Is Merit Real?

[Anonymous]

If merit were not real there would be no problem of Asian students working too hard and consequently succeeding too much. You have to pick one, either schools like TJ/MIT/etc are full of Asians because they are genetically advantaged (merit) or because they work super hard (also merit).

Obviously opportunities in life are not evenly distributed, but to leap from that to “merit isn’t real” is just sophomoric.

Looking at the correlation between wealthy parents and high achieving kids is a lot like looking at the phenomenon of NFL families.

The children of NFL players are wildly more likely to make it to the NFL themselves than the general population.

Obviously that is at least partially because they have access to all the camps, coaching, training available. It is also obviously true that NFL players are genetic outliers and their kids are far more likely than average to be genetic outliers themselves.

[Anonymous]

Merit, like many words, can be interpreted in many ways. No one has ever claimed that any school only admits the brightest, if that is your definition of merit. And, what does brightest mean, anyway? A high test score? Rigorous academics and great grades? What about the context of the student’s opportunities? Is a kid bright if they’re socially inept? One could go on and on. Schools look for a mix of student characteristics, but pure IQ is not the holy grail for merit or admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Not exactly. Wealthy people are not dumb, but they may not be the smartest - they are oftentimes smart enough. That said, when you combine their smarts, wealth, and connections, they are frequently successful, which schools and their future students value. Of course, one can come from wealth and be a genius too - they’re not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Not exactly. Wealthy people are not dumb, but they may not be the smartest - they are oftentimes smart enough. That said, when you combine their smarts, wealth, and connections, they are frequently successful, which schools and their future students value. Of course, one can come from wealth and be a genius too - they’re not mutually exclusive.

That’s exactly the point the Inside Higher Ed article was making. Wealthy people don’t have to be smart to succeed. Therefore they don’t get ahead based on merit, it’s all based on wealth. But it’s in poor taste to admit that in public so instead they claim “merit”

[Anonymous]

Michigan student calls for merit scholarships to be eliminated.

https://www.michigandaily.com/statement/merit-scholarships-sent-me-to-college-now-i-think-we-need-to-abolish-them/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Of course that isn’t at all what the above post says.

Wealth conveys some advantages but doesn’t come close to explaining what we observe in college admissions.

People who are intelligent tend to end up relatively wealthy. People who are intelligent tend to have intelligent kids because intelligence is heritable.

A disproportionate share of kids of wealthy families are highly intelligent.

Similarly, people who are unusually big and fast are far more likely to make it to the NFL. The children of people who are big and fast are themselves more likely to be big and fast than kids from the general population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Not exactly. Wealthy people are not dumb, but they may not be the smartest - they are oftentimes smart enough. That said, when you combine their smarts, wealth, and connections, they are frequently successful, which schools and their future students value. Of course, one can come from wealth and be a genius too - they’re not mutually exclusive.

That’s exactly the point the Inside Higher Ed article was making. Wealthy people don’t have to be smart to succeed. Therefore they don’t get ahead based on merit, it’s all based on wealth. But it’s in poor taste to admit that in public so instead they claim “merit”

You need to re-read these posts. You keep wanting to say that wealth equals success, and a prestigious education launders that into merit.

The posts in this thread, however, are saying that wealth alone (not talking about extreme/billionaire wealth), while helpful, is insufficient to get into prestigious colleges. To get in, a kid needs very good test scores, curriculum, grades, ECs and recommendations. But, wealth makes it easier to get those things. That is, there’s a high correlation between wealth, good-enough smarts, and the trappings of an interesting application.

But, if you define merit as the kid with the highest test score, the wealthy kid may not make the cut. Then again, there are a lot of kids with high test scores that are very unimpressive individuals. Prestigious schools want the package. Holistically, merit is the package, not a brainiac test scores or award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Not exactly. Wealthy people are not dumb, but they may not be the smartest - they are oftentimes smart enough. That said, when you combine their smarts, wealth, and connections, they are frequently successful, which schools and their future students value. Of course, one can come from wealth and be a genius too - they’re not mutually exclusive.

That’s exactly the point the Inside Higher Ed article was making. Wealthy people don’t have to be smart to succeed. Therefore they don’t get ahead based on merit, it’s all based on wealth. But it’s in poor taste to admit that in public so instead they claim “merit”

You need to re-read these posts. You keep wanting to say that wealth equals success, and a prestigious education launders that into merit.

The posts in this thread, however, are saying that wealth alone (not talking about extreme/billionaire wealth), while helpful, is insufficient to get into prestigious colleges. To get in, a kid needs very good test scores, curriculum, grades, ECs and recommendations. But, wealth makes it easier to get those things. That is, there’s a high correlation between wealth, good-enough smarts, and the trappings of an interesting application.

But, if you define merit as the kid with the highest test score, the wealthy kid may not make the cut. Then again, there are a lot of kids with high test scores that are very unimpressive individuals. Prestigious schools want the package. Holistically, merit is the package, not a brainiac test scores or award.

Elite colleges are disproportionately wealthy. You’re kidding yourself if your argument is not all wealthy kids get into elite colleges, therefore wealth alone isn’t enough. Wealth plays a larger role than any other factor and you know it.

Secondly, this isn’t just about elite colleges. Wealth can be laundered into merit at places like Bucknell, Wake, Tulane and we see it all the time on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If merit were not real there would be no problem of Asian students working too hard and consequently succeeding too much. You have to pick one, either schools like TJ/MIT/etc are full of Asians because they are genetically advantaged (merit) or because they work super hard (also merit).

Obviously opportunities in life are not evenly distributed, but to leap from that to “merit isn’t real” is just sophomoric.

Looking at the correlation between wealthy parents and high achieving kids is a lot like looking at the phenomenon of NFL families.

The children of NFL players are wildly more likely to make it to the NFL themselves than the general population.

Obviously that is at least partially because they have access to all the camps, coaching, training available. It is also obviously true that NFL players are genetic outliers and their kids are far more likely than average to be genetic outliers themselves.

Do you have a cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Of course that isn’t at all what the above post says.

Wealth conveys some advantages but doesn’t come close to explaining what we observe in college admissions.

People who are intelligent tend to end up relatively wealthy. People who are intelligent tend to have intelligent kids because intelligence is heritable.

A disproportionate share of kids of wealthy families are highly intelligent.

Similarly, people who are unusually big and fast are far more likely to make it to the NFL. The children of people who are big and fast are themselves more likely to be big and fast than kids from the general population.

Bingo
And furthermore with the ivies and peer schools shifting to have 55-60% of the student body on need-based aid, up from about 45% 10 years ago and up from 25% in the 90s, the common thread of an ivy student is high intelligence more than it ever has been. It doesnt mean all ivy kids are tip top smarts but about 3/4 of the top 5 ivies and the top 5 non-ivy privates are in the 98-99th %ile of intelligence, yes pre-test optional, whereas 3/4 are assuredly NOT in the in the top 2% wealth bracket, considering to get any need based aid the household income cutoff is well below the top 2%.
Of the ones who are top2% wealth at ivies, the vast majority are also super smart. The less-smart at the ivies tend to be recruited athletes or significant other hooks, uber-wealthy donors (top 0.1% $) being an extremely small subset of the hooked group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Of course that isn’t at all what the above post says.

Wealth conveys some advantages but doesn’t come close to explaining what we observe in college admissions.

People who are intelligent tend to end up relatively wealthy. People who are intelligent tend to have intelligent kids because intelligence is heritable.

A disproportionate share of kids of wealthy families are highly intelligent.

Similarly, people who are unusually big and fast are far more likely to make it to the NFL. The children of people who are big and fast are themselves more likely to be big and fast than kids from the general population.

Bingo
And furthermore with the ivies and peer schools shifting to have 55-60% of the student body on need-based aid, up from about 45% 10 years ago and up from 25% in the 90s, the common thread of an ivy student is high intelligence more than it ever has been. It doesnt mean all ivy kids are tip top smarts but about 3/4 of the top 5 ivies and the top 5 non-ivy privates are in the 98-99th %ile of intelligence, yes pre-test optional, whereas 3/4 are assuredly NOT in the in the top 2% wealth bracket, considering to get any need based aid the household income cutoff is well below the top 2%.
Of the ones who are top2% wealth at ivies, the vast majority are also super smart. The less-smart at the ivies tend to be recruited athletes or significant other hooks, uber-wealthy donors (top 0.1% $) being an extremely small subset of the hooked group.

Yet kids from the top 1% are twice as likely to attend an elite college even when compared to kids of similar SAT scores. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/07/24/1189443223/affirmative-action-for-rich-kids-its-more-than-just-legacy-admissions

If what you posted is true, why do some elite colleges have more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/11/21/no-change-elite-college-low-income-enrollment-1920s#:~:text=It's%20nothing%20new%20that%20wealthy%20colleges%20with,earners%20than%20from%20the%20bottom%2060%20percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Wealth drives merit. Face it, most kids born to parents who make $300K+/year grow up in a great environment. Someone reads to them and nurtures them and encourages them to grow their mind from day 1. They attend good preschools, and great ES/MS/HS. They grow up just expecting that when you finish HS you go to college. They have to study hard and do well in school, parents expect that and get them the help they need if they struggle (and sometimes before they struggle with a bit too much pushing).
Take that versus a kid with a single parent, who barely has time to put dinner on the table, let alone help kid with HW. The kid isn't pushed as much to do well academically, they don't have all the perks of growing up in a college educated family, without major struggles.

as a percentage, yes the kids who grow up in the first situation are more likely to do well academically and go onto good colleges and score well on tests.....they've been prepped for it all their lives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rebuttal is that prestigious colleges want successful alumni, not a bunch of scholars, per se. Prestigious schools want leaders across the spectrum of society, not just the arcane arts of English literature and philosophy.

So, not all students at prestigious colleges are the smartest of the application pool, but they are smart enough, and when coupled with their family wealth and connections, will be successful in life. While some may not like that, that very alumni may be the one that hires or mentors your super-intelligent, middle-class kid.

This is nothing new, and it’s fine. The only people that find this shocking are those who come from environments where the schools they attend are based strictly on a test score. But, that too seems like a very narrow definition of merit, as we can talk all day about who has the wealth to prepare a kid for a specific exam.

So you admit wealth is the driver, not natural ability.

Wealth drives merit. Face it, most kids born to parents who make $300K+/year grow up in a great environment. Someone reads to them and nurtures them and encourages them to grow their mind from day 1. They attend good preschools, and great ES/MS/HS. They grow up just expecting that when you finish HS you go to college. They have to study hard and do well in school, parents expect that and get them the help they need if they struggle (and sometimes before they struggle with a bit too much pushing).
Take that versus a kid with a single parent, who barely has time to put dinner on the table, let alone help kid with HW. The kid isn't pushed as much to do well academically, they don't have all the perks of growing up in a college educated family, without major struggles.

as a percentage, yes the kids who grow up in the first situation are more likely to do well academically and go onto good colleges and score well on tests.....they've been prepped for it all their lives

+1 Merit is laundered wealth.