"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

HoS’s could still make phone calls in the 60s. Maybe the 90s, but the time frame is much shorter than people like to acknowledge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you are saying that colleges select the applicants they find most attractive for their institution? Wow you really blew the lid off that conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privilege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Yes, it is the school of the two Zoom lunches. One of the parents who spoke up was plain-spoken about her take on the situation. Indeed, she said what so many discuss privately. Totally agree with your assessment re caring for the rich and not really interested in the thoughts of the rest of us. Indeed, if you are a high stakes donor, your views are solicited. Not the rest of us, however. In the second Zoom, the HOS even called out as "Repeat offenders" people who tuned into both Zooms. I wonder if he understands that many of us experience the school as a black box, hence, double dip on Zooms just to know what's going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pish posh. Do you know how many legacies, athletes and rich kids were at elite colleges those days? I guess you think it was a meritocracy only because it was still mostly white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it is. What do you think they should do? They’ve never claimed otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Why do people implicitly assume that merit= GPA + SAT and that anything else is not merit oriented? Letter grades came into being at the end of the 19th century. SAT about 90 years ago. Before that the point of education was not to create a bell curve distribution. Evaluations were a combination of qualitative and quantitative. The shift to GPA and quantitative measures were for the convenience of teachers who began teaching more students per teacher. It wasn’t in service of the students or pedagogy.

[Anonymous]

Its a cheerocracy.

[Anonymous]

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

Everyone on DCUM who whines about legacies athletes and rich kids getting in “without merit” would never complain about URMs getting in without merit.

[Anonymous]

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

Exactly, they can’t discriminate against protected groups, but beyond that they run their club as they wish. I don’t think there’s even a claim it’s a meritocracy. Just because they want the best student in a given category here and there, doesn’t mean they want a class of nothing but egg heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pish posh. Do you know how many legacies, athletes and rich kids were at elite colleges those days? I guess you think it was a meritocracy only because it was still mostly white.

I’m the PP. I’m not naive about that era. Just that acceptance on a pure “meritocratic” application was a viable strategy (not a guarantee, but a reasonable strategy) for those who didn’t have their name on the building, famous parents, recruited athlete, etc. Today it’s a crapshoot. You can’t even aim low for safeties because of “yield protections”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you are saying that colleges select the applicants they find most attractive for their institution? Wow you really blew the lid off that conspiracy.

More people should have a problem with tax-exempt organizations operating solely for their own self-interest. Harvard has a $30 billion endowment and hasn’t paid a dime in taxes on it since 1636.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privilege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Ugh - I think this is our school - I missed two online lunches this week due to work commitments. I'm disappointed to hear this was a narrative.

This school cares far too much for the rich and is shockingly disinterested in others. It amazed me how few of us feel that anything we'd have to say would matter to them.

Yes, it is the school of the two Zoom lunches. One of the parents who spoke up was plain-spoken about her take on the situation. Indeed, she said what so many discuss privately. Totally agree with your assessment re caring for the rich and not really interested in the thoughts of the rest of us. Indeed, if you are a high stakes donor, your views are solicited. Not the rest of us, however. In the second Zoom, the HOS even called out as "Repeat offenders" people who tuned into both Zooms. I wonder if he understands that many of us experience the school as a black box, hence, double dip on Zooms just to know what's going on.

While I have no doubt your school caters to the very wealthy/notable, is it the schools fault that those kids are having better luck with admissions? Doesn’t that just demonstrate that the colleges are also valuing the wealthy/notable? It does suggest your big 3 private might not have much sway in the admissions process. As an aside, this is why I’m glad my kids are in public. There are things that annoy me but at least I’m not paying 50k plus a year to be annoyed about issues with my kids’(mostly good) school.

[Anonymous]

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

So you are okay with rich families getting advantages, as long as they don’t exceed those of your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP -- I'm pretty sure we're not at the same school, but I know what school you're at and can even figure out some of the students you're referring to (for better or worse) because the DC-private school world is pretty small. At our DC private something similar is happening. There are a few stark examples of big money/name recognition kids getting into Ivies when their classmates with far better grades/scores, much more rigorous courseloads, and better ECs are not getting in. It's depressing, but it's a lesson for our kids about how unfair this world of ours is.

Your kids are lucky this world is so unfair. If it was fair, I'm guessing they'd have a whole lot less than they do right now. I don't like the state of college admissions but privileged families complaining about life being unfair is lacking in perspective.