But other criteria are playing a larger role than they used to: Students’ “demonstrated interest” in enrolling at a particular school, as measured by their visits to campus or what they say in their application materials, among other things, is critical. In addition, admissions officers at about half of the institutions surveyed said an applicant’s “ability to pay” was of at least “some importance” in application decisions.
This commentary from the article is troubling. It seems the sorting metrics are becoming less specific to student ability and more highly correlated with affluence.
Demonstrated interest has become a popular concept among admissions deans in recent years, but it too likely correlates with wealth—traveling for college visits isn’t free. And one of the best indicators of interest is applying early decision, a process that favors applicants who often don’t need to worry about comparing financial-aid offers from multiple schools.
This is also concerning, and doesn't really speak to trading off merit for merit on evaluation metrics. It speaks to merit versus fit. There's likely overlap between the two, but I'd hazard a guess that it's not majority overlap.
I enjoyed this article, and thought it highlighted an interesting opportunity for sorting mechanisms. Presumably, elite schools are interested in identifying high-potential candidates, who would be disproportionately able to participate in dual-enrollment. Why not have states incorporate MOOC dual enrollment options that fulfill local curriculum requirements, with the idea being that objectively high scores in approved university-level courses are evidence of potential? What better assessment of fit for a university than actually completing comparable level coursework? It's a realistic job preview applied from a PSE lens.
These classes could even be a source of cost-savings for the school districts, with the universities financing a portion of the course delivery. They would have the added benefit of being progressive financing mechanisms, given that they could allow low SES, high ability students to roll a proportion of undergraduate tuition fees into the high school umbrella, where education is publicly funded. (Frankly, this would be good for all high-ability students who are budget-conscious, but the impacts would be strongest for low SES candidates.) Any gap in spending relative to baseline public school budgets could be redirected to talent development initiatives for under-represented, high-ability students. Win-win-win.
For less elite schools, it would be unreasonable to expect dual enrollment of incoming students, and recourse to more traditional evaluation frameworks (with adjustments for known screening biases by race, SES, or mother tongue) might be more effective.
