3 ms·

They use it because it allows them to ignore standardized test scores and just do admissions based on their own preferences. They used less merit-based metrics

They use it because it allows them to ignore standardized test scores and just do admissions based on their own preferences. They used less merit-based metrics because they don't WANT a meritocracy. 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

thebradbain 3y ago
1. Would absolutely not get you in anywhere selective 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.
- kneebonian 3y ago
  > 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?
  - thebradbain 3y ago
    There’s no shortage of people who meet any of that criteria! 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.
    - jimbob45 3y ago
      There is no shortage of perfect scores applying to Harvard. 1,000 people typically receive a perfect SAT score yearly.

thebradbain 3y ago

1. Would absolutely not get you in anywhere selective 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.

kneebonian 3y ago
> 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?
- thebradbain 3y ago
  There’s no shortage of people who meet any of that criteria! 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.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    There is no shortage of perfect scores applying to Harvard. 1,000 people typically receive a perfect SAT score yearly.