<p>I’m mostly with the people who don’t get the point…or how the conclusions here are valid. I recognize that many experiences that appeal to colleges can effectively be bought. But colleges don’t value the wealth. In the case of holistic admissions (which is all we’re talking about), the kid who has to work odd jobs in high school to help make ends meet for her/his parents and 19 siblings has an amazing story that admission officers also value. Being poor can be exotic and those experiences – which a wealthy person cannot buy – are also valued. Since colleges want diverse classes, there are wealthy paths to admission; poor house paths to admission; and even middle class paths to admission. The article ignores the fact that the holistic admission process is holistic as to the entire class – not just as to individual applicants. At some point, admission offices have had their fill of kids who have done exotic things of the variety you can buy your way into…and then being wealthy is a disadvantage. Or, put another way, wealth and the things it can purchase are only an advantage to the extent that admission offices are looking for those things. But they’re not doing that for the entire class so this just doesn’t make sense…if you think about it.</p>
<p>But I think I’m making big (and highly generous) assumptions about Gabler’s thesis. If I stick to what he actually puts in ink, I see that there’s another point that Gabler attempts to make that I simply cannot grasp – or I refuse to agree with if I am grasping it.</p>
<p>He writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait a second! If they are not the children of the economic 1 percent, then who are we talking about? Students who are among the “best” (however that’s defined) at their respective colleges?</p>
<p>I get this tingling sense that Gabler’s complaining about a meritocratically-determined disproportionate consumption of academic resources: “Why should the top 1% of students get more than 1% of the top graduate fellowships, or more than 1% of time using the electron microscope, or 1% of the attention from professors?” He’s definitely making a point about a misallocation of resources…because he’s expressly not defining his academic 1% as the people who occupy (if you will) the top 1% in American society.</p>
<p>I am led to believe that merit-based distinction is offensive to Gabler because limited resources are diverted away from the less meritorious to the more meritorious. In the end, is it possible that the only complaint here is one against any form of disproportionate allocation of goods and services to people?</p>