Quote:
|
2) I don't understand the claim that if top admitted students choose not to attend the admission policy isn't meritocratic. It might not be maximzing the number of highly-rated students who enroll, but "meritocratic" is a property of the admissions procedure, based on an idea of procedural fairness, it is not a property of the outcome of that process in terms of enrollments.
|
Quote:
|
Caltech could admit a class based on academic merit alone, have nobody accept the offer, and the admissions process would be no less meritocratic
|
Sure, the process would still be "meritocratic". But so what? The end result would not be a meritocratic
class which is what ultimately matters.
Again, as a case in point, I would repeat - I find Berkeley's admissions to be highly meritocratic in the sense that if you have the numbers, you will get in. You rarely have the cases at Berkeley where somebody with superstar numbers gets turned down whereas somebody from the same school with much weaker numbers gets in. But I would strongly hesitate to say that Berkeley's
student body to be highly meritocratic, relative to the top private. Again, this is because a lot of top students who get into Berkeley will choose to go elsewhere.
Aedar, you said it yourself - what counts is the quality of the students, and by that, I'm sure you mean that quality of the students
who matriculate , not just those you admit. Who cares about the quality of students who are admitted but choose not to enroll? How does that help the school?