Student 1 has built a fully automated chip manufacturing line in his basement.

Student 2 has build a robot that solves a maze in fifteen minutes (against the current state of the art which is a few seconds).

Which one would you admit?

Student 1 is the child of billionaires, and it's not clear how much of the work was actually done by him/her and how much was done by employees hired by the kid's parents.

Student 2 lives in Sudan and built their robot out of locally available materials, in the process inventing a new kind of motor built out of coconut fronds.

Now which one would you admit?

The kids of the upper class and the rich will always have an upper hand compared to the poor. However, standardized tests limit how wide the upper hand is. An upper class kid still has to study and pass the test, and the poor kid can also do that.

If admissions become “holistic”, poor kids would have little chances. Good luck to that poor kid competing subjectively with kids whose parents send them on impressive charity trips and get them unpaid internships at the most prestigious companies.

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racis...

>Asian Americans, which is always conveniently omitted from these racist narratives.

Ironically, so is the diversity of the Asian American community.

What would you use in its place? You think grades don't have bias?

Oh wait! That exists — it’s called the Common App, and it’s what most private colleges today use, from the Ivies to elite tiny liberal arts colleges with the largest share of students from the 0.1% that you’ve never heard of, like Pomona College.

I think the only good one out of those is the interview.

Question. Which tells you more about a student:

1. An essay that was probably written by chatGPT then edited by the students parents

2. A test taken in a supervised, controlled, timed environment

2. Would absolutely not either

I believe the whole concept of “meritocracy” for purpose of admissions is a lie— choosing the criteria to measure against is itself a subjective act.

Let me ask you. Do you also believe that requiring a display of proficiency in mathematics to get into the best schools is inherently discriminatory? What about requiring a demonstration of the capability to understand and complete basic subject matter material in the fields or reading, writing, or scientific literacy?

The whole point of a selective college is they have to select from a pool of already qualified applicants. There is no objective measure to measure against when you’re splitting hairs. Even were you to limit it to “objective” requirements like test score and GPA, how do you decide between two students for one spot when both have the exact same scores?

There is no shortage of perfect scores applying to Harvard. And yet a majority, or even a plurality, of any given class of admits didn’t have perfect scores.

1,000 people typically receive a perfect SAT score yearly.

We've gone full circle.

The Common App is great, but it's not magically less open to bias than standardized test scores.

Many schools, selective or not, actually do this whole process — multiple times, with each admissions agent doing a separate order of criteria, to ensure everyone’s application gets read at least twice. The idea being that those with the most “let’s give them another look” across the board are the most notable. Then from that shortlist the debates comparing each applicant, usually sorted by geographic proximity to each other, begin (at Harvard, if you’re from Texas you’re not really competing against New Yorkers for a spot, you’re competing against other Texans for the XX number of Texan spots they usually admit a year).

I did a short stint as a student worker in the admissions office of a very selective college in California (<5% admission rate, but not one many could name off the top of their head), and this is more or less how it worked

LOL. My understanding is the really good prep school college counsellors golf with one or more high-up folks in elite university admissions offices, and get the inside scoop on exactly what they and their peers in other universities are looking for in any given year, such that they can even tune an essay or letter of reference for a given school based on that non-public information and advise students which schools to focus their application efforts on, based on their background & activities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat...

For some reason a large part of our society doesn’t want to acknowledge that genetics (highly) influence intelligence.

There are entire countries trapped in poverty. China was desperately poor until just a generation ago. Did Chinese people suddenly become smart for some reason? Which is the next country that will magically go from being filled with dumb people to being filled with smart people?

As I said, just a bit of experience with the real world and critical thought will show that your explanation is nonsense.

Yes, they stopped following strict communism. They pivoted to authoritarian capitalism and got wealthier.

(Basically) no intelligent teenager in America is held down by poverty. My parents were relatively poor, didn't go to college, worked long hours, and I went to a public school and certainly didn't have any tutoring and didn't receive much help with homework.

I did well enough on my ACT to go to a private college for pretty close to free. Even if that doesn't happen you can go to a state school that doesn't need great grades, take out loans for the entire amount, get a degree for a good paying job, and suddenly you're out of poverty.

I would think there would be a lot of demand for an unbiased standardized test. All I saw for suggestions was to use GPA instead, which clearly has a lot of bias potential... is there a recommended replacement for the SAT/ACT?

"Students of Color" receive scores in the same distribution as white/asian/hispanic students (same fraction of 1s, 2s ... 35s, 36s on the ACTs for example)

AND

Top scores are meaningfully distinct from the population average? (because the first condition can be trivially fulfilled by having everyone score the same)

Standardized tests were invented in Sui dynasty China, in the early 600s AD, as a way of selecting officials for the imperial bureaucracy. They were invented precisely because they were more objective than the prevailing method of selecting officials - recommendations from the aristocracy.

There is a long history of standardized testing being a means for rewarding merit, instead of more easily corruptible methods of selecting officials/students/etc., such as recommendations. Just to illustrate my point: Do you know why Harvard abandoned standardized testing in 1926 as the sole means of determining admissions? Because "too many" Jews were passing the admissions test. Harvard's "holistic" admissions policy was invented for the sole purpose of restricting Jewish admissions.

To the extent that society is meritocratic at all and intelligence is heritable (and it is), we should expect test scores to correlate with all manner of measures of success, including property values. Articles like this don't even take that question seriously. They just ignore it. It's proof by repeated assertion. It may be fashionable to insist that this is prima facie evidence of bias, but that is a question of logic and not a difficult one, whatever exceedingly average minds like Ibram X. Kendi's think of it.

[0] As a legal concept "disparate impact" is what it is. The law means whatever its authors intend it to mean. But as a matter of logic, it's embarrassing, and beneath this forum.

Now, too many Asians are being admitted based on test scores. Oh no! To fix this problem, Harvard consulted their history department and included a “personality traits” section. Is it any wonder that Asian students scored low on this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollme...

We should be constantly improving our ways of measuring merit, not throwing up our hands and pretending it's meaningless to try.

Affirmative action was misguided because it assumed that because one student was Korean and the other Mexican, the Mexican kid must be disadvantaged. Besides the fact that there's an inherently racist worldview baked into that, Newsflash! There are tons of poor Korean kids and rich Mexicans!

It's because these people only see the world through the one-dimensional lens of skin color.

Further, it's an attractive way to view the world when you're a complete idiot with nothing of substance to offer society. It leads these people to infecting society with parasitic and fallacious ideas that you see manifested in the extremes of both political parties.

There should be some SAT score floor. But beyond that other factors should take over. If the floor is at n and two applicants appear - one with a score of 1.1n and the other 1.2n, I don’t think that’s enough information to decide who should get the spot.

Name a better way.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/4/19/23689402/colleg...

It's a good way of figuring out who is intellectually capable. SAT scores have a very good prediction rate of success in college.

I’m not saying SAT scores are useless, just that they should only be used as a filter and not for ranking.

Why not both? I think a lot of the debate over college admissions misses the fact that so much of this is artificial scarcity. Some of the big schools like Harvard/Yale/Princeton etc. could easily increase the size of their incoming classes many times, and still have them only be filled with highly qualified candidates.

Top schools exist not just to educate, but to ensure that the social hierarchy is maintained. If it were purely to educate or to ensure diverse learning environments, the top Ivies could solve this easily by quadrupling the size of their classes, but then this would of course dilute the exclusivity that is the primary reason for these institutions in the first place.

On Student 2 who build something in Sudan from stick and rocks. Unless he is from elite family he most likely did not get proper school education and won't be able to keep up with rigors of studying in top university even if he is very smart. Harvard is not really in a business of providing remedial education. With that if he is really smart and resourceful, he had a very good chance of doing very well for himself in Sudan (becoming entrepreneour, building soemthing local, become warlord, etc) and then his kids will be fully equipped to go to top university.

Case in point, we had a very wealthy black student in my college. This woman was not disadvantaged in any way, yet she played the race card all the time in order to claim a disadvantaged background. I'm talking about a family that would take their kids to France and England to summer. That level of wealth, yet framing all her accomplishments as if she came from the inner city. That's disingenuous, yet the (now-gone) affirmative action camp would have gladly taken her checking the 'African-American/Black' checkbox as a sign that all her accomplishments should be judged on a poor disadvantaged upbringing. How is that not racist?

S1 definitely.

If need-aware, does the admitting class have enough full pay to cover the costs of those needing scholarships (wouldn't want to actually tap into that tax-free endowment)? If they need more full pay, then S1, if there are already enough full pay, then S2.

Or are your applicants just completely overflowing with kids that have chip manufacturing lines in their basement? I am skeptical this is the case. That they give seats away to legacy and [favored race] in such quantities in the first place tells us something about how often students like your example come about.

Those are who families who scream “meritocracy” should be directing their ire at, not the applicants (usually with more impressive results and stories considering the background they grew up in, compared to—sorry!—a hum-drum suburban also-ran) _think_ they’re better than, which ultimately is what a meritocracy boils down to.

Ultimately the only answer that will give you, or your kids, piece is accepting the fact that schools will curate the student body they want. They’ve admittedly done a good job at it! Complain all you want about Harvard tilting the scales, they’ve done an amazing job maintaining their reputation and exclusivity. If they don’t accept you, they don’t want you. If they do, they do. It’s that simple.

Yes, standardized testing isn’t perfect. It is biased towards those with time and money to prepare. But it’s also biased towards people who are good at problem solving, critical thinking, and a work ethic to actually do the preparation.

There's nothing like the SAT (single, high-stakes general aptitude test used nationwide); Abitur standards are set and evaluated by each state.

While there's a reputational difference between, say, Technisches Universität München and Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Amberg-Weiden, fees are the same at both, and cost of living of course is higher for TUM just because Munich is really expensive.

At least in tech in Germany, there is nothing resembling the prestige merely attending MIT/Stanford/CMU carries in the US. Of course there's a network effect from studying at TUM or RWTH instead of OTH-AW, but not nearly as pronounced. There are no private, elite universities, no university-sponsored sports teams, no legacy admissions, no giant individual donors hoping to secure a university spot for a lazy/dull kid. Lazy/dull rich kids go to private high schools if they can't hack it in public university-prep school.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36789051

Aside from the dedication of waking up to practice a sport every morning, think of how much time and discipline is it takes to balance being an amazing athlete with being a great student. They likely have all the mental fortitude and academic talent they need to succeed in college, no question, regardless of if they had a bad test day, or their pencil broke, or they had to use the bathroom and ran out of time, etc.

Someone with As and Bs, maybe a C, who did nothing else of note and managed to get a perfect test score one time doesn’t seem near as surefire a bet. If anything it shows you didn’t apply yourself.

Edit: you’re acting like performance on the test is completely arbitrary. Clearly, it should be designed to avoid this, and to actually test academic mastery. For example, someone planning to study physics should be asked to solve difficult physics and math problems. Someone planning to study history or literature should be asked to write long-form essays on those topics. And so on.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are only familiar with the American system and thus assume that “standardized tests” all have to be like the SAT, i.e. answering a ton of relatively basic multiple-choice questions as quickly and accurately as possible. That is not the case.

Very few people will pick IIT or Beijing University if they are offered spot at Harvard.

Network - one of the best things you can do is put a bunch of intelligent, highly motivated people in one room and have them work on stuff together. Top tier universities are basically this. The actual education offered on top isn't that relevant as long as it's passable - these people will find a way to educate themselves

Signaling - having Hardvard on your resume is a global signal of your status and opens up so many more doors by simply having it listed by your name

Recognized by whom? I would certainly be more impressed if someone went to ENS Paris than Harvard.

That is not good. China has that, and I would not consider the culture it fosters healthy at all. What you then get is kids who literally have no life beyond studying for the test and the results of one point on the exam having a massive effect on ranking and therefore outcome.

https://www.insider.com/jfk-grandson-jack-schlossberg-viral-...

Wealth concentration in society is the fundamental issue. When median wealth is higher and the range smaller, influential families will have less with which to "bid up" a spot at Harvard. They might choose another institution, that "wherever else" we mentioned earlier. So now your kids are friends. Or maybe not (it's not such a big deal, since they're not THAT much wealthier than you are). This becomes the dominant paradigm.

Decentralize education, as it were.

Connect the dots on how all that works.

(Curiously he insists he's a "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" type character)

Just because thats how it should work in some people's heads as the ideal doesn't mean it makes any actual sense if you really interrogate the idea. Meritocracy makes sense after you have an education, it doesn't make sense before it.

But we're not there yet

Taking a brilliant kid and putting them around underachievers doesn’t do anyone any good.

In a meritocracy, those that do not achieve do not advance, so this is not a problem after a time. I was in the US Navy's Nuclear Propulsion program. It was the closest thing to a pure meritocracy. You didn't pass a test, do the work, or behave in line with expectations you were sent to the fleet. After a few months, only the capable and motivated were left. It was completely colorblind, completely free of social agenda. You could either do the job well enough or not.

I watched a lot of wash outs where there someone would find a way to tip the scales in college to keep them passing along. I watched the following wash out: the son of a Navy Captain, a congressman's kid, a couple of sons of really rich parents.

This is really a truth. There really is no meritocracy if you gate who is allowed to have merit before you measure it. Regulating opportunity to control outcomes is the exact opposite of what should be done to have a true meritocracy.

Or it can be seen as give education to the students that will make the best use of it maximizing value to society.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, universities have promised to continue to look at race as a factor that still complies with the SC ruling which means a backdoor for race. FWIW white students are the most underrepresented on elite campuses so it would be hard to argue that there are admissions policies favoring them.

[1]: https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/academi...

[2]: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/06/30/stanford-to-expand-outr...

So you agree that Harvard shouldn’t need to factor in legacy status and instead use fairer metrics like SAT scores?

I do think legacy admissions should not be a strike against which seems inevitable now to prevent lawsuits and bad press. I also think legacy admits shouldn't be tarred as less qualified (a polite way to say dumber), affirmative action beneficiaries for white people, and spoiled.

Even if that was a concern, applicants could simply… not mention their legacy status? Or better yet, the application itself could just not collect that data?

I do think legacy admission status counts against now. The SFFA lawsuit accused Harvard of using legacy admissions of being a backdoor affirmative action for white people because the legacy admits were so disproportionately white. I think my point is that in a highly racial context, the facts are thrown out.

To your point, in California, there was a law that was passed in 2019 that requires reporting on legacy admissions now[1] so I think the school is obligated to collect this data (so idk what happens if an applicant omits it). And again, legacy admission status is accused of broadly being affirmative action for white people[2] without evidence.

The reason it counts against now is that if a qualified legacy student is accepted, the data on students must be made public, by law or by public interest. The higher the percent of legacy admits, the more the school is accused of letting unqualified people in, facts be damned. I think that is because of a highly tribal view of school admissions.

[1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-lega...

[2]: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/affirmative-action-white...

The California law you cite only applies to universities that collect and consider legacy data in the first place. Thus, your claim that “if a qualified legacy student is accepted, the data on students must be made public...” does not hold if the universities simply drop legacy status from consideration altogether, which is the goal here. If they don’t collect the data, they can’t be accused of anything.

Honestly, this manipulation of facts and narrative leads me to believe that you are pushing an agenda and not arguing in good faith.

Accusing it of being affirmative action for white people or for "the rich" pretty clearly means people want it to count against. I think you are deliberately ignoring that the SFFA lawsuit said this, politicians said this, and even people ITT said this and clearly these things reflect poorly on the university. There isn't any evidence that legacy admissions is affirmative action for white people or rich people though.

simply drop legacy status from consideration altogether

There isn't any evidence that legacy status counts for. You have never established that it does. Not one of the California schools in that article I cited says that legacy admits have an advantage. Here is Stanford's policy https://provost.stanford.edu/2020/06/26/admissions-considera.... CMU from the OP article said legacy status had no bearing on admissions for years. Harvard likewise. Their reasons for tracking legacy status are probably complicated. I concede at one point they were used to allow in less qualified students but that hasn't been the case for years. But tracking legacy status does not mean it is used to give favorable admissions. I do not believe it does and the legacy admits are probably qualified. That is clearly the case for Harvard. If you did not believe this, you are saying universities are lying about their policies.

So since the accusation that legacy admissions is affirmative action for white people is disingenuous, I believe the people who continue to say that it is are actually the ones not arguing in good faith.

edit: dropping legacy status from applications may not even change the percentage of 'legacy' admits and yet I am sure that universities know who they are. Including it on applications may harm the legacy applications because the universities are now under politically charged pressure which is what I am arguing would be wrong.

To be clear, you are claiming that Harvard explicitly does not consider legacy status when deciding on admissions?

So, when a student is considered being cut in the final stage of the admissions process, i.e. on the “lop list”, and decision makers are provided with only four pieces of information: legacy status, athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race; you are claiming that legacy status is included for… what, to satisfy the curiosity of admissions committee members? Give me a break. Also, you’re moving the goalposts from “legacy-based admissions are okay” to “actually, legacy-based admissions don’t exist.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

For the record, I don’t believe that legacy admissions are intended to be “affirmative action for white people”, but I do think the outcome is similar.

ya. Well... I think it's unlikely. There might be cases, I went through some math on this once and concluded that maybe 2% of the incoming class at Harvard could be unqualified legacy admits based on the total pool and the SAT std dev, etc. but even that I doubt. I think legacies probably are qualified based on what I have seen but the main reason I think this is more because admissions are hyper scrutinized now (for the past 10-20 years and they've been publishing student body stats) so if there is a way for Harvard to let in unqualified people it will be noticed and the public would not accept legacy admissions(SFFA lawsuit began almost a decade now). The athletic one is a different beast.

you are claiming that legacy status is included for… what

Possibly a tactic to raise more money because alumni are somewhat tricked into thinking making donations increases the odds their children are accepted. I don't know for sure and they probably should not include it on the application.

Also, you’re moving the goalposts from “legacy-based admissions are okay” to “actually, legacy-based admissions don’t exist.”

haha. Well if a school came out and said we allow some legacy admissions because it raises more money from donors and we need the money (and that wasn't a lie) I think that raises an interesting question about admissions I don't have an answer to. Most schools probably don't need the money now, I don't know where the money goes though. But I don't know what to think about admissions; not convinced there is a perfect formula. I'm not in favor of one group monopolizing schools though.

Is the SAT score the only measure of merit?

The non-legacies are going to miss on the chance to make social connections with legacy admits who have a lot of connections...and access to a lot of resources..

Disproportionally rich is my problem with legacy admissions.

This likely indicates wealthy people can afford SAT preparation tutors.

About 30 points higher than non-legacy students whose average is brought down by affirmative action. VS Asian Americans who need to score 50-100+ points higher for comparable consideration, they're underperforming based on SAT merit.

[1]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american...

Alternate explanation is that particularly sneaky elite admissions boards have learned to coordinate to devalue SAT scores for Asians, they'd rather engineer their mean Asian SAT score around something not embarrassingly high as cover for other cohorts, especially legacy which AFAIK doesn't need AA skew, since they're... legacy. AA primarily brings down average scores of non-legacy, and in this case make legacy look better, like average at Harvard for non asian & non white is 1450 according to your link, which is low considering 1500+ scores is 9th percentile for 223k Asian takers [0&1]. This is slightly conspiratorial, but also essentially what started the anti-AA case was when an Asian applicant with 1590 got rejected from multiple elite colleges, and the case essentially revealed high scores make Asians seem like bland test takers with bad personality even though personality assessment showed otherwise. Asian scores are high enough to break Harvard's argument not just for AA but IMO legacy as well.

Some other considerations, with respect to Harvard, according to latest admission data, @28% asian enrollment out of 2000 for class of 26, that's about 550 asians (previously this was ~20%). The real question the Harvard admissions stats don't show is how many Asians with 1550+ scores are being rejected due to "personality". If you look SAT score distribution [0], Asians are the only group where perfect math score is NOT 99+ percentile rank but "only" 95, and on ERW Asians 750+ score is 95 percentile vs other groups where it's 99+ except whites / multi racial at 98. Meaning Asians have disproportionate candidates with most perfect math and close to perfect ERW scores of all groups. Asians also total score outlier in that 1500+ is "only'' 91 percentile vs 98 to 99+ for everyone else. Collegeboard also has info that about 223k Asians (out of 2.2M takers) took SATs (2020 data [1]), so there's ~20k Asians with 1500+ scores (9th percentile). If extrapolated from 98th percentile of over 1500+ scores from 2.2M takers, that's ~44k total pool over 1500+ candidates of which 45% are Asians. 45% Asian is also in line with UCs where prop 209 banned AA and led to 40+% asian campuses.

Question is how many of 1550+ ones are Asians, keeping in mind ~7000 Asians have perfect math scores. My gut feeling is there are many 1550+ Asians being rejected by elites for skewing scores too high to keep legacy admissions charade going, especially at Harvard, because any Asian who scores that high, which rough napkin math is multiple size of their annual enrollment, would have an application to Harvard and eager to accept. Hence the narrative harvard stats paints via omission even by their student journalists, is that legacy does better non-legacy whose down by affirmative action, and legacy slightly worse than Asian Americans, when reality is Asian Americans have more than enough candidates to saturate scores above legacy and affirmative actions so their aggregate score has to be kept down through admission shenanigans.

[0] https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-r... [1] https://i.redd.it/l6hb0eq4k5271.jpg

Of course, I don't think SAT score alone should determine entrance and no school has said that was all that mattered for admissions and I think that could be valid because the test score is really just one metric and doesn't give a complete picture. For example is the person a good test taker but a lazy student? That would reflect poorly on the student.

Also for the record and to be clear the legacy score of 1523 is still a high score and less than 1 std dev away from a perfect 1600 so it's not like we're talking about legacies who are totally out of range of admissions.

I agree at some point a 1500 and 1600 score are probably high enough even for elite universities. My broader point is that in composite admissions system like harvard, the score it self can be gamed to generate outcomes like racial composition. And institutes will figure out other ways to circumvent. But if they ever get slapped to move onto a score only admissions, that 1STD will make all the difference.

So instead we're in an era of squishy, difficult-to-judge metrics... and of course, the places where one could stand out-- interesting stories on one's transcript or essay-- are increasingly being evaluated by AI.

If Harvard or USC were on the list I'd wager this to be the case, but MIT, Mellon & Pitt are serious schools so I believe them when I say it's in favor of increased rigor.

> MIT, Mellon & Pitt

MIT still requires SAT scores, so it's a non-factor there.

The only reason why Harvard has kept its mythos of being the incubator of the next ruling class is because, well, they accept the children of the current one. Those are most likely to become part of the next ruling class by virtue of having been born into it. It's an old boys club. There's no intrinsic property of Harvard that turns them into this incubator.

And from the other side you have the brain dead equity idiots who are also against true merit systems, for equally twisted, but different reasons.

We're merely discussing whether certain things are used as inputs to a very complicated decision process.

Test scores are no longer being used as inputs in many places, in the name of equity: but I think almost anything you'll weigh higher will favor class, instead.

They're also removing race. And legacy status. The net effect is an admissions landscape that will look very different.

I see no problem with those who have amassed significant resources, being afforded use of those resources to their childrens' advantage.

I think one contributing factor you see behind so much increasing social strife, the resurgent interest in unions, etc. is the belief that unless you make it to a top job after a top school, you'll barely be scraping by your whole life.

Pure meritocracy in a "winner take all/most" economy leads to a very unstable society.

My whole point is that the hollowing out of the middle class and the huge growth in objective measures of inequality in the US are precisely because many other occupations are looking more and more like "sports star" economies.

E.g. just look at how the former "main streets" of many smaller towns in the US have been decimated. There used to be "local leaders" in retail in cities all over the US, now it's extremely difficult to compete if you don't have the scale of Amazon. Just look at all the recent stories about fears of AI taking jobs. E.g. it used to be that lots of people could get copywriting jobs. Now it looks like in a pretty short time frame that only the very, very best copywriters will be employable as so much other work is delegated to AI. Look at how most smaller news outlets have completely disappeared across the country. These smaller news outlets used to be fairly important factors in their community, but now they simply can't compete with the Internet giants for ad dollars.

I can go on and on, but the "winner take all" dynamic of sports economics has been spreading to pretty much any occupation that faces competition over the Internet.

One might say meritocracy might lead to technological advances leading to economies of scale, but the solution to an increasing income/wealth gap would not be getting rid of meritocracy, but rather redistributing some of the wealth so as to provide a floor for quality of life and quality of opportunities (I would hope).

Yep, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, so my apologies if I wasn't clear. I think the "quality of opportunities" is also a very important point - I made the argument elsewhere that there is no reason for many of the top schools to have such small class sizes in the first place. There is no reason with their huge endowments that they couldn't increase their class sizes and still only admit highly qualified applicants. That's still a meritocracy, but just ensures the "winners" are not arbitrarily selected by making the cutoff so high that you're making random decisions about who to admit (e.g. all ten of these folks had perfect SAT scores but we'll let this guy in because he had a "better personality").

People who argue against meritocracy seem to forget that it's the only proposed alternative to the "birthright"-ocracy that civilization has been trying to pry itself from the jaws of for centuries.

To put it another way, I'm not arguing against meritocracy; I'm arguing that it alone does not lead to good outcomes - i.e. I think it's necessary but not sufficient. It's like when people thought "bringing democracy" to all these countries without democratic institutions would be a good thing. Democracy is generally better than the alternative, but only if there are broad protections like equality under the law for minority groups, otherwise it's just the "2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner" issue. Meritocracy is similar. It's generally a good thing but not if it results in a very small number of people hoarding all the spoils while everyone else barely scrapes by.

Match fixing has been a perennial problem in sports.

Pretty sure a big fraction of that 99.99% love the top sports stars.

For example, major league baseball games have higher attendance than Single-A games.

What do you mean by that exactly? What are you envisioning?

There are still issues with this. Food insecurity being a primary one. But apparently universal school lunches is not as important to people as having a HUGE military budget. What kind of beast doesn't want to feed kids!?

Of course this assumes that merit is actually the only thing universities care about, and I'd say that it's not.

A more reasonable selection system wouldn’t just rely on the individual but also the support network. For example, I often hear “it takes a village to raise a _____ doctor”. And that truth speaks volumes.

For the right definitions of "merit", yes. I'm not confident we've figured that part out yet.

Meritocracy works best if you have something to measure against.

and they have no intentions of using a merit based approach for applicants because that would result in an even more white and asian dominant student pool.

without the legacy pool they now have more wiggle room to juice their "merit-based" approach so that they can admit more blacks without getting busted for illegal affirmative action.

I went to a po-dunk school in rural Missouri. I would never be able to I compete with kids from a rich Chicago/NY school. In the same way a black kid from a poor inner city wouldn't be able to.

This is part of the problem. The world isn't egalitarian. The poor will continue to get poorer, the rich will get richer.

Solution? Lottery? Don't have a great one.

I’m not convinced that scoring well on tests beyond some point is a particularly good way of deciding if a student deserves a spot or not.

This isn't being inclusive or diverse, it's assimilation at the institution/industry level. Yeah, ironic.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/16/1182630192/the-indicator-from...

Basically, when the top students couldn't enter the more selective schools, they'd go to private or a bit less competitive schools and compensate the difference in education/networking in other ways, making it a wash when looking at their income years later. In contract students who benefited affirmative action where getting a way better deal at the exit and saw more significant salary difference compared to those who couldn't attend the more selective schools.

What history does show us is that systems that reward effort, and not just someone's heritage are the ones that have led to best outcomes.