Rampant Affirmative Action, Apparently Not the Bane It's Made Out to Be

Perhaps you too have argued the merit of affirmative action with family members over Thanksgiving dinner. My view? It's imperfect, to be sure, as a measure to level the playing field for applicants who have been historically discriminated against and disadvantaged. But at the same time, a host of other nonacademic factors go into evaluating college applications, from extra curriculars to geographic location. As a friend of mine liked to say, we were beneficiaries of rural affirmative action. Did my high school offer the full assortment of AP classes that an affluent suburban school would? No, it didn't. Did I get into my college over the fiftieth AP kid from Richy McMansionland High who had the opportunity to earn a +4.0 GPA? Possibly. You have to find some way to compare apples and oranges.

So I find it depressing to see that, still, despite efforts and in the face of attempts to dismantle affirmative action, elite colleges remain bastions of privilege:

Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.

Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.

A portion of these kids are recruited athletes. But a larger share of them are kids with connections, who gained acceptance based on favors to donors, alumni, administration, faculty, or politicians.

And we all like to think we gained admission into our schools based on our own merit. The truth, however, by and large, is that

Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.

And it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, with schools wooing children of people who can financially support the school later on:

Just 40 percent of the financial aid money being distributed by public colleges is going to students with documented financial need. Most such money is being used to offer merit-based scholarships or tuition discounts to potential recruits who can enhance a college's reputation, or appear likely to cover the rest of their tuition tab and to donate down the road.

I find this all so disheartening. Given all of the doors that can be opened by attending an elite college, it's absurd that we're taking chances away from deserving, talented students from less monied backgrounds. But apart from being unjust, it's self-defeating for society.