<p>I actually think this is an argument for non-elite schools with high standards, rather than selective schools where the lack of standards becomes a gift to academically weaker students from any race or group. Why do you think a Caltech that accepted a dozen more minorities who might not survive Core be a kindness to anyone?</p>
<p>I say this in all seriousness. It is compromise I despise.</p>
<p>This is what good state schools should do. With less selectivity but good classes, they should provide an opportunity for students who don’t make the private elite cut (or who prefer to save money) a chance to really show their stuff. Better than be the token. And if it turns out that you really wouldn’t have survived at MIT or Caltech, state schools give you a chance to do well and get an excellent education.</p>
<p>In my own field of economics, Chicago used to have the reputation of being the easiest Phd program in the top ten to enter, but the hardest to graduate from. This meant that people whose applications were somewhat “defective” got a chance to show their stuff. And one can’t argue with the overwhelming excellence of Chicago’s output.</p>
<p>Would that grade inflation didn’t debase the grades of so many elite school grads. I think however that the lack of a tough minimum and grade inflation is an inevitable equilibrium in a world in which standards at the bottom of the class are lowered for legacies, athletes or what have you.</p>