Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol
Not pointless. Here's an earlier post:
The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.
I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.
Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.
As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.