Can you call it a merit-based system if it has other "side doors" besides this one? What about the high school star athletes who aren't academically prepared for college but who are nevertheless slotted in, for example?
No, it's not a merit based system. But that person was hoping for pardons for the parents who bribed and cheated their kids into schools, while simultaneously claiming to support a merit based system. Those positions are 180 from each other.
Furthermore, at least athletics are merit based. The only problems are those sports that only the rich participate in and so effectively reserve a few dozen prime slots from the ranks of elite prep schools that offer those 'sports.'
The article starts with a straw man. The claim isn't that "the rich get whatever they want" every time, in all cases, no matter the facts, but that
the system is heavily rigged in favor of the rich, that rich kids start at 2nd or 3rd and the rest of the kids start at home plate. And then she proves the actual argument, which is nice I guess...
From the article:
Are college admissions policies perfectly egalitarian? No. Successful high school athletes, legacies and numerous other groups get special treatment. But there are also a growing list of schools with admissions policies that are “need-blind” and others that today provide students from low-income families a full four-year ride.
It's a neat trick to conflate admissions based on athletic talent, which is merit based, to legacy admissions, which is NOT. I read that 14% of Harvard admissions are legacy based, worth about 160 points on the SAT. That would have been nice when I applied - from pretty good to the elite levels, Ivy League, scholarships! Too bad my dad went to a state school...
Are there persistent advantages held by the wealthy? Yes. They send their children to the best schools they can, they provide their kids with tutors to help boost test scores, and they can sometimes help their offspring get useful internships. And the very well-heeled can attract the attention of college development officers with sizeable donations to colleges. Those are among the perks of success [aka wealth].
Yes, the perks of wealth that rig the playing field in favor of wealthy kids. That's precisely the objection, versus the straw man she started with.
I don't get why (
some) 'conservatives' are so intent on licking the boots of the wealthy. In the author's case, understandable because she was a partner in a Wall Street firm so she's talking about her friends and associates, likely herself. But if you're not in the 1% or 1/10th of 1%, and if you believe in a merit based system, this case is very simple - it's abhorrent, and what it reveals is only a small part of the overall problem of unequal
opportunity in this country.