>It's just sad that a historically prestigious institution is essentially committing suicide by no longer even pretending to uphold the ideal of meritocracy.
That's pretty melodramatic.
But, maybe don't assume that, because they expand or modify their admission criteria or attempt to achieve some balance that is reflective of broader society, they're letting in waves of completely unworthy people. I mean, that's a pretty absurd notion, right?
Their admission rate is a lowly 4.6%. They're getting the cream of the crop. Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score. And, I would argue that we wouldn't want such a system that so overlooks the near limitless variables embodied by humans. Neither does Harvard.
>I still believe western democracy, as embodied by America is a positive force on the world...we'll lose that as we abandon our ideals of objectivity, meritocracy and actual fairness...
More melodrama. But, these "loftier" concerns are convoluted and contradictory. That is, if you really believe in western democracy and are concerned about it continuing to be a "positive force in the world", then you shouldn't want a monolithic group of people shaping that world. You should see the value of democratic participation by all groups.
>Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score.
That's pretty melodramatic.
But, maybe don't assume that, because they expand or modify their admission criteria or attempt to achieve some balance that is reflective of broader society, they're letting in waves of completely unworthy people. I mean, that's a pretty absurd notion, right?
Their admission rate is a lowly 4.6%. They're getting the cream of the crop. Admission to top schools (or any schools) has never been the imaginary 100% objective panacea that you're swooning over, wherein someone edges out the next candidate by a point on their SAT score. And, I would argue that we wouldn't want such a system that so overlooks the near limitless variables embodied by humans. Neither does Harvard.
>I still believe western democracy, as embodied by America is a positive force on the world...we'll lose that as we abandon our ideals of objectivity, meritocracy and actual fairness...
More melodrama. But, these "loftier" concerns are convoluted and contradictory. That is, if you really believe in western democracy and are concerned about it continuing to be a "positive force in the world", then you shouldn't want a monolithic group of people shaping that world. You should see the value of democratic participation by all groups.