<p>To be a contrarian - as a Yalie should be - I think Yale and all the prestige schools do lie. They admit wealthy kids with lower scores. They admit minority students with lower scores. Before allowing for lesser concerns like geography, the space for the ordinary/extraordinary* kid is smaller. </p>
<p>These schools are organizations, which means they are in this for themselves, for their own prestige, their own resources. One part of that is providing a terrific education, but another is admitting kids from the elites of other countries and wealthy kids who’ll donate more money one time than hundreds of others will in their lifetimes. </p>
<p>Some of these schools openly practice social engineering - stand up Harvard, though you’re not alone! They look for poor applicants and they reach very far for minority students. Sounds great on one level, but it also reflects real hubris: we’re so important we can change society. (That remains to be seen.) The idea is the advantages of a Harvard et al education are so great that they have an obligation to find these people, even though their scores are lower. </p>
<p>But unfairness permeates all systems. Take the PSAT and qualifying for merit scholarships. Move from NJ to MS because the line is materially lower. How is it fair that a child born in CT has to score higher on the exact same exam when the sheer fact of qualifying is then used by many, many schools to determine merit awards?</p>
<p>And remember, one thing schools now compete in is rejection. They want to reject people. They proudly announce they’ve accepted the lowest percentage of applicants in history. (If you take apart selectivity statistics, they’re full of holes but it’s a typical misleading metric used for marketing.) They aren’t going to announce that they took an athlete with a 2.3 or a Native American male with 875 SAT’s.</p>
<p>I fully expect Yale defenders will jump on this post but think about what I said at the top.</p>
<p>*My phrase for great students who aren’t wealthy, aren’t minority.</p>