https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-trick-to-boost-your-chances-of-getting-into-an-elite-college-be-rich-e0fdf18e
New research sheds light on the advantages the top 1% has in college admissions.
This isn't limited to just college admissions, but yes unsurprisingly, being rich is a lifehack in general
technically speaking, water isn't wet, it makes other things wet. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6097
Two interesting takes I've seen on this is that
A) It's really the hyper-rich top 1% who are vastly overrepresented, if you look at the top 20% or something the effect isn't there, which is interesting.
B) Some see the removal of standardized tests as a way to encourage diversity, but Nate Silver pointed out that the hyper-rich have the same test scores as other applicants but do much better on recommendations and extracurricular activities etc, so if you want to prevent rich people from being overrepresented one solution is relying MORE on standardized tests.
Honestly as well meaning affirmative action is meant to be, it's arguably targeting the wrong thing, which rather than admitting based on race, it should be based on class. True diversity comes from people from different lifestyles, regardless of race, instead of all from the elite.
Amen. Not to mention, class based affirmative action also massively benefits minorities. It's a twofer, and more equitable.
I mean yeah... so?
Listen I get it, plucky young upstart, who wants to get into college, that's the story everyone loves to read about?
But think about the opportunity. Daughter A has everything, comes from a better school, every tutor, every computer, every summer camp, devotes her life to some subject.
Daughter B has nothing, ends up having to work at 15, misses school days because of sick family, doesn't always have someone to help her with homework and so on.
Daughter A is likely to have higher grades, attendance, performance, ability and skill. More awards, recognition, accomplishments, and potential. She even might be slightly ahead in college courses just arriving at school.
So if you were the schools admission officer in what world do you think B is a better fit than A? A is probably more set on their dream of doing X and has the funds to reach it where B might have to leave school because of a lack of funds or a family obligation. And besides which is more likely to give more money to the school? (As much as they don't want to say it, come on schools are businesses we know this)
Now I get it, we want B to have an opportunity and a chance, and she should, but rich people already have all the benefits in life, even if you remove their wealth, you literally would have to actively ignore a rich student to place a truly poor student above them. But when you take away all the other accomplishments, you likely won't harm our A student , but you'll harm versions of B who has gotten awards, recognition, accomplishments, did well on SAT, and so on
Let's change it then, we want to only take in students who fit X or Y criteria. Maybe go to an inner city school, maybe X amount of community service, maybe has a hard luck story. The thing is... with in a full cycle (3-4 years). We'll start seeing the rich students move towards those groups. Now B might not be in an inner city school but Daughter A would suddenly be there if that's what it would take. She will still get tutored so she's not as harmed by it, but she can also satisfy those requirements because her parents have enough money to make it happen.
The point I'm making is it's near impossible to offset "being rich" in any meaningful way that would last long enough to be worth it. What you'd end up hammering is the Upper middle class who has just enough money to be seen as rich, but not enough money to truly use it the way the "True rich" does.
You raise some valid problems (that the rich have advantages throughout their lifes long before the college admission phase) but come to the right conclusion.
The way to fix it is that everyone, no matter their social status, should have the same opportunities. So go to any school they want, no need to work, making tutors affordable to everyone,...
This requires a massive reform of the economic system though.
So you want to make it so if you ever save up wealth you can never transfer it to another human, ever, aside from giving it to the government which is run by humans to hand out to other humans outside of your control?
I don't see any other possible solution that will not create a level playing field for others. I think it would have to go a lot further to fix the 'problem' you describe. No one could hold any position of authority since after all humans are corrupt and it will be abused to create scenarios where someone gets an unfair advantage.
When you keep going down this path as a thought experiment there's basically no semblance of human society that would work. Separate children at birth from their parents and randomize who raises who - congratulations, randomized genetic diversity gets more or less opportunity at random. That doesn't really work either though, since factors outside of your control determine your fate and opportunities. There's no winning. It's a zero sum problem.