I note only that the Gray Lady probably got it partly wrong. "NY Times opinion: Affirmative action mattered a lot for very few and very little for most." John Sexton claims, "Obviously, you don’t need affirmative action to get into a school with a 70% or greater admittance rate. And since that’s most schools in the country, most students simply didn’t benefit from affirmative action." That's unclear. Yes, relatively few students matriculate at the schools with the U.S. News problem, and even fewer enroll as legacy admissions, or as legacy-adjacent spawn of prominent politicians. To the extent, though, that the allegedly most selective institutions preferentially admit some people with weaker academic potential and exclude other people who claim to have stronger academic potential, the pool of applicants available to institutions elsewhere on the food chain (if you finish high school with 99th percentile college boards and a 4.0 plus grade point average, and your "safety schools" turn you down, that might be reason to go to court) is different, and, yes, there will be convergence of test scores and high school class rank further down the food chain, but there will be academic mismatches both of the weaker students in a more intellectual environment and of stronger students dealing with that less intellectual environment.
If you're looking for "The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America," which was a few days ago Instalanched, it's also here. "It is hard to think of a better system of elite perpetuation than that practised by America’s top universities." Yes, and what eventually happened to Rome's inbred oligarchs, or several different cohorts of Chinese mandarins, is manifesting itself in Official Washington's ruling class.
No comments:
Post a Comment