>The whole point of my example was to pose two people of equal intelligence with equal work ethic. I'll admit the Asian girl has a higher chance to succeed at H

>The whole point of my example was to pose two people of equal intelligence with equal work ethic. I'll admit the Asian girl has a higher chance to succeed at Harvard but I don't believe that's due to her merit, it's due to being placed in a more challenging environment, something that is completely out of her control. I agree that being placed in an environment that could be more challenging was out of her control. But, her choice to work hard, and do well in those things was her choice. In life she got dealt a straight flush but she played it well. Much like accusing someone of being admitted because a diversity initiative is an insult to their hard work and ability, accusing someone of their success being solely because of their privilege is an insult to their hard work and ability. > 1. Culture doesn't just emerge spontaneously, it's a response to environment. Asians and blacks have very different historical circumstances thus different cultures. Yes, they do have different historical circumstances. Remember, Asian Americans have not been treated great on the West Coast. They have still been able to do very well. Look at Jewish culture. They have been mistreated for over a thousand years and are still able to have good results. Were blacks mistreated and oppressed? Absolutely they were! That doesn't change the fact that 91% of Asian/Pacific Islanders graduate high school and only 76% of Blacks do [0]. If we don't focus the cause of that difference, there are always going to be more Asians with perfect SAT scores than Blacks with the same apply to Harvard. >2. It's completely unfair to hold an 18 year old accountable to the 'culture of their race' (if there is such a thing). I completely agree but you were advocating for Harvard to try and correct for that difference which I do not think they should do because it requires treating someone different because of their race. >These things are irrelevant to merit and yet they all count for one girl and against the other. That's not really a merit-based system. Example 1: Person A goes to Harvard and pulls a 4.0. Person B goes to community college and gets a 4.0. Both get business degrees. It is almost guaranteed that person A learned more. Thus as an employer if you only have one job and want to decide on personal ability, person A gets the job. Example 2: Person A goes to an elite private high school and gets a 4.0. Person B goes to a very poorly ranked public high school and gets a 4.0. It is almost guaranteed that person A learned more. Thus as an college administrator if you only have one acceptance letter to send and want to decide on personal ability, person A gets the letter. In my understanding, both example are a merit-based system. In example 2, person B had the deck stacked against them from the start. When we measure personal ability person A has a greater ability and thus more merit. Yet, I feel like you will disagree about this being merit-based. Would you be willing to explain why you think the quality of school is irrelevant to merit? It would really help my understanding if you were able to put a working definition to your concept of merit. [0]https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp