But that plays into the flaws in the reasoning illustrated in the (insightful) observations about Caltech versus Harvard in terms of applicant pools not being identical. I'm not sure that there is a good way to compare one elite institution to another in the first place for the simple reason that each "brand" draws a specific potential applicant pool.
Since those complex brand-affiliation reasons can't be normalized in any meaningful way, I'm not sure that we can expect that the student populations ought to be "representative" of anything but the qualified applicants within that specific applicant pool. So maybe MIT's admits won't look like those of Harvard, no matter how fair or meritocratic the process became.
And really, I was only addressing half of the equation, the demand side. Jon Law already addressed the supply side, when he said these institutions will admit the kind of students they're looking to admit. The schools manage their own brands, and admissions criteria are one way to do so. Every time an earthquake happens and the staff at Caltech is interviewed, the value of their brand is enhanced. Every time a Harvard graduate is appointed to a Cabinet post, the value of their brand is enhanced.
So now here we are, synthesizing the two sides of the equation, supply and demand. The two schools will have different customer bases applying to them, and of those, the two schools will make different choices based on the kind of customer they wish to serve. As a result, they're going to have very different outcomes.
Supply and demand, just like capitalism. Naturally... these are all private institutions we've been talking about, are they not? As such, are they not allowed to make whatever business decisions they choose? And if so, why is The American Conservative decrying the lack of meritocracy in these choices? Do they suddenly have a problem with capitalism?
