"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child attends a $50,000/year private high school.

Yeah and for that kind of money I'd damn well expect a leg up on college admission compared to public school kids.

Fine, but don’t kid yourself that there’s anything meritocratic about that.

(shrug) I didn't say there was.

[Anonymous]

The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

[Anonymous]

Your kid attends a school full of rich people and you are only now realizing that wealth is more than about smarts and work ethic? That the rich have a different set of rules for everything? Okay then…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Offering sports like squash, for one

[Anonymous]

OP, it was the same story at my top NYC private 30+ years ago. Name the famous CEO/novelist/publisher/artist/lawyer and you could bet their kid got into an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

It is only $50,000! I was the public school poster who was sure it was more. Yeah. $50,000 just doesn’t buy you colllege admission preference over similarly smart public school kids anymore. Only the ultra rich get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Go watch Varsity Blues. Officials at schools like USC and Yale basically were taking bribes to let certain kids in. Made my respect for them go way lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Go watch Varsity Blues. Officials at schools like USC and Yale basically were taking bribes to let certain kids in. Made my respect for them go way lower.

Were those the schools doing that or corrupt individuals in the process like coaches?

It’s an important difference, such as if the bank is stealing your money or just the teller at a window

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Go watch Varsity Blues. Officials at schools like USC and Yale basically were taking bribes to let certain kids in. Made my respect for them go way lower.

Were those the schools doing that or corrupt individuals in the process like coaches?

It’s an important difference, such as if the bank is stealing your money or just the teller at a window

Both. My best analogy would be if in this scenario the bank created the infrastructure for the tellers to steal your money while knowing you were stealing the money without correcting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top privates have always been about buying access and finding ways to make kids who were no more qualified than hundreds, if not thousands, of area public school kids look better on paper. Forgive me if I can’t work up a ton of sympathy for your belated recognition that others play the game better than you do.

Curious how they do this?

Better sounding ECs, no cut sports, rigor even if there is none (notice the retreat from AP because god forbid their kids compare unfavorably to public school kids on an apples to apples comparison), grade inflation…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]It’s a sad state of affairs that educators are now openly saying we don’t have a meritocracy. What do we have? An oligarchy?

I’m glad a head of school is admitting publicly what everyone knows.


+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College is not a reward for good little boys and girls?

College is a community. College is also educating a society.

Colleges choose students based on who can make their community more full (big names/athletes/artists). They also choose people they think can contribute to society in some way (like the parkland kids, or the smartest kid in some unknown town whose gpa/Sat might be less than yours but it’s the highest there )

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.

+1 Although I'm not sure I'd use the word 'meritocracy'. Whatever it is, though, it doesn't matter. If your smart kid isn't chosen for HYPS, they'll be chosen for a slightly less selective college that will be just as capable of educating your child for a successful career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When oh when have elite college admissions ever been a meritocracy?

A brief period, more or less, from 1965 to 1998, I’d say. Starting from when the Ivy League opened up. It ended when the glut of millenials showed up and the colleges realized that so long as demand outstripped supply they could play whatever stupid games they wanted with admissions and still keep their selectivity scores up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College is not a reward for good little boys and girls?

College is a community. College is also educating a society.

Colleges choose students based on who can make their community more full (big names/athletes/artists). They also choose people they think can contribute to society in some way (like the parkland kids, or the smartest kid in some unknown town whose gpa/Sat might be less than yours but it’s the highest there )

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.

This sounds really sweet until you realize that the unifying principle is “building the class that best serves the selfish interests of our institution.” If you think Harvard regarded the Parkland kid as anything more than a bauble you’ve got your head in the sand.