> Some top colleges now admit much more economically and ethnically diverse students.

Yes, there are lots more black and Hispanic students than before, and since the universities refuse to share the data we can’t be sure that this increase in diversity mostly means more children of Nigerian doctors and Colombian lawyers, mostly paying full international student fees but that’s the way to bet.

Regarding economic diversity.

Harvard[1], Yale[2], Princeton[3] Stanford[4] all have average family incomes above $160,000. Less selective colleges with smaller endowments that need the money from fees more are not going to be more economically diverse if they can possibly avoid it.

Selecting by standardized test scores would result in a substantially less socially elite student body than the current system. A more Asian one. Stopping that is why there’s a movement to get rid of the SATs. Asians are being discriminated against now as Jews were in the early 20th century, for similar reasons.

[1] According to The New York Times, the median family income of a student from Harvard is $168,800, and 67% of students come from the highest-earning 20% of American households. About 15% come from families in the top 1% of American wealth distribution.

[2] According to The New York Times, the median family income of a student from Yale is $192,600. Roughly 69% of Yale students come from the highest-earning 20% of American households.

[3] According to The New York Times, the median family income of a student from Princeton is $186,100, and 72% come from the highest-earning 20% of American households

[4] According to The New York Times, the median family income of a student from Stanford is $167,500

> Harvard[1], Yale[2], Princeton[3] Stanford[4] all have average family incomes above $160,000.

That doesn't tell us if the economic diversity is increasing or decreasing. My understanding is that it is significantly increasing for (at least some) elite schools, but I don't have cites so ...

> Selecting by standardized test scores would result in a substantially less socially elite student body than the current system.

That is certainly counter to the general wisdom, which is why (as I understand it) they stopped requiring the tests. The tests were considered biased toward the socially elite, and IIRC there was plenty of research behind it, because the elite have the time and money (tutors, classes, etc.) to prepare test-taking skills - which is not a skill the colleges seek - and the questions were written about elite culture (e.g., 'You are sailing your yacht into the wind ...').

I’m aware of the general wisdom. If you can find any research supporting it my email is in my profile. Selecting by SAT and GPA alone would be very much against the interests of the socially elite. They wouldn’t be able to stop so many Asians getting in. See what happened in California after ending affirmative action in college admissions, a 20% jump in Asian admissions. That is the reason for the big push against the SAT and ACT. You can pay for higher grades by selecting the school with lower standards, you can pay for all the extracurriculars you want, you can lean on your connections for letters of recommendation but the gains from SAT tutoring and coaching are trivial no matter how much you pay. Holistic admissions is for the less gifted children of privilege.

The SAT, GRE, LSAT and similar lightly disguised IQ tests are designed to be as close to culture fair and uncoachable as possible and they do pretty well. Mostly the children of the well educated and rich get higher scores on them than the less fortunate for the same reason the children of professional basket players are tall. People resemble their parents.

The anecdote you recount about a question with a yacht never happened. The analogy question was removed in 2005[1].

[1] https://www.clearchoiceprep.com/sat-act-prep-blog/the-most-i...

> Selecting by standardized test scores would result in a substantially less socially elite student body than the current system. A more Asian one. Stopping that is why there’s a movement to get rid of the SATs.

Except the most elite schools are the ones that are clinging to keeping standardized tests in their admissions processes, they only dropped it for the incoming class because of the pandemic.

> Less selective colleges with smaller endowments that need the money from fees more are not going to be more economically diverse if they can possibly avoid it.

Why does it matter? They are less selective so anyone has a better chance of getting in.

I mean, yeah that is elitist especially because the point of college is education not to compete together as a team.

I went to CC in high school and a non selective engineering school. I’ve seen non-elitist and non-elite institutions.

> that is elitist especially because the point of college is education not to compete together as a team

I don't understand how the latter implies the former ?

Colleges should aim to educate not compete with each other. The team analogy doesn’t work.

While I agree, I don't see being selective as necessarily being about a team competition. They have 100 applications for each spot; they have to select them.

FWIW: I recently saw the applications to several American elite colleges. All asked, one way or the other, 'how will our institution in particular help you in particular?', and 'how will you in particular contribute to our institution in particular?'. They seemed focused on the finding students who would benefit most and contribute most, not on a contest to see who gets the best credential.