>Roughly a quarter of the admissions advantage stems from athlete recruitment: Other studies reveal that athletes tend to hail from high-income families. Years

>Roughly a quarter of the admissions advantage stems from athlete recruitment: Other studies reveal that athletes tend to hail from high-income families. Years of access to private lessons, club sports, better facilities, and niche teams (water polo, golf, squash, fencing) make a bigger difference than most people realize. The final 31 percent of the very-rich advantage comes from colleges judging these children to be stronger in nonacademic categories. That makes sense since they have greater access to extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities On one hand using anything other than final, school leaving, standardized at country-level exams that are fair and transparent feels like wanting to introduce shitton of bias and lack of fairness and transparency but on the other hand pure academic capability/output isn't perfect proxy for success and it seems like fancy higher edu institutions want to 'create' successful people, right? ehh, while im standing behind #1 option, then #2 aint stupid ____________ >Marie currently attends a university that did not make the U.S. News & World Report list of top-50 public schools. Amanda tells me, “She’s happy but often says, ‘Mom, I just wish I hadn’t studied. I would have gotten into the exact same schools.’” And Marie is probably right. This is fucking sad, imo. She didnt teach her the purpose of eduction, of studying, what the hell. You don't study to get better grades, to get better scores, to get to better school. That's just a means to an end