Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dontno I hold that academic merit should be the primary basis of acceptance because, umm I dunno, a college is a ****ing academic institution.
Maybe you weren't aware of this, but colleges are schools. Classes are taught by teachers. There are students who take notes, study, then take exams and leave with a certificate noting that they've successfully completed the ACADEMIC program. Yes, there are of course social aspects to every college. But primarily, it is a place of learning. Thus, admission, especially at the upper tier (HYPSM), should be based primarily on academic credentionals. |
Sorry, but that argument is illegitimate. Colleges are places of learning and development. A lot of that learning and development comes through academics. But a lot of it does not. And if colleges decide that a student who may not be academically qualified alone has the potential to both become educated
and benefit the school (as recruited athletes do), why should they not accept them?
Your last sentence further underscores the obvious assumption and normative mindset behind your pseudo-a priori arguments. They "should" base their admissions on academic credentials. Says who? You're creating a huge house of cards in this argument, all centered on a never-substantiated assumption that the primary education that goes on at college is academic in nature and it should have sole and total primacy over all others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dontno These universities are the holy grail and realization of lifelong work for so many people. It's unconscionable that someone with incredibly low scores can be accepted over academically qualified individuals. |
And this, really, is the crux of your argument. You think that certain types of students deserve to go to college more than others. Furthermore, you think that if those students are not successful, it is "unfair". Well, reality check: colleges owe nobody anything in admissions, and if you or John the perfect student don't get into a certain college, there is no "that's unfair" or "they let him over me even though I was more deserving". That's just not how it works. Colleges let in who they want to create the environment they want, and
that is the fair.
On a more empirical note, though, have you ever been to a college that didn't take athletics and other talents into account? I have. I was admitted to Caltech and thought very seriously about attending, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that the environment at a school so defined by academics is
far, far less rich and interesting than that at a school with diversity of interests, abilities, talents and opinions. I chose Princeton over Caltech for precisely that reason, and now that I have almost finished freshman year, my decision is ever more affirmed - the multidimensional campus and social life here is infinitely more varied and interesting than I would have found at Caltech.
Just an anecdote, but hey.