I always love when I find a new word or phrase that better captures the concept I’ve been thinking about. I always hate it when a word or phrase I wish I was smart enough to come up with myself.
So it was several years ago when Akil Bello spoke of colleges as being too “objectionable” and not very selective. It seems to me that this is an accurate way of expressing the guiding principle that drives admissions to a particular group of colleges. In these places, rejectionism is not only descriptive but also aspirational. The worldview that college admissions is all about prestige—that “the more difficult it is to get into college, the better”—is widely and uncritically accepted by the public, disseminated by the media, and motivates colleges to strive to be dismissive.
Just before Thanksgiving, I discovered a new term that aptly captures another important concept. Jessie Streb, a sociologist at Duke University, recently wrote a book called The casual equivalent: How luck determines post-college pay. Her thesis is that for college graduates entering the workforce, meritocracy gives way to what Streep refers to as “the rule of luck.”
I’ve been thinking about the concept of luck, and I think it applies not only to the job search but also to the college search. This is especially true for students applying to colleges and universities where rejection is a strategic goal and reality.
There is an ongoing debate within the world of college admissions about whether the admissions process is or should be merit-based. This debate includes a sub-discussion about whether meritocracy is real, or just a code word for excellence. Is meritocracy really a “democracy of privilege”?
I believe there is such a thing as merit. I’m not sure I can give a good definition, but like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart regarding pornography, I know it when I see it. However, many of the things identified as merit are either covert or even overt measures of excellence.
I wonder if we’re doing students (and the public) a disservice when we talk about college admissions being a meritocracy. In a meritocratic system, those who are unsuccessful may question their self-worth and merit, and in the selective admission/rejection process, there are far more students who possess merit and deserve admission than who will actually receive offers of admission. I worry about the messages we are sending to these students.
I’m more concerned about those who make it through the elite college admissions process. I worry that they do not feel grateful for the opportunity they receive and compassion for their colleagues who are not as fortunate but feel arrogance and a sense of entitlement. They didn’t get in because they were lucky or lucky, but because they were better and more worthy. This message does not serve them or our community well.
My first article on college admissions, published in 1988, argued that selective admissions ultimately represents a problem of distributive justice, where the goal is to allocate scarce resources fairly. The solution I came up with was a form of random selection among applicants deemed eligible for admission.
The response was interesting. Some thought it must be a satire, Jonathan Swift’s equivalent of college admissions A modest proposal. Others were angry that I dared to suggest removing the ability to sculpt or classroom architecture from admissions offices. Admissions friends have told me that my name has been taken in vain in admissions offices across the country.
However, the most interesting response came from students applying to the Ivies and other highly dismissive colleges and universities. They opposed the use of random selection because they did not want to gain admission through a lottery, or through luck, but rather they wanted to believe that they were accepted because they were better than those who were not accepted.
The idea of college admissions as a meritocracy encourages this feeling of superiority. Here comes the concept of the rule of luck. Thinking of selective acceptance as a rule of luck promotes humility, an appreciation that we may not get what we deserve, not that we deserve what we get.
One of the basic principles of ethics is that individuals should not be held morally responsible for things over which they have no control. You don’t choose your hair color or skin color, so you shouldn’t be rewarded or punished for it. None of us is responsible for the family or country in which we were born. This is a matter of luck, not merit. Many of the components of an individual’s success in the college admissions process have a strong relationship to the circumstances of his or her birth. The fortuneteller recognizes this front and center. Merit no.
It is important to realize that merit and luck are two concepts that can coexist. The success of any individual in life is the result of merit and motivation, but it is also dependent on luck and good fortune.
As we head into the season of helping our students deal with the consequences of early decision and early action, I hope we can find the appropriate balance between merit and luck. Whether they want to hear it or not, students and parents must understand that admission may be a matter of merit, but it is certainly a rule of luck.
University admission is a hotly debated topic, with many arguing that it is simply a matter of luck. While academic performance and extracurricular activities play a role in the decision-making process, the sheer number of qualified applicants vying for a limited number of spots often leaves the final selection feeling like a game of chance. This opinion is shared by many who have experienced the stress and uncertainty of applying to higher education institutions, leading to questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the admission process.