I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I was referring to schools, I meant high school and earlier. In other words, the schools that should presumably give you an education relevant to the standardized tests.
The Elites will still get in and the people at the other extreme will also get in, but its the ones in the middle who will suffer.
I don't think one can just hand-wave away the primary school in this way and at the same time talk about a level playing field and dismiss extra-curriculars. They're all related.
Moreover, for better or worse, college is not a purely academic exercise. Colleges are looking for applicants who will participate in the social life of the campus, not just robotically go to class. They want students to participate in college extra-curriculars too.
The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates. The latter's prep schools will generally offer far more opportunity in that regard, and moreover any excellence in EC's is in a competitive environment that is often more intense.
I was speaking from the perspective of college admissions, not from the perspective of applicants. Note also that I said "for better or worse". I wasn't making an overall judgment of the university system, merely noting that colleges themselves find extra-curricular activities important. I personally would abolish the invitation-only university system and provide continuing state-supported education to everyone. What is the purpose of the current university system, other than a largely non-educational social purpose? The selectivity of admissions inevitably results in further disparity among citizens, between the club members and non-members, the haves and have nots.
> The notion also relies on an inaccurate stereotype of what smart looks like. In practice, you are as or more likely to see an Ivy-level academic talent that looks like a leader than not.
> Its rare to find lesser academic talents who will have better extra-curriculars than the best academically inclined candidates.
I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that extra-curricular activites are in fact an accurate indicator, contrary to the SAT proponents?
