I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

I’m curious if schools will start to get cagier in the coming years about graduation rates and employment outcomes. Way too many students who got lower than 1400 on the SAT (but applied TO) who, statistically, will have a very hard time as STEM majors. Kids who never would have considered applying to such a school if it was January 2020 right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”

Less perpetual white male affirmative action today versus 1985 - 2005 and the century before.

Good.

Affirmative action has the side effect of people assuming that URMs got in on lower standards than the rest of the student body. I actually work across the street from the campus of an elite school and frequent a student-run coffee shop. The students are lovely. I don’t assume they are any more qualified than the students at the state school on the other side of town, due to AA.

FWIW I certainly oppose athletic recruiting because of how expensive it is to train to be recruited. Legacy is trickier due to the donation aspect, but I’d like tuition to be more uniform rather than some students going for completely free and some students being expected to pay $80,000/year.

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I think the problem is a combination of grade inflation, especially during the Covid virtual year, and test optional. More “qualified” applicants. My daughter has weirdly always wanted to go to Wesleyan and scored a 31 on the act. Their average used to be 32, now it’s 34. So now she can’t submit her normally competitive ACT score because it’s not even 25th percentile. So she went from having some chance to essentially no chance.

Poor thing.

I agree. I think the problem is a combination of grade inflation, especially during the Covid virtual year, and test optional. More “qualified” applicants. My daughter has weirdly always wanted to go to Wesleyan and scored a 31 on the act. Their average used to be 32, now it’s 34. So now she can’t submit her normally competitive ACT score because it’s not even 25th percentile. So she went from having some chance to essentially no chance.

Anonymous wrote:Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”

Less perpetual white male affirmative action today versus 1985 - 2005 and the century before.

Good.

bump

Losing luster by choice.

100 percent agree. Today it’s just a lottery at the T30 or so unless your child is hooked.

Anonymous wrote:Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”

Ok. Yes, then the Asians came and they were more meritocratic than everyone else...so then things had to be made favorable for non-Asians.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some thing change in the near future with chatgpt concerns for essays, insanely high application rates with no corresponding increase in admission review staff, ease of applying to multiple schools with common apps and slow rejection of school rankings. And of course post pandemic impact on graduation rates, grading standards and attitudes about testing. Give it ten years. Things will shift.

Agreed. White GenXer who didn't know a single woman who had gone to college but randomly applied and got into an Ivy without any exceptional achievements

I agree with you OP.
-- GenX grad of a non-selective state flagship

Anonymous wrote:Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”

Agree. And parents weren’t hiring $600 an hour essay coaches, $10k counselors, and starting non-profits for their kids to claim as their own.

Ps. You will sadly get flamed on your post but you are entirely right.

Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”