> "The most selective institutions, she found, spend a lot more on each undergraduate than other colleges do, and they give a significant boost in lifetime earn

> "The most selective institutions, she found, spend a lot more on each undergraduate than other colleges do, and they give a significant boost in lifetime earnings, on average, to the students they enroll." OR rich kids tend to go to rich colleges (Harvard, Yale, Stanford) and were predisposed to high incomes anyway -- one study showed that rich kids WITHOUT college degrees earn more than poor kids WITH them [1]. > "It has more or less always been true that the SAT, on balance, benefits college applicants who already enjoy lots of financial and social advantages." Here's the problem with this analysis: what's the alternative? 50 years of education research no one's come up with a more meritocratic method than GPA + test scores. What, you going to rely on personal essays? And you think that's a fair, objective standard?? If not that, then what? Mandatory racial quotas like Carranza is trying to implement in NYC high schools? > "Their high school grades had turned out to be much better predictors of their academic ability and college potential than their SAT scores." What was the sample size he interviewed? A cohort of ~3.3 mil students graduate high school every year and ~66% apply to college, so it's a total population of around 2.2 million students going to college every year. Did he get a representative sample size? I doubt it. Research has consistently shown the data with the highest correlation coefficient of first-year GPA (FGPA) in college are standardized test scores + GPA [2]. This should be common sense, there's obviously wildly different standards in high schools across America, GPA by itself is a noisy signal. > "If they lived in Michigan or Virginia or North Carolina, they would be unlikely to be admitted to their state’s flagship university. But in Texas, their hard work in high school earns them admission to the finest university in the state." Yes, but how many qualified out-of-state students were excluded from admission because of this system? If the goal was to admit a cohort of the most academically qualified student body then this system is, by definition, unfair and not meritocratic. Let me say I am very much pro-diversity. But a lot of what Paul Tough is selling here is wishful thinking -- essentially throwing out standardized testing in favor of high school curricula, which the research shows is uneven and not a meritocratic standard. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02/19/a-college-degree-is-worth-less-if-you-are-raised-poor/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/02... [2] https://facultysenate.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2015/03/08-28-08_Academic-Success.pdf https://facultysenate.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/...