<p>
</p>
<p>I have to say that is questionable. As one of those 2350+/2350+ kids, I take offense whenever people project the idea that a lot of really high achieving students aren’t interesting or worthwhile to be near. There are plenty of really smart really interesting people, and looking at a school like Caltech that doesn’t do admissions like this (but as close as any top school gets to it) I don’t think Stanford would lose it’s competitive edge. All I would say is that the private college admissions process has never been a meritocracy, just as few things have been. I have to agree with Professor that “meritocracy” is a word game. Essentially when you take race and legacy into account, it really can’t be a meritocracy unless you want to fudge the definition of meritocracy to “whomever the admissions officers want to get in will get in” which is a pretty bad definition IMO. The problem is, I think people forget is that meritocracy may be morally right (and this is even questionable in private college admissions), but its definitely not always practical. And for this reason, Stanford admissions won’t change much.</p>