So really, nothing should be “deserved”</p>