Interestingly, the Opportunity Insights study released yesterday (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html) shows the huge advantage given to rich people in selective admissions, even in a world of race-conscious admissions. Among other things, this suggests most of minority beneficiaries of race conscious admissions are already well-off. (Probably not a big surprise to your listeners!)
More interestingly, the same study shows this (admission to an elite college) has little effect on one's annual earnings, but a big effect on entry in certain occupations, e.g. grad school or working for prestigious firms. I suspect these are occupations where networking is a bigger part of success than objective meritocratic measures-- relative to otherwise similar occupations- some contemporary version of the "Old Boy Network."
I posit that we are looking in the wrong place when we look at college admissions rather than how people are selected for these occupations. Of course looking admissions is easier (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect). But imagine a world where entry into these jobs didn't effectively require an Ivy League degree: (i) people would cease to care nearly as much who Harvard admitted; (ii) Harvard might focus more on *education* in an attempt to keep its elite status; and (iii) these firms and graduate programs might actually produce a better product too.
This should surprise nobody. Ivy League universities (and many other selective universities and colleges) are above all elite instututions. Educating rich people and perpetuating their influence is their business model. They just try to shine it up a bit by adding a dash of meritocracy and a dollop of high-minded race discrimination to make it look less embarrassing. I don't get the indignation about it. In as big a country as ours, there probably should be a few elite instutions. And in any case they are private organizations who can do whatever they want so long as they don't break the law.
I'm highly amused by the chest-pounding and lawsuits against "affirmative action for white people". Harvard was already letting in the maximum number of qualified black students, and then some (which is what got them in trouble). Getting rid of legacy preferences isn't going to make more of them magically appear. Rather, the legacies will simply be replaced by more highly qualified, but unconnected, white and Asian students. Indeed, this might give an entry to middle-class white students who (by my calculations) had essentially no chance of admission under the old regime.
Interestingly, the Opportunity Insights study released yesterday (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html) shows the huge advantage given to rich people in selective admissions, even in a world of race-conscious admissions. Among other things, this suggests most of minority beneficiaries of race conscious admissions are already well-off. (Probably not a big surprise to your listeners!)
More interestingly, the same study shows this (admission to an elite college) has little effect on one's annual earnings, but a big effect on entry in certain occupations, e.g. grad school or working for prestigious firms. I suspect these are occupations where networking is a bigger part of success than objective meritocratic measures-- relative to otherwise similar occupations- some contemporary version of the "Old Boy Network."
I posit that we are looking in the wrong place when we look at college admissions rather than how people are selected for these occupations. Of course looking admissions is easier (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect). But imagine a world where entry into these jobs didn't effectively require an Ivy League degree: (i) people would cease to care nearly as much who Harvard admitted; (ii) Harvard might focus more on *education* in an attempt to keep its elite status; and (iii) these firms and graduate programs might actually produce a better product too.
This should surprise nobody. Ivy League universities (and many other selective universities and colleges) are above all elite instututions. Educating rich people and perpetuating their influence is their business model. They just try to shine it up a bit by adding a dash of meritocracy and a dollop of high-minded race discrimination to make it look less embarrassing. I don't get the indignation about it. In as big a country as ours, there probably should be a few elite instutions. And in any case they are private organizations who can do whatever they want so long as they don't break the law.
I'm highly amused by the chest-pounding and lawsuits against "affirmative action for white people". Harvard was already letting in the maximum number of qualified black students, and then some (which is what got them in trouble). Getting rid of legacy preferences isn't going to make more of them magically appear. Rather, the legacies will simply be replaced by more highly qualified, but unconnected, white and Asian students. Indeed, this might give an entry to middle-class white students who (by my calculations) had essentially no chance of admission under the old regime.